Bill, where did you find that article--it sounds like it was originally lifted, verbatim, by someone straight from the pages of the National Fisherman<img src="/Images/Happy_Face.gif"><!--e1--> There's propaganda on both sides in this comm vs rec war, where you read something is as important as what it says. If the New York Times and the New York Post both reported the same thing, you'd think you were reading about two different events.
I don't know much about the RFA. I belong to CCA. We had our own double-cross by the president of the NY chapter, who publishes a free fishing magazine that competes wit The LI Fisherman. The freebie, to stay free, relies heavily on ad $$$ from charter boats, who support both the 28" minimum and a second daily fish for their fares. CCA membership overwhelmingly supported a 36" minimum and a one fish limit across the board, for surfcasters, private boaters and charter boats alike. Well guess what our illustrious CCA President wrote an article in favor of in his magazine?? Did you sday the 28" limit and a secdond fish for charter farwes?? Hey, give that man a see-gar, we have a winner here<img src="/Images/Happy_Face.gif"><!--e1--> The freakin' PRESIDENT of CCA-NY sandbags his membership, destroys the credibility of his own orgainzation, and then when readers of his magazine and website complain about it, he doesn't even have the guts to defend himself, he sends out his butt-boy, the Chairman of CCA-NY to write a tale of how the poor guy had to do it, the charter capts. put a gun to his head and threatened to pull all their ads from his magazine and web site. And, a bunch of people bought this. Like, the guy couldn't see this as a potential conflict of interest BEFORE he accepted the presidency??? Or, knowing the bind he was going to be in, couldn't have resigned as president of CCA-NY BEFORE editorializing against their position?? Well, I'm not as stupid as other people, guess who won't be renewing his CCA membership anytime soon? None of these guys are out for us, they're all thinking of their status in the community that a big title after their name gives them. As far as I know, RFA is basically dominated by the charter and party boat industry, so I can pretty much guess what their position on conservation will be--what's best for them, not best for the guy in a perivate boat, or plugging the surf, or most inmportantly, what's best for the fish. There was also a third recreatrionally targeted "conservation" association called UFA or something like that, it was just a big money-making deal for its president. It wasn't even organized as a not-for-profit organization.
I like some of the things CCA has done on a national basis, but it really alienated me locally in NY. I know it's wrong to indict a whole organization based on the acts of one man, but this whole episode left a bitter taste in my mouth.