MSSA/Just couldn't do it
 

Sat here this morning paying the bills and came across my MSSA renewal that I've been wavering about paying. Finally tore it up and threw it in the trash.
I'm still holding a grudge over their C/R position. I was at the Broadneck chapter meeting when they polled the members and everyone but two people supported keeping the current regulations. It is my UNDERSTANDING that this poll was repeated among all the chapters with similar results.
Once again; we have an organization supporting something the members were against! Now to be fair; MSSA helped the rec fisherman by advocating DNR drop the day restrictions; and I BELIEVE they wanted three rods per angler, instead of the proposed boat limit of six. However; MSSA was still advocating rod restrictions, stingerless lures, and barbless hooks when their membership was advocating the current regulations.
Now before everyone jumps on me and classifies me as a "meat hunter" that's not concerned with consrvation, that's not the case. If MSSA or DNR could convince me that these actions are necessary; I would be all for them. But that's not the case.
My main issue is simply having management (MSSA) going against it's membership. I understand that MSSA may be our best representative right now, but they still didn't do what we the members voted upon. Because they only supported part of the DNR proposal; should I only send in part of my membership fee?
Some will say that if we don't have MSSA representation; we won't have any representation at the table. I see it differently. I say, if we don't send MSSA a message; they will continually feel it's ok to second guess their members.
Send in a subscription to your favorite magazine and when it arrives, you only get half the magazine, do you continue to subscribe? Sign up for HDTV with your cable company and they only give you Digital; do you keep paying for HD?
As much as I wanted to renew; I just couldn't put the pen to the check. All is not lost, I may join again in the future. But only if I see a change in the organization. At the very least, I needed to be informed by MSSA on the reason they supported additional restrictions. If they think my C/R needs to be restricted, maybe they shouldn't support C/K tournaments. Perhaps they need to move toward C/R tournaments in the name of conservation.

p.s. I also cut up my AARP card and sent it back:D. 5th (Marty)

Good for you. Any organization that does not do what the general membership wants is not doing the right thing by them. Perhaps their decision to go against the membership's wishes has something to do with protecting those tournaments from any restrictions. Just a thought. I have mixed emotions about any non-profit orgainzation that has a vested interest in making money off of species of fish having a say in the decisions regarding those fish. I can uderstand charterboat captains and commercials having a say as they make their living on these fish and only represent themselves. I don't care for 7,000 supposed members, whose leadership does not listen to, representing me or the 3-400,000 other recs. If they don't listen to their membership then it means only a select few are representing all recs. That's not right in any book. Sounds like Washington politics to me. I will say one thing though. When the MSSA was formed they were a great organization that did some wonderful things to protect the rockfish and that should never be forgotten. Somehow they seem to have lost their way but they can change and let's hope they do.
I have to place a disclaimer here. I am not a commercial fisherman or a charterboat captain. If it were up to me a striper would have sportfish status only in the entire country.

I have to make that decision very soon Marty and am leaning the same way...and as you know, I don't keep a fish, so you are not a "meat hunter"

Marty..............I understand your viewpoint, however I still believe that the MSSA is still the strongest voice that Maryland anglers have. David Smith appears to be trying to make changes that will make a difference. As with any organization, "cleanup" takes time. Here is my understanding as to how things went down behind closed doors. There was tremendous pressure for two issues that "we" as rec anglers were adamently opposed:
1) day restrictions and 2) a "one" rod per angler limit. Very powerful voices were even trying to convince DNR that trolling was not "sporting" while C&R.

My understanding is that the MSSA did not budge on its view until it was told by the head of DNR that changes were going to be imposed and that it would be prudent to make a compromise that would best represent its members. The "powers that be" were hell bent on enforcing the day restrictions. The only reason that day restrictions were not enforced is the MSSA. The MSSA refused to negotiate on this matter. The rod limitations proposed as 2 rods per angler was offered as a compromise in order to fight off the day restrictions. I don't like any of it either, but when politics is involved, we all lose.

I renewed my membership and will watch for positive change in the coming year. I WILL NOT be renewing my CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION contributions. Do a little research and see where the CBF stood on the issue of C&R. You may be very surprised. In my opinion, The CBF wants our dirty polluting boats off the water. Make some calls. See what you think.

Mark

Mark (Mlag); I get it. I know there was some very powerful arm-twisting involved. I'm sure MSSA was presented with the ultimatum to either "get on board" and have at least some input (which they did, and I do like that the day restrictions were lifted) or they would be shut out of the negotiations and their members would have to live with the restrictions imposed by "others". I guess Dave Smith decided that in the interest of his members, he would play the game by "their" rules.

Thank goodness I was not in charge of MSSA. I would have told DNR that my members had voted for no regulations at this time, but that it would be prudent for an educational program to be established to promote safe C/R tactics.

Sometimes in life it's ok to lose!!!! If DNR had gone ahead with their restrictions in opposition to MSSA's membership, we could have organized a write-in campaign. It would have made all the major newspapers, perhaps some on-camera TV time, and finally a "convoy" of boat trailers surrounding Annapolis and converging on DNR headquarters. PERHAPS if this had happened and the average population had heard HOW this proposal had originated, and how little evidence was presented to make the proposal in the first place, there would have been a public backlash which would have changed DNR's philosophy.

As it stands now, there is no recourse. We have NO organization that hasn't "sold out" to politics. I just couldn't pay my membership fee to the organization that was "the best of the worst".

We know this is not defensible, certainly not in the name of conservation. We know the story behind all the poaching the last five years. We know that the allowed amount of nets was doubled for commercial fishermen. We know we have only 1% of the original population of oysters, yet watermen are asking for prohibited areas to be opened up for even more taking of oysters. We know that the areas of "dead zones" are increasing in the bay. We know that the numbers of "forage" fish are in decline due to one single business operating out of Reedville. We know that there are estimates that 70% of the resident rockfish are infected with Mycobacterium.

You know I could go on and on about "real" conservation tactics. But unfortunatly, these subjects will not even be vocalized to the general public because the PSCR restrictions will be passed off as a monumental breakthrough in the name of conservation.

In my opinion, MSSA missed a golden opportunity to educate the public on how this "backdoor" political decission was made. This PSCR decission keeps all of the organizations "happy". The politicians can say "look, look what we have done in the name of conservation"; such a high standard we place on our representatives (both MSSA and Annapolis).

When further concessions are brought forth (and they will be), we can only blame ourselves for allowing this current flawed process to have taken place.

5th (Marty)
p.s. I apologize for turning cbangler into tidalfish. I promise more fishing reports as pennance for this thread:D.

Support 5th Tuition
 

Good for you. The voice of the people use to govern our actions but somewhere that got lost.

I remembered the following qoute when I read your article.


"It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees"
Emiliano Zapata Salazar

Let freedom and free will reign forever.

I felt the exact same - but did renew my MSSA membership.

It plays to get more involved with MSSA if you do not like what is going on.
It seems the same 8-10 people do most of MSSA work.

On our local chapter level - we at best get 3-4 people to help out. We meet the Monday after our regular meeting - upstairs at 7:00 pm to discuss the politics / upcoming meetings/etc.

You saw/heard with your own eyes and ears the other night at DNR. It is politics as much as fishery management that drives DNR sometimes.

MSSA could be better - no doubt. I renewed on the hope that the new director ( Dave Smith ) will push MSSA in the right direction.

I just renewed my membership but gave them my thoughts on this issue. Nobody was taking notes but they appeared to be listening. The MSSA should poll its membership and get a read on the people who pay the dues.

I renewed because I think they did listen. When this first blew up, I had my doubts about MSSA's position and even worried that they would side with the MCBA. Some MSSA chapters even voted almost unanimously in favor of a complete ban on C&R.

Even after it was apparent that the vast majority of MSSA members were on the side of supporting C&R, I wondered whether MSSA's representation on the Sport's Fish Advisory Commission would step up to the plate. To be honest, it was doubtful. However, David Smith took over the situation. I have no doubt that he would rather have seen no changes, but DNR had their minds made up to do something, especially after Brandon made such a mess of things. Everyone was in damage control after that but I have to say that I was very impressed at David Smith's leadership.

I'm speaking at two upcoming MSSA chapters in the next couple of months. Kent Island in February and DC in March. You can bet C&R will be a strong focus. No matter how you feel about MSSA, you guys are right to keep hammering on this issue. Maryland has really looked bad over this decision. It's time the fishermen stepped in and made it right.

I actually joined at the Timonium Expo last week. They were offering membership for $10.

I had read all of the controversy surrounding them as desribed in the thread already and I figured I would have little right to ***** about their actions if I wasn't a member. $10 is going to buy me the right to run my mouth an awful lot. :D

All of the same things discussed here are very familiar to me......as an NRA member I'm disappointed with their distinct lack of interest in MD, and the direction they've taken on a lot of federal issues. But just like we agree that MSSA is our biggest voice for MD anglers, the NRA is gun owners' biggest voice on Capitol Hill, so I keep my membership.

The best way to change most organizations is from within.

Shawn I'm glad you're involved with MSSA.

When I recently signed up, I joined the Annapolis chapter, but I think they told me I could attend meetings at any chapter. Is that correct?

I know at the Essex chapter, to which I belong, you do not even have to be an MSSA member to attend the meeting and I think that is true of all the chapters. They usually have some good speakers.

I was at one of the C&R meetings and if I remember correctly and please correct me if I am wrong, the MSSA representative, Bill Windley, voted against the restrictions on catch and release.

He even warned that once restrictions are in place they are very hard to remove and that was one of the reasons he voted against those measures.

I think the MSSA later changed their position, and chose to support the restrictions the DNR has now put forward as a compromise to prevent the harsher restrictions that were originally proposed.

I did renew my membership at the boat show Saturday for the 10 dollar show special, and with them now following the CCA's lead issuing email alerts so we can contact our representatives when things like SB37 come up is a step in the right direction for our voices to be heard.

I may not agree with them all of the time, but if you do not belong you have no shot at influencing their position.

You're right, he did say that. I and many others personally thanked Bill for making that statement. It was his early positions where I had concerns.... no matter now.

There are some people who would like to spin their positions and rewrite history about this, particularly some members of the SFAC who need to save face. But, make no mistake, In the end, it came down to two bad choices with the worst being the motion approved by them that sought more restrictions than DNR was considering. MSSA & CCA stood together and saved us from day restrictions and it is very much to their credit that it isn't a lot worse.

I was in close contact with the MSSA over the C&R issue as it was a VERY important fisherman's rights issue for me.

Here is a quick run down of their positions taken as I recall them:

• Original MSSA position was educate before regulate given the lack of science and information on the fishery.
• They voted against the recommendations put forth by the SFAC that included day closures
• MSSA (along with the RFA) met with gov O'Malley regarding the flexibility in fisheries act and brought their C&R concerns to the Gov and Sec. Griffin.
• Sec. Griffin requested that the members of the SFAC come to more of a compromise given the lack of recreational angler support for the initial SFAC proposal (CCA and MSSA voted against the initial SFAC proposal)
• A compromise proposal was initiated by the CBF representative that removed the day closures but put forth a one rod per angler limitation. Unfortunately there was support for this initiative by some key members of the SFAC including the CCA (who opposed Brandon white's initial day closure recommendations with the MSSA), Brandon White, and CBF. It was at this time DNR made clear to the MSSA that some rod restictions were going to be included in their regulations. It was at this point in time that the MSSA drafted a proposal for their recommendations that included what they believed focused soley on ensuring low mortality rates associated with the fishery and released it the day before Sec. Griffins deadline for a compromise. Given the support by the CCA and others on the SFAC for the one rod per angler restriction that was put forth by the CBF representative and the fact that DNR made clear that gear restrictions were to be included in regulations the MSSA put forth what they thought to be a more acceptable recommendation that would have been less constricting to trollers based on other precedents in Maryland fisheries management

.

Could the MSSA been hard-ass and not compromised at all regarding the matter? Yes. However, it would have marginalized the organization within the SFAC and their relationship with DNR. To me this would have been counter productive and hurt recreational representation in the long run as the MSSA does have a relationship with the DNR and a valued voice on the SFAC. Lets face it, the DNR made it clear they were acting and wanted input from the MSSA on their actions. They had to recommend something.

The MSSA did pole its members at the board meetings and there was overwhelming support for keeping C&R open. The MSSA worked very hard and even took a minority position on the commission. Was it a complete victory for those who dont think it should be regulated at all? No, However, access and opportunity has not been taken away, the basic ban on trolling that some were working for didnt happen (MSSA was the lone force against that), and MSSA hasnt been marginalized at the DNR due to a willingness to not be able to work with the powers that be.

The MSSA is the best voice we have in this state and I think they did a fine job at honoring its commitment of Working to Provide A Unified Voice to Preserve and Protect the Rights, Traditions and the Future of Recreational Fishing.

Thanks, Greg -- The only thing I would add to Greg's summary is that there should probably be an additional bullet point regarding an initial proposal by DNR seeking restrictions which ultimately turned out to be similar to the final decision. This was never voted on or discussed by the SFAC due to an interruptive motion made for tighter restrictions including day closures. That motion was quickly pushed through although opposed by the MSSA, CBF, and CCA.

Bottom line - it isn't as simple as MSSA/CCA supported tighter restrictions. Yes, ultimately they did, but as the lesser of two evils.

I will say that I thought it was great that the CCA and MSSA worked together a lot on the C&R issue. I hope it is a door for working together in the future. CCA stood strong on ensuring that there were no day closures. I was disappointed to hear they endorsed a proposal that would have all but ended trolling with a one rod per person regulation but they did oppose the intial SFAC proposal and stood fast against day closures. I appreciate their stance regarding the support of keeping catch and release fishing open.

I think Dave S. of the CCA did say that he agreed to support the CBF compromise at the meeting at Bateman's, but it was never voted on. I took that as a personal opinion and not a CCA position, but I don't know how it would've come out if put to a vote.

Either way, I agree it is a good base to build on for the organizations working together. All those successful yellow perch fishing reports we've been hearing is proof that the voices of recreational fisherman's organizations are being heard with amazing results.

One more thing.... Greg (B-Faithful) was extremely influential throughout this whole fiasco and worked extremely hard behind the scenes in fighting this assault on catch and release fishing. I've personally thanked him for that and feel strongly that he should be in a leadership position within MSSA. As Skip says, the organization needs doers instead of talkers, and Greg gets things done.

Agreed 100% Shawn. I also personally thanked Greg as I feel his input was instrumental in keeping "access and opportunity" open to all anglers. I have encouraged Greg to become an active voice as well.................Mark

I dont think I need to be acknowledged any more than anyone else for working to keep preseason access open. If anything, Shawn you are a cornerstone in working on the catch and release issue. Your hard work on http://www.carefulcatchmaryland.com/, your time on CCA committees, your working with the CBF on best handling practices, time speaking about c&r while being a speaker, promotion of release fish that will not be consumed on www.chesapeakelighttackle.com, etc. needs appreciation from anyone who believes in C&R as a sustainable way to keep access to sportfishing within our public natural resources open.

That boy can put up one hell of an passionate argument. Lord help the other side when Greg's kids are grown, his wife wants him out of the house, and he turns his full time attention to the fisheries. :D

Shawn, you too deserve thanks for the work you put in. You guys were instrumental in an outcome that was the lesser of evils coming our way.

One last thing and I have to shut up about this. You guys know everything I've put out has been straight up, and what I first reported last year about this time played out note for note like a script in a two-bit musical.

When this first started, I heard threats that some people on the TFAC might go after the MSSA tournaments if they didn't join the crowd and vote against our catch and release season. As we know, MSSA didn't, so unfortunately, there's one more ball to drop. I don't have a dog in that fight, but I strongly suggest you guys be vigilant and get ahead of their checker game.

Paul, If I keep talking fishing at home, my wife is going to want me out of the house sooner than later :eek::D


Shawn, funny you say that because I know the MSSA is working on something to explain why tournaments are good for recreational angling. I believe some of the key points will be:

• draws attention to the sport and showcases fishing to the public
• increases involvement in recreational fishing
• HUGE economic impact (hotels, fuel, tackle, restaurants, marinas, etc.)
• place to educate anglers about management and political issues facing the sport
• place to educate anglers about better fishing practices
• provides very accurate data to the state DNR fisheries management team

There are other key points such as a Univ of Wisconsin study that shows a decline in mortality rates during tournaments due to conservation efforts of participating anglers, improved handling skills, and the releasing of fish. Combine the study, the points above, and with the fact that during the MSSA spring and fall tournaments less than one fish per boat is ever checked in and the tournaments are a true asset to recreational fishing in Maryland. (yes, less than one fish per boat is ever checked in during the Fall or Spring tournaments - anglers know it takes a significant fish to place)

From speaking with Dave Smith, I know he is working on making the tournaments even better. Some of the things he mentioned to me were:

• education for better C&R practices are going to a key part of the captains meetings.
• raising the min size of checked in fish to even further reduce the number of fish killed in the name of tournament
• increased prizes for the catch and release division (I believe the MSSA increased it this year on their own and will look for sponsors next year to further increase that prize)
• better communication during the tournament to participants to what has been checked in so anglers can make more educated decisions to what fish they keep.
• MSSA invited dnr representatives to participate in the weigh-in stations to ensure even more accurate data for their fisheries management team

It is important to note that with increased participation and the with a larger economic impact recreational fishing comes more political strength for issues that concern recreational anglers.