OPPS...Look Out Your Greed Is Showing

[reds]

Bwahahahahahaha

Miss Manners, meet MSSA
No offense to the membership of the Maryland Saltwater Sportsfishermen's Association, but your leaders have all the grace and dignity of 14-year-old boys at an all-you-can eat pizza buffet.

There are ways to accomplish your goals. A sterling model would be the Task Force on Fisheries Management, which got everyone in the fishing community--recreational anglers, charter boat captains, guides, tackle shops owners, watermen and regulators--to work out a blueprint for the future.

It was agonizing work. Slow going. But it was transparent, inclusive and effective.

Enter MSSA and its showboating membership update last night that ranks as perhaps the most childish bit of chest-thumping since Tarzan met Jane.

The group's leadership wants to change the way striped bass are allocated between the recreational anglers and the watermen. The short version is, they want more, they want to take fish from the watermen and they want to wrap themselves in a holier-than-thou flag of conservation.

They didn't talk to the other fishing groups before making their demand and threatening to go to the General Assembly if Department of Natural Resources Secretary John Griffin didn't give them what they wanted.

They paid for a "white paper," cut and pasted from existing documents by lobbyist Bill Miles. It contained nothing new about the status of striped bass. (Hey guys, if you paid more than $80 for that long-winded term paper--misspelled words, grammatical errors and all--you paid too much. Stripped bass? Really?)

In a cover letter to the MSSA board dated Nov. 16, executive director Dave Smith wrote that the goal was to reduce the watermen's take of Chesapeake Bay striped bass from 42.5 percent to 10 percent. He later revised and extended his remarks to remove the 10 percent.

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."

It should be noted that MSSA did not approach either the Sport Fisheries Advisory Commission or the Tidal Fish Advisory Commission before it decided to begin its blackmail attempt. (I'm surprised the "white paper" wasn't constructed of letters cut out of a newspaper.)

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?

Griffin's letter, dated Feb. 2, said he would make an allocation review a priority and include ALL interested parties. A review could be completed by Nov. 15 and a policy decision could be reached by May 15, 2012, one year ahead of schedule.

Sounds like a grown-up, reasonable approach.

Then, Monday night, MSSA slobbered all over itself with a smug update to its membership that took credit for everything short of the creation of really soft toilet paper and announced that Smith had been named a member of the Sport Fish Advisory Commission--THE VERY GROUP MSSA CIRCUMVENTED.

Nice.

Here's a truly laughable line: "Maryland's commercial fishing industry harvests more striped bass than any other East Coast state and they do so within their principal spawning grounds, the Chesapeake Bay."

But wait, watermen have less than half of the bay allocation. Who catches 57.5 percent of the allocation from those same spawning grounds? Oh, we don't talk about that in polite company. We'll conserve from the watermen's cut.

There's a way to do things, to build a coalition. And there's a way to belittle folks and suck the air out of the room.

If MSSA want to be a big player, it has to stop acting like a little snot.

[5th Tuition]

Reds; I don't belong to MSSA anymore, dropped my membership over their support for PSCR. HOWEVER, it appears that this is how things get done now. Look at the Government, Cram legislature down peoples throats when they don't want it (whether it's national govt like healthcare, or local govt over zoning issues); wait for the dark of night to pass legislation, or wait for a lame duck congress full of people voted out in the next legislature to vote before leaving.

NONE OF THIS IS RIGHT.

It is a reflection of where our society is heading. Nothing is "transparent" anymore. The few rule the majority.

I'm not supporting the illegal netters by any means. I'm not even saying that I'm against reallocation. All I'm saying is I can see why you have a problem with the proceedures that have taken place. I didn't like the way PSCR went down, and I can see why you don't like the way this is shaping up.

It seems that we, as American's are bending over more and more and grabing our ankles and letting the Government have there way with us.
5th (Marty)

p.s. I am a rec angler that would love to see more rockfish in the bay available for all user groups. Netting has really left a bad taste in my mouth, especially this year in light of all the publicity. With the new assesment being done in 2011, I believe we all will suffer hits in 2012.

[MdCrappie]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

Netting has really left a bad taste in my mouth, especially this year in light of all the publicity.

Are you saying that "Legal Netting" or "Illegal Netting" has left this taste?

If "Legal" is your choice then I would have to ask you about "driving".

Does "Drunk" driving leave a bad taste? If so then how about "Sober" (or legal) driving? Get the analogy?

If you are "disturbed" by "Illegal" netting and approve banning "ALL" netting, then wouldn't that be the same as banning "All" driving because of "Drunk" driving?

[Spot77]

I wouldn't go to the NRA looking for advice with healthcare reform.

I'd go to a doctor, or hospital admin.

Asking the MSSA to "play nice with commercial watermen" is like asking the National Rifle Association to lobby for medical malpractice reform.

It's not their mission, so why would they care?

"Maryland Saltwater Sportsmens' Association", right?

I'd expect the Maryland Conmmercial Watermens' Association (or whatever it's called) to lobby just as hard on behalf of its members.

Welcome to Maryland politics, rivaled only by Chicago in its corruption, deception and personal agenda driven, factless legislation.

[Spot77]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

Reds; I don't belong to MSSA anymore, dropped my membership over their support for PSCR. HOWEVER, it appears that this is how things get done now. Look at the Government, Cram legislature down peoples throats when they don't want it (whether it's national govt like healthcare, or local govt over zoning issues); wait for the dark of night to pass legislation, or wait for a lame duck congress full of people voted out in the next legislature to vote before leaving.

NONE OF THIS IS RIGHT.

It is a reflection of where our society is heading. Nothing is "transparent" anymore. The few rule the majority.I'm not supporting the illegal netters by any means. I'm not even saying that I'm against reallocation. All I'm saying is I can see why you have a problem with the proceedures that have taken place. I didn't like the way PSCR went down, and I can see why you don't like the way this is shaping up.

It seems that we, as American's are bending over more and more and grabing our ankles and letting the Government have there way with us.
5th (Marty)

p.s. I am a rec angler that would love to see more rockfish in the bay available for all user groups. Netting has really left a bad taste in my mouth, especially this year in light of all the publicity. With the new assesment being done in 2011, I believe we all will suffer hits in 2012.

Quoted and put in bold because it's the absolute damned truth.

[Skip]

I think it is good MSSA shook up the good ole boy network.

[5th Tuition]

Originally Posted by MdCrappie

Are you saying that "Legal Netting" or "Illegal Netting" has left this taste?
If "Legal" is your choice then I would have to ask you about "driving".
Does "Drunk" driving leave a bad taste? If so then how about "Sober" (or legal) driving? Get the analogy?
If you are "disturbed" by "Illegal" netting and approve banning "ALL" netting, then wouldn't that be the same as banning "All" driving because of "Drunk" driving?

Unfortunatly, illegal netting is influencing public opinion of ALL netting. The public has been saturated with watermen poaching enormace quantities of fish in the 5 year "sting" operation with the feds; raiding oyster santuaries; and now performing illegal netting. It's a shame the leadership of the watermen allowed this to continue for so long.

Your analogy with drunk driving may not be a good one to pursue. Here's why. I'm sure there was a time where drinking and driving was if not legal, it was considered not so major an offense. I can remember stories of the police either escorting the drunk home, or letting him "sleep it off" and be on his way when sober. Drunk driving was treated with a "wink of the eye". Many watermen have had this curtesy extended to them throughout the years.
Eventually, drunk driving was taken seriously and it was BANNED. Now, if you are caught driving, even just "under the influance", you will lose your license after only a few convictions.
It's a shame your leadership didn't call for the loss of the waterman's license years ago when this practice was being committed. NOW, Larry Simm's is calling for the loss of license for those convicted of this LATEST crime. TOO LATE to influence public opinion. The damage has been done!

So you see, there was a progression from the "wink,wink" of drunk driving to the public demand of banning drunk driving. We may be seeing a progression from the "wink, wink" of poaching, to a ban on all netting.
The continued poaching of natural resourses by a few, has tarnished the many. The time to call for more stringent measures on the habitual offenders was long ago, not now.

I'm sorry the legal netters will be impacted by the actions of the few. I don't see a ban on netting taking place, but it appears that MSSA will have an easier time asking for a reallocation of the quota.
Let me repeat, I don't see a ban on netting taking place, but it appears that MSSA will have an easier time to asking for a reallocation of the quota.
5th (Marty)

[Mikie]

"I'm sorry the legal netters will be impacted by the actions of the few. I don't see a ban on netting taking place, but it appears that MSSA will have an easier time asking for a reallocation of the quota.
Let me repeat, I don't see a ban on netting taking place, but it appears that MSSA will have an easier time to asking for a reallocation of the quota."


I don't believe the DNR is too hopped up about reallocation of commercial quota to the rec sector under the guise of conservation. Read Griffith's complete response to the MSSA "White Paper".

[5th Tuition]

Originally Posted by Mikie

"I'm sorry the legal netters will be impacted by the actions of the few. I don't see a ban on netting taking place, but it appears that MSSA will have an easier time asking for a reallocation of the quota.
Let me repeat, I don't see a ban on netting taking place, but it appears that MSSA will have an easier time to asking for a reallocation of the quota."


I don't believe the DNR is too hopped up about reallocation of commercial quota to the rec sector under the guise of conservation. Read Griffith's complete response to the MSSA "White Paper".

Two more nets found again today. This can not help your cause! This has to stop! Eventually, whether Griffith likes the "white paper" or not, he will have to do something.
Stop the poaching! Clean up your house! You are putting yourselves out of work! Don't be mad with me, police your own!
5th (Marty)

[B-Faithful]

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:

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:

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