May 23, 2013 — On May 21, 2013, the United States Senate voted by unanimous consent to pass the federal Freedom To Fish Act Of 2013. The following day, the legislation was delivered to the President for his signature.
Before you go off and give a big Memorial Day toast amongst your angling partners this week, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) wants you to know that the new Freedom To Fish Act is not the same legislation you fought long and hard to support during the past 10 years. In fact, as far as saltwater angling does, the new federal Freedom To Fish Act is mostly a farce.
Trumpeted by some House and Senate republicans as a historic piece of legislation, the Freedom To Fish Act on President’s Obama’s desk this week does little more than provide a 2-year moratorium on the Army Corps of Engineer’s plan to erect barriers specifically along the Cumberland River in Kentucky and Tennessee.
“A total of 11 sponsors of a House and Senate bill, with all members from either Tennessee or Kentucky, yet this legislation just sails through with a smile and a wave,” said RFA executive director Jim Donofrio. “Bring 5,000 coastal fishermen to Washington DC in organized protest of our federal fisheries law and garner support of upwards of 50 federal legislators, and Congress does nothing, it’s maddening.”
Donofrio said the new legislation might offer some freedom to fish for those on the Cumberland River in Kentucky and Tennessee, but he added “had any of the original Freedom to Fish sponsors in DC actually read this bill they would’ve realized that their coastal anglers were essentially being pawned off by unanimous consent.”
To expedite congressional proceedings – typically at the end of a long day in session – the Senate may make allowances for a unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specific rule of procedure. If no senator objects to it, legislation is essentially passed without an official roll call vote by i members. The reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was passed in the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent in 2006, an action which RFA has criticized as being particularly disrespectful towards angling interests whose concerns over the rigidity of the law were suppressed by environmental lobbyists.
Read the full opinion piece at the Recreational Fishing Alliance