Famous on accident
Phil Morlock might be the most important guy in the bike industry you've never heard of. He's Director of Environment Affairs for Shimano. He's a bike lobbyist. If that word offends you, he's a cycling advocate. He's also a sport fishing advocate, and, Shimano is "the only company in either biz that also has the other half of the biz," according to Morlock.
It's Morlock's fishing advocacy that's made big news recently, and, we wrote about that in an installment detailing Shimano's interesting and provocative brand of advocacy. What makes Morlock fascinating is this: He's acquired a rock star reputation in the conservative blogosphere for what it perceives as his efforts on behalf of sport fishermen. This makes him a yet bigger player in the halls of Congress. Will this image serve to help or hinder Morlock—whose history includes a stint as a chief of police; and who currently owns and manages a hunting and fishing lodge in rural Canada—in his legislative efforts on behalf of cyclists and, specifically, road cyclists?
SLOWTWITCH: Forty years ago, when Shimano became a maker of both cycling and fishing paraphernalia, who knew the atmosphere would be so politically charged, and, with advocacy groups in one sport championed by a legislative caucus not necessarily sympathetic to the needs of the other sport?
MORLOCK: In more recent years, corporate advocacy, it's changed from where we began to where things are today. We had to change with the circumstances. Natural resource, use, access, have become more politicized, more directly potentially affecting our customers and business, we've been engaged in that arena.
SLOWTWITCH: Shimano's advocacy background was, once upon a time, more fish-heavy than bike-heavy. Then came the Shimano Cycling Initiative in the early 90s, where you worked a lot with the BLM, in an effort to open, or keep open, access to MTB trails. But if you go onto Shimano's advocacy website, you see press releases from that era, early-to-mid- 90s, then, not much since. Why has the Shimano Cycling Initiative lain fallow since then or, if it hasn't, why are the majority of the press from that site so old?
MORLOCK: There's definitely been a downturn, our last major initiative of consequence with the BLM was in 1997, at the BLM National Training Center in Phoenix. Out of our partnership with the BLM came a three-day, Shimano-sponsored, partnership on public lands. That training seminar brought together a who's who of mountain biking, they all came together to teach and learn Mountain Bike 101. We taught to the BLM mountain bike history, and everything from sustainable trail management on public lands to budget planning. But because of budget cuts, agency managers retiring or leaving their jobs, there's been a downturn. We went on to do other things.
SLOWTWITCH: And more recently?
MORLOCK: It did come back, but, as a partnership with the BLM and with academics from Arizona State and Northern Arizona University in 2003. We were challenged by some positions taken by NGOs [conservation groups] that mountain biking was not compatible with good land use. We needed better science. Enter the universities. Dr. Pam Foti from NAU, and Dave White from ASU. These are experts in the field of recreation ecology. They published reports on researched, properly designed and maintained MTB trails, showing there is no ecological impact of any significance.
SLOWTWITCH: Rounding to the nearest 5 percent, I believe Shimano's worldwide sales are about 80 percent cycling, 20 percent fishing. In light of that, do you think your advocacy efforts on behalf of Shimano, and the time and money Shimano spends on advocacy, roughly reflect the company's revenue split?
MORLOCK: That revenue split in North America is more balanced, and, it's changed over time. In Canada Shimano was mainly known for fishing. I was national marketing manager for Shimano Canada, for both divisions, but mainly what I dealt with was fishing. As our advocacy efforts evolved, and Canada moved from fishing to fishing and cycling, so has our emphasis moved.
SLOWTWITCH: With respect to good efforts like IMBA in its developmental years, and, the Shimano Cycling Initiative in the early and mid 90s, when I Google four words: Shimano; advocacy; your name; and [Shimano American president] Dave Pfeiffer's name; several pages of citations were returned, all of which concerned fishing. When I drop Dave's name and Google the remaining three words, there are maybe two, maybe three cycling-related citations in the first several pages. Are you comfortable with what appears to be a lopsided dataset when one goes looking on the internet for citations on Shimano advocacy?
MORLOCK: I don't believe our cycling efforts are as well known as I would like to see them be. Mike [Van Abel of IMBA] and Tim [Blumenthal of Bikes Belong] are more intimately involved with our historic effort. For instance, the 1997 Phoenix summit, Tim was there. But, no, the bike media has not paid a lot of attention to it.
SLOWTWITCH: As you might be aware, both Dave Pfeiffer's "60 Million Anglers" piece, first printed on Shimano's advocacy website, penned last Fall, and, your comments that formed the basis of the ESPN article a few weeks ago, have caused each of you become heroes among dozens or even hundreds of prominent conservative bloggers who tend to be vociferously anti-Obama. Do you, or does Shimano, regret this?
MORLOCK: No. [The ESPN piece] was actually a result of a series of nine articles. The Charlotte Fishing Examiner sensationalized the headline, they ran a headline, "Obama Administration plans to ban fishing" [Editor's note: the headline read, "ESPN claims Obama is about to ban fishing."]. That was ludicrous. Nobody ever said that, I never said that, that's what took the story viral. It was misquoting both the facts in the article and its tenor. When the conservative press dumped all over it, it was never our intention to imply that the president or anyone in this administration intended to ban fishing. Here's what is true. Allow me to say, yes, we regret that the information was taken down a side track. It was a diversion from the issues that were important for people to understand. Its also true that the groups that we deal with, the ASA [American Sportfishing Association] and CSF [Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus] and others, are apolitical. They work very hard at being non-partisan, bipartisan. We'll work with anyone, the conservative side, the liberal side, we'll work with anybody on behalf of fishing or cycling.
SLOWTWITCH: Dave's piece, I'm sure you realize, quickly got re-labeled in the blogosphere. His piece was entitled: "Feds to 60 Million American Anglers: We Don't Need You." But, on Gateway Pundit and elsewhere, the press release was picked up verbatim, except the title was changed to: "Obama White House to 60,000,000 Anglers: We Don’t Need You!" The "Obama White House" title is actually more cited, more popular, than Dave's title. Are you happy about that and, if not, why has Shimano let those re-titles stand, without comment?
MORLOCK: Dave didn't write that piece, I did.
SLOWTWITCH: And about the relabeling of the title of the piece?
MORLOCK: Nobody's asked us.
SLOWTWITCH: I'm asking you.
MORLOCK: It wasn't limited to the blogosphere, Field and Stream got it wrong. I'm thinking that these organizations, responding to the ESPN article, went back and did some digging, there was a number of press releases that came out, extrapolated that headline. We have no control over what people do or how they misuse our information.
SLOWTWITCH: I'd like to follow up on this, because, and maybe you can see why this is intriguing to me: You are—whether you wanted to be or not—a darling of the anti-Obama crowd. Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, and Rush Limbaugh, all picked up on the ESPN piece warning that the Obama administration wanted to place a moratorium on sport fishing. You have any further or final comment on that for our readers before I leave this subject?
MORLOCK: It was just Andy Warhol fame. Fifteen minutes. It went on for about 3 or 4 days, then the press went on to something else.
SLOWTWITCH: Let's talk about fishery management. Catch Shares as a basis for managing commercial fishing, what's your opinion?
MORLOCK: It's in place now for commercial fishing, it's not in place for recreational fishing yet. The gavel hasn't come down on the decision.
SLOWTWITCH: So that I don't mischaracterize your view, how do you feel about Catch Shares?
MORLOCK: It seems to depends on where you look. I was happily ignorant about Catch Shares until it started to potentially impact on sport fishing; it seems to be a moving target, but it often seems to work; it seems to be more applicable to commercial fishing. It works in some places, other places it doesn't seem to do so well.
SLOWTWITCH: The Environmental Defense Fund champions Catch Shares. They say it's a win for everybody. This organization, the EDF, is one of the organizations that Ray Hilborn specifically notes as a conservation NGO that gets it right. Isn't Dr. Hilborn the sort of sober, even-handed, outcome-based scientist that Shimano looks to? Patty Doerr [of the American Sportfishing Association] thinks so, and, the ASA has hired Dr. Hilborn in the past.
MORLOCK: ASA has hired him, I don't know him, haven't met him, we use a group of scientists in North America, depending on the issue we'll use a variety of people at the PhD level, and, different entities. I know the ASA does hold his works in very high regard.
SLOWTWITCH: I think everybody agrees that sport fishing management is thornier than commercial fishing management, because, while you can put cameras on every medium or large commercial fishing vessel—sort of like red light cameras at intersections—forcing compliance to the law, you can't put a camera on every 18-foot Boston Whaler. The EDF is confident that NOAA, and [its director] Jane Lubchenko, will find a sober, logical way to deal with sport fishing management, because of the approach taken to commercial fishing. But Shimano has so far favored a frontal assault on NOAA, and the Obama administration. Do you feel any need to pull back from that?
MORLOCK: This is one way to see this as an approach we've taken, but, Dr. Lubchenko's quote to us during the convention in San Diego, that, "she would be our champion," in the time since we've heard absolutely nothing. There is another two weeks before the recreational summit that NOAA is hosting. But as far as anything of consequence for the Ocean Policy Task Force we haven't heard a word from her. Our view: Okay, you've made the promise, where's the effort? And I would say that to her if she were sitting here. They [NOAA] didn't pay any attention until good fortune, good luck, misfortune, the Charlotte newspaper mischaracterized the ESPN article, and the resulting media dust-up. They seem to want to cooperate with us now.
SLOWTWITCH: The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus is the legislative expression of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation [CSF]. It contains about 280 legislators. It's the largest caucus in Washington. It's the caucus that gun lobbyists, hunters, and sport fisherman all look to. There is a regular column on the CSF's website, called, the Sportsmen's Voice. The most recent column, on the 25th of March, detailed the coverage generated by the ESPN article. Did you write that?
MORLOCK: No. Lance Lemmonds, the communication's manager, probably wrote that.
SLOWTWITCH: I ask, because, that column listed several news articles that picked up the ESPN article. But the columnist failed to mention the broad repudiation of the ESPN article written by ESPN's editors the day after the original publication of the ESPN article, nor did the Sportsmen's Voice article link to all the articles covering NOAA's push back. Again, your direct quotes comprised more than half the total text of that ESPN article. You sit on the Board of the CSF. So, if the blogosphere has been distorting your words and message, Lance is trumpeting the distorted narrative. This, on the website of an organization on whose board you sit.
MORLOCK: I would disagree that ESPN repudiated the article.
SLOWTWITCH: Nevertheless, the Sportsmen's Voice column specifically crowed about the March 9 ESPN article.
MORLOCK: Fundamentally, the points in the article are correct. My comments in the article are correct.
SLOWTWITCH: So, you stand behind Montgomery's ESPN article as written?
MORLOCK: Well, I didn't write it. I'll let him or ESPN speak to the article.
SLOWTWITCH: Back to cycling: Do you think Shimano is appropriately balanced in its advocacy of road versus off-road issues, or, is there a calibration in Shimano's future?
MORLOCK: There is a calibration coming. The reason we have focused on access for mountain bikes, it's a logical expression of how we're involved. The very same agencies that manage fishing manage public lands: BLM, Interior, Fish and Game, National Parks. Certainly in the legislative realm, it's the very same Congress that affects access. The agencies are often under the same overarching umbrella.
SLOWTWITCH: But there is a calibration coming.
MORLOCK: Yes, and, is far as the road side of it, we certainly recognize the initiatives in urban cycling, etc., so, I think a calibration is coming, which we'll be rolling out in 2011. We only speak about what we are doing or what we have done. We don't want to get off into the weeds of what we might do in the future, but, we are aware of road and we'll be looking to do more in the future.
SLOWTWITCH: Were you at the Bike Summit a couple of weeks ago?
MORLOCK: I went to the bike summit, but, was only able to attend meetings around it, because we got requests from members of Congress to talk to them about oceans policy, and when you get such requests you take advantage of the opportunity.
SLOWTWITCH: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's comments—making bikes and vehicle equal stakeholders in the Nation's roadways—were received very enthusiastically by the cycling community. Are you as enthusiastic about LaHood's comments as have been the rest of the cycling advocacy community?
MORLOCK: I think it's a positive indication.
SLOWTWITCH: How is the Obama administration doing as regards its overall policy approach to cycling issues? Can you give it a grade?
MORLOCK: I think it's too early to grade them. So many balls and spinning plates in the air, not necessarily of their own creation—military, economic, other critical issues—it's a little early to judge them on something like cycling initiatives, or fisheries as well, because they're works in progress. New people in these jobs, it takes them awhile to get up to speed on the integral aspects of their portfolios. We'll see a lot more in the second two years in the areas of fisheries policy and cycling initiatives. Ask me in a couple years. I do think the administration is getting a good range of input from the cycling community, LAB [League of American Bicyclists], IMBA [International Mountain Biking Association], Bike Belong, which I think are the A-Team.
SLOWTWITCH: As you might know, conservatives immediately started pushing back on LaHood's comments at the Bike Summit. Let's circle back to the comment Mike Van Abel and Tim Blumenthal made to me [in a Slowtwitch feature linked to just below this interview], about how they value your expertise as a liaison between the sporting world and America's lawmakers. Do you worry that since your legislative efforts on behalf of sport fishermen have brought you closer to a predominantly conservative caucus; and, since you and Dave have made comments widely championed by conservative pundits, bloggers, etc.; and because of remarks that seem anti-NOAA; that this might have compromised your ability to lobby successfully with progressive lawmakers who'd likely be your allies when it comes to helping the Obama administration pass road bike friendly laws?
MORLOCK: Advocating on behalf of anglers or cyclists is not a popularity contest. Sometimes the hard facts are not popular in the halls of power. But it doesn't change the facts. We had some very direct discussions with the Bush administration as well.
SLOWTWITCH: Are you worried that either the road cycling community, or Ray LaHood, might be less inclined to work with you after noting your posture toward Jane Lubcheno [head of NOAA]?
MORLOCK: If Dr. Lubchenko wants to work with us, we'll work with her. Maybe there's something in the works we're not aware of. Six weeks from now we may be very happy. What other folks say, in terms of a distortion, is not our fault. It's not an anti-Obama position we have taken. We gave them our input, they essentially ignored it in round-one. In round-two there was a little bit of an improvement, but our documentation was still ignored. Is this unique to this administration? No. Did it happen in the Bush administration? Yes. Bush created the largest no-fishing zone in the history of the planet, off the Hawaiian Islands. It's geographically larger than 46 of the 50 states.
