MSSA/Just couldn't do it

[Spot77]

Originally Posted by Shawn Kimbro

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.

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?

[PhilK999]

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.

[Shawn Kimbro]

Originally Posted by PhilK999

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.

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.

[B-Faithful]

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.

[Shawn Kimbro]

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.

[B-Faithful]

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.

[Shawn Kimbro]

Originally Posted by B-Faithful

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.

[Shawn Kimbro]

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.

[mlag]

Originally Posted by Shawn Kimbro

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

[B-Faithful]

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.