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.