I find Candy's blog very amusing to say the least..
I will agree with her that the white paper was a bunch of garbage. It was sent to me after last tuesday's MSSA board meeting from a friend and let's just say that I wasnt thrilled over what Mr. Miles put together for them. It not only wasnt well written but was not even consistant with policy stances that the MSSA has stood for in the not so distant past. (Being that Mr Miles also is a paid lobbyist for the MLSF, who is made up of many of the same members of the SFAC, you could clearly see some of the members influences in the paper) Thankfully a call to Dave Smith clarrified that the board voted to not adopt the white paper and the MSSA was going to await a response from DNR. He also assured me that if the MSSA moved forward with the white paper that the board would have reviewed the white paper indepth and made changes. Forunately DNR has stated that they will be reviewing the 20 year old allocation policy, with stake holder input, and the board has decided not to move forward with legislation so the white paper is irrelivent.
Now as far as:
Quote:
|
MSSA says it has 7,000 members. Mayland has 19 times that many saltwater anglers--and that doesn't count charter boat customers. So where does it get off jumping to the head of the line?
|
I guess AARP doesnt represent retired people because only a portion of retired people are their membership. Or AAA doesnt represent automobile owners because only a small portion of car owners are members. or BoatUS doesnt represent boat owners because only a small portion of boat owners are members...
Come on Candy, the MSSA is the largest unified voice of recreational anglers in the state. Do they represent the views of all recreational anglers? no, but their voice should be heard with some greater consideration.
As for jumping to the head of the line... Does she realize who is in that line? The SFAC is made up of a number of members who either want jobs within DNR, own companies that depend upon grants from the state, or have DNR themselves as one of their industries largest customers ... I am sure some may not be willing to rock the boat too much in fear of jeapordizing what they have. Besides SFAC has known about the MSSA allocaton concern since mid Nov and hasnt touched the issue. Where is the willingness to take on tough issues head on there?
MSSA did their job, which is to bring issues and concerns that are important to recreational anglers to DNR or the legislature. It is up to DNR to bring other user groups to the table, not the MSSA's role. Of course when DNR brings the issue to the state holders, MSSA will want to be there to defend or push their objective. Again, it is the not the MSSA leadership's role to compromise and come to DNR with a consensus, it is up to DNR to bring the stakeholders to the table once an issue has been brought to their attention. I for one am glad they are showing some guts and that their issues are important to them.
Now to address Sec Griffin's statement here:
Quote:
|
Griffin, in his response to the legislative threat, wrote: "The conservation and allocation of striped bass are distinctly separate management issues. Conservation does not require allocation and, more importantly, allocation does not ensure conservation...Allocation issues rely heavily, and appropriately, on stakeholder values and input."
|
I have breifly met the secretary before and he has been kind enough to respond to a few emails I have sent over other concerns of mine. While i have respect for him, I would suggest he look to NJ. NJ essentially reallocated their commercial harvest to the recreational side through trophy tags. This enabled NJ to keep its full quota/state allocation and the commercial harvest not go to another fishery to be use when the state gave striped bass gamefish-only status. Because not all the trophy tags come close to being used and the full allocation is generally used in the commercial fisheries, less fish are being taken then before the reallocation. Taking less is a conservation move. It may not ensure it but when you reallocate and that allocation doesnt get used, it is conservation. Without the reallocation, any reduction stands to be absorbed by another fishery. This is what I believe MSSA is attempting to accomplish to a lesser degree as MSSA didnot ask for gamefish-only status (which would have to be done legislatively and not through the DNR if they did)
As far as the MSSA acting like spoiled brats, i guess that compares a bit like her being a journalist who wants to be an op-ed columnist. The sun's track record of not getting things right speaks for itself.
In the case of MISS MANNERS v. MSSA the DEFENDANT [MSSA] is GUILTY on three counts
- Not wanting get bogged down in bureaucratic BS where nothing gets done – GUILTY
- Doing something good for the striped bass resource – GUILTY
- Working to improve recreational fishing in Maryland - GUILTY
