Sea bassers wanted action against the feds. Well . . . they're getting it.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance has taken extraordinary steps to help puzzled sea bass anglers who recently had the rug pulled from underneath them by NOAA Fisheries - which recently closed the fishery in federal waters from the Outer Banks to Maine.

The RFA is filed a suit against NOAA and it looks like, from reading the press release and talking to experts, that the RFA has a pretty strong case.

We're all going to be waiting with (I can't help myself on this one) baited breath to see what happens.

I'll be interviewing RFA officials on Monday and will have a story in Tuesday or Wednesday's paper and online.

For now, here's the press release on the suit:

In a 40-page legal challenge submitted before the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and industry allies have officially brought legal action against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke due to the recent recreational closure of the Atlantic recreational black sea bass fishery. The challenge contends that the recent closure is not only unprecedented for a fish whose stocks are considered rebuilt and not overfished, but that the action is also based upon “misapplication and misuse of a fatally flawed angler survey which NMFS itself has acknowledged is not to be used for this type of decision.”

Filed for a dozen specifically named plaintiffs, the official complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief requested expedited consideration in hopes of reversing the six-month sea bass closure as quickly as possible on behalf all saltwater anglers and fishery dependent businesses. According to Capt. Tony Bogan, plaintiff of the United Boatmen, the recent closure of sea bass is only a part of legal equation. “This goes way behind sea bass,” Bogan said of the legal argument, adding “it addresses the potential action by NMFS in the future to arbitrarily close fisheries on a whim or because of survey trends or ideology.’

By closing a recreational fishery based on the fatally flawed recreational survey (MRFSS), the suit contends that the government violated numerous provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and National Standard guidelines issued by NMFS. Additionally, it charges the defendants with ignoring countervailing information and for failure to consider less severe alternatives. “As a result of defendants’ actions, and failure to comply with the law, the Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, immediate, substantial and irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which they seek expedited relief.”

Herb Moore, Jr., RFA co-counsel said the disregard for the spirit and intent of the Magnuson Stevens Act is one thing, but the clear disregard for the legal requirements of the federal fisheries law is something that leads him to be cautiously optimistic. “These cases are very hard to win, but I think we’ve got some very strong arguments,” Moore said, adding “NMFS was extremely arrogant with their sea bass decision and we’re calling them out on this one.” Moore charges that NMFS was very deliberate in their actions, explaining “they purposely chose an insular approach designed to block public scrutiny by claiming that they had good cause to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment.”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.