MSSA/Just couldn't do it

[5th Tuition]

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. 5th (Marty)

[mdracer]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

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. 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"

[mlag]

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

[5th Tuition]

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.

[SimpleBiology]

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.

[Skip]

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.

[Hockleyneck]

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.

[Shawn Kimbro]

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.

[Spot77]

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.

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.