Notices

Watching For Md. Fisheries " Cost Recovery

Old 11-28-2011, 08:56 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Deale, Md.
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thumbs up Watching For Md. Fisheries " Cost Recovery

CCA MD watches for action on ‘cost recovery’

The Government Relations Committee recently affirmed its position calling for those who benefit from a fishery having to pay the costs of management of that fishery. CCA Maryland anticipates the Department of Natural Resources to announce before early January what, if any, legislation it will seek to mandate what costs of the commercial striped bass fishery are borne by those in that commercial industry.

The position states, “CCA Maryland strongly believes the user and financial beneficiary of the fishery should bear the responsibility for its management costs. If that can’t be done and taxpayers or recreational anglers are asked to continue covering that shortfall, then we believe the gill net fishery must be ended in favor of other fishing methods that can be shown to be manageable, accountable and enforceable.”

“This is not new thinking for CCA Maryland,” said Trent Zivkovich, chair, Government Relations Committee. “Rather, it’s clear indication of how important this issue is to us. This year members of the commercial gill net industry demonstrated that they do not care to obey Maryland’s laws benefitting all of it’s citizens, including other commercial fishermen. That raises the cost of managing that fishery, and it’s blatantly inappropriate for recreational anglers and taxpayers to bear those costs.”

Commercial fishing license and permit fees have not changed since the early 1990’s. Since fishing license and permit fees must be set by the General Assembly, legislation will be necessary to make any changes. In 2007, recreational license fees were raised with the resulting revenue used to increase the Department’s management capabilities and to improve recreational fisheries. In 2010, recreational anglers contributed approximately $4.4 million dollars to the Department just through license fees for tidal fisheries.
"Frankly, we are not asking for anything that has not already been put on the table,” said Zivkovich. “When the Department closed the commercial gill net season earlier this year, Secretary Griffin stated that if it could not be demonstrated that the commercial gill net fishery is viable, the Department would have to consider closing the fishery. Without cost recovery we don’t see the fishery as viable, and we plan on holding the Department to its word.”
CCA Maryland will alert members of legislative action as soon as it is announced.
Recreational anglers, menhaden gain victory

As has been reported in the news media, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) acted this month to reduce the harvest of menhaden by approximately 37 percent, but other actions impacting striped bass also occurred at that meeting.
After overwhelming support by CCA and other recreational anglers to curtail the harvest, ASMFC voted to raise the threshold figure for menhaden’s Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP) to 15 percent and the target for MSP to 30 percent. Currently it is believe that the menhaden stock is at approximately eight percent. These requirements will be in place in 2013.
“This action is a bonanza for recreational anglers since menhaden is a prime food source for striped bass and other game fish that we target,” said Tony Friedrich, CCA MD executive director. “It has taken years to achieve such a significant management measure as this; and while it will take additional years for the menhaden stock to recover, we can all be proud of this major step forward. CCA National Staffer Dick Brame, who represents our association at the ASFMC meetings, has been a leader in this achievement.
In other actions at the ASFMC meeting (as summarized in a report by Brame) the commission:
Heard a report on the illegal commercial harvesting of striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River since 2003. More than $1.6 million in fines have been levied against 19 individuals and three corporations for illegally taking more than one million pounds of striped bass.
Heard a report from the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board indicating that “overall the resource is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring with the female spawning stock biomass (SSB) estimate at 109 percent of the SSB target and 137 percent of the SSB threshold.”

Revitalized Annapolis chapter holds meeting Dec. 6
The first meeting of a newly revitalized Annapolis chapter is scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 6, at the Boatyard Bar & Grill.
Shawn Kimbro, veteran angler and author of the upcoming book Chesapeake Light Tackle - An introduction to light tackle fishing on the Chesapeake Bay, will speak on “Tips for Cold Weather Jigging.” He will also discuss Careful Catch Maryland, a project developed by CCA MD and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to create understanding of the best ways to release fish.
“There’s no need to put away your fishing gear when the temperature drops,” said Kimbro. “If you know the best ways to stimulate striped bass to eat in colder water, you can still catch the resident fish that remain in the Bay throughout the winter and those giant migrating bass that come into the Bay this time of the year.”

“CCA is extremely excited to have a chapter starting again in Annapolis,” said Friedrich. “Not only is Annapolis the state capital, it is also the boating center of Maryland. We anticipate having frequent meetings that will appeal to recreational anglers and encourage anyone in the Annapolis area interested in fishing to join us Dec. 6.”
The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. when attendees can purchase food and drinks from the menu. Election of officers for the new chapter and the presentation will start at 7 p.m. The Boatyard Bar & Grill is at 400 Fourth St., Annapolis, and anyone is invited to attend.

TieFest set for Saturday, Feb. 25
The 10th annual TieFest, the Atlantic coast’s premier fly fishing event, is scheduled for Saturday, Feb. 25.

“Once again, we will have some of the best known fly anglers at TieFest demonstrating patterns that work in our area, casting skills that will make you a better fly fisherman, and answering questions,” said Friedrich. “This is probably the only place where recreational anglers can come to a show that doesn’t have an admission cost, walk up to some of the true celebrities in our sport, ask a question, and expect an answer.”
Among the those expected to attend TieFest are Bob Clouser, Bob Popovics, Steve Farrar, Steve Silverio and Brad Buzzi.

Board acts on variety of issues
At its meeting last week, the Board of Directors took a number of actions, including:
• Voting to establish a virtual state office and close the current physical office space, a decision that will save more than $8,000 annually. Storage space will be rented for banquet and other items, and meeting rooms will be rented when necessary.
• Combined the state Executive Board and Board of Directors into one body that will be called the Board of Directors of CCA Maryland.
• Move Chesapeake Tide to a once- a-year publication with an annual report format. The first will be received around December 2012.
• Elected officers for the coming year—Ed Liccione, chairman; Lew Armistead, vice chairman; Larry Jennings, secretary; Erica Kirby, treasurer; Trent Zivkovich, chair, Government Relations Committee; and Shawn Kimbro, vice chair, Government Relations Committee.
• Elected 44 members to the Board of Directors with staggered terms ranging from one to three years. Once an individual’s term is ended, he or she will be eligible to be re-elected.
“As a Board, we have a responsibility to be stewards of the association’s finances,” said Liccione. “After studying usage of our office space for more than a year, the Management Committee determined that there’s little use of the office other than for storage space and a few meetings. We can meet those needs without our current office and save a considerable amount of money.
“While the elimination of one issue of Chesapeake Tide will also result in a cost savings (approximately $3,000 annually), the decision was primarily made because our electronic communications have expanded and are providing information in a timelier manner.”
With the greater reliance on Tightlines members receiving this issue are asked to urge other members to make sure their email address is current to assure they also get the newsletter. To do this, please email info@ccamd.org with the subject line "add me to email list".
Give the gift of conservation
Give CCA for the holidays
Stumped on what gifts to give during the upcoming holiday season? Consider a membership in the Coastal Conservation Association for recreational anglers or those concerned about the Chesapeake Bay. CCA National will send an electronic holiday card informing the recipient of your gift. For more information, see https://www.ccamembership.org/holiday-gifts/.


===Hey Shawn --Lets Go Home!!!-- http://youtu.be/elJ8-S9inKg

www.adeale.com

Last edited by gullfinder; 11-28-2011 at 09:17 PM. Reason: wanted to--TIME CHECK
Old 11-29-2011, 07:38 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colonial Beach, Virginia
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

I contacted the Potomac River Fisheries Comission to ask why they, as an organization, voted against decreasing the catch of Menhaden in the Ches. Bay and along the East coast (more menhaden in the bay means more in the Potomac river). I spoke to one of the Secretaries (not an office secretary) of the organization and the person who actually cast the No vote. The Secretary stated to me that there were 8 board members and four of them instructed him to vote against the reduction without any explanation. He was very guarded when he spoke and would not identify the four board members. Makes no sense to me. I do not see the comission doing much. If you have a few minutes please call the comission and voice your concerns about their No vote. More Menhaden will help us all. The numbers are 804-224-2712 and 800-266-3904. Ask a few questions and see what you get. They are good at doubletalk and will not answer your question. Omega Protein out of Reedville Va is the primary commercial company benefitting from the Menhaden catch.
Old 11-29-2011, 08:31 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,409
Received 23 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Big Fish Little Fish View Post
I contacted the Potomac River Fisheries Comission to ask why they, as an organization, voted against decreasing the catch of Menhaden in the Ches. Bay and along the East coast (more menhaden in the bay means more in the Potomac river). I spoke to one of the Secretaries (not an office secretary) of the organization and the person who actually cast the No vote. The Secretary stated to me that there were 8 board members and four of them instructed him to vote against the reduction without any explanation. He was very guarded when he spoke and would not identify the four board members. Makes no sense to me. I do not see the comission doing much. If you have a few minutes please call the comission and voice your concerns about their No vote. More Menhaden will help us all. The numbers are 804-224-2712 and 800-266-3904. Ask a few questions and see what you get. They are good at doubletalk and will not answer your question. Omega Protein out of Reedville Va is the primary commercial company benefitting from the Menhaden catch.
They voted no because of the bait fishery in Maryland and Virginia.

As of now the bait fishery stands to take the same reduction as Omega.

It could put people out of work, that don't have anything to do with Omega.

"The Government Relations Committee recently affirmed its position calling for those who benefit from a fishery having to pay the costs of management of that fishery."
As far as the commercial guys paying for enforcement because they reap a monetary benefit. That is a very slippery slope.

Will it stop with the boat builders who sell boats, that are used for fishing? They get a monetary gain.

Will it stop with the lure makers? They get a monetary gain.

Will it stop with "insert trickle down effect here"?

Last edited by reds; 11-29-2011 at 08:45 AM.
Old 11-29-2011, 10:28 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Deale, Md.
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by reds View Post
They voted no because of the bait fishery in Maryland and Virginia.

As of now the bait fishery stands to take the same reduction as Omega.

It could put people out of work, that don't have anything to do with Omega.

"The Government Relations Committee recently affirmed its position calling for those who benefit from a fishery having to pay the costs of management of that fishery."
As far as the commercial guys paying for enforcement because they reap a monetary benefit. That is a very slippery slope.

Will it stop with the boat builders who sell boats, that are used for fishing? They get a monetary gain.

Will it stop with the lure makers? They get a monetary gain.

Will it stop with "insert trickle down effect here"?
--Capt. If ya got chance call me on the Pond --Or Home 5656
Old 11-29-2011, 10:53 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by reds View Post
They voted no because of the bait fishery in Maryland and Virginia.

As of now the bait fishery stands to take the same reduction as Omega.

It could put people out of work, that don't have anything to do with Omega.

"The Government Relations Committee recently affirmed its position calling for those who benefit from a fishery having to pay the costs of management of that fishery."
As far as the commercial guys paying for enforcement because they reap a monetary benefit. That is a very slippery slope.

Will it stop with the boat builders who sell boats, that are used for fishing? They get a monetary gain.

Will it stop with the lure makers? They get a monetary gain.

Will it stop with "insert trickle down effect here"?
Sorry but you should use the exact quote not the summarized quote. It is not a slippery slope. You should have to pay to play. Same as everything else in life.

“CCA Maryland strongly believes the user and financial beneficiary of the fishery should bear the responsibility for its management costs. If that can’t be done and taxpayers or recreational anglers are asked to continue covering that shortfall, then we believe the gill net fishery must be ended in favor of other fishing methods that can be shown to be manageable, accountable and enforceable.”
Old 11-29-2011, 03:10 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,409
Received 23 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by straps57 View Post
Sorry but you should use the exact quote not the summarized quote. It is not a slippery slope. You should have to pay to play. Same as everything else in life.

“CCA Maryland strongly believes the user and financial beneficiary of the fishery should bear the responsibility for its management costs. If that can’t be done and taxpayers or recreational anglers are asked to continue covering that shortfall, then we believe the gill net fishery must be ended in favor of other fishing methods that can be shown to be manageable, accountable and enforceable.”

Management costs for all fisheries are covered by taxpayers. That means the rec fisherman also. CCA is trying to open the door for a pay as you go fishery, which will means "only the rich rec fisherman will fish". Anything dumped on one user group, won't stand the test.

The numbers presented by the DNR are guesstimates at best.
Old 11-29-2011, 06:26 PM
  #7  
zam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: baltimore, maryland usa
Posts: 1,510
Received 45 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

The CCA trys any dirty trick in the book to try to stop Commercial fishing so their fishing can be easier, they really make me feel ashamed to be a rec sometimes. trying to ban nets by claiming that tax payers pay for enforcement is stupid, with that logic you could ban recreational fishing to. everyone pays taxes recs, coms and the American people that choose to buy fish from the store instead of harvesting them theirself. Im sure the enforcement costs are much higher for recs
Old 11-30-2011, 06:10 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colonial Beach, Virginia
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

What do you do when a company like Omega Protean takes a large percent of the Menhaden catch and it adversely affects the region. Just because they pay taxes they should not be able to take millions of pounds of fish. I cannot do it. As an example I am allowed only 2 rockfish of a certain size per day and how and when I catch it is regulated. I may not catch any today. I seriously doubt Omega Protean ever comes back with an empty boat. The way they catch is rigged so it is not fishing, it is scooping. Oysterman overfished what were left of the oysters, rockfish were overfished until they put a stop to that, crab are way low compared to years ago (not two years ago). Why not get rid of all nets in the bay and rivers in the area until the fish rebound. Nets and the efficiency of the commercial boats are compounding the problems in the bay. Commercial fishing in the bay and rivers is dying and will be gone in 10 years. The place is over harvested. Don't need the scientific mumbo jumbo. Unless you know where to go you cannot catch a fish. Not like it use to be when I was a kid. Just my opinion.
Old 12-01-2011, 06:05 AM
  #9  
Senior Member (used to be B-Faithful)Captains Club MemberPLEDGER Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 18,097
Received 1,996 Likes on 1,010 Posts
Default

Bottom line is that Maryland has an evident poaching problem as it pertains to commercial net fisheries on the bay. The incidents are resulting in "egregious" illegal hauls over the last decade or more. It is clear that with current funding that DNR cannot effectively control or enforce our commercial fisheries. The vast majority of DNR's budget comes from license and fee money and 80% of that revenue comes from recreational fishing. This doesnt include the 10% excise tax on recreational fishing gear that is said to go back to the states towards the science of managing our fisheries. DNR has even declared that they have about a 750k in managing the gillnet fishery under current management efforts (does not include stepping up enforcement). Therefore much of this deficit is being covered with recreational fishing revenue. What do you do to better manage and enforce this industry?

Do you try to get general funds at a time when our state already has financial shortfall issues?
Do you increase license and fees?
Do you tax the fish going out of state?
What do you do?

Recreational anglers are tired of supporting an industry that takes from them and is seemingly uncontrollable. Rec dollars need to be spent on enhansing and better enforcing rec fisheries. Status quo is not acceptable either..

Last edited by iFishMD; 12-01-2011 at 07:52 AM.
Old 12-01-2011, 08:47 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Deale, Md.
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Lightbulb What to do --ABOut the winter UNDERTOW from Annapolis

Originally Posted by B-Faithful View Post
Bottom line is that Maryland has an evident poaching problem as it pertains to commercial net fisheries on the bay. The incidents are resulting in "egregious" illegal hauls over the last decade or more. It is clear that with current funding that DNR cannot effectively control or enforce our commercial fisheries. The vast majority of DNR's budget comes from license and fee money and 80% of that revenue comes from recreational fishing. This doesnt include the 10% excise tax on recreational fishing gear that is said to go back to the states towards the science of managing our fisheries. DNR has even declared that they have about a 750k in managing the gillnet fishery under current management efforts (does not include stepping up enforcement). Therefore much of this deficit is being covered with recreational fishing revenue. What do you do to better manage and enforce this industry?

Do you try to get general funds at a time when our state already has financial shortfall issues?
Do you increase license and fees?
Do you tax the fish going out of state?
What do you do?

Recreational anglers are tired of supporting an industry that takes from them and is seemingly uncontrollable. Rec dollars need to be spent on enhansing and better enforcing rec fisheries. Status quo is not acceptable either..
----Continue in your personal Business Endevors, Sell Judge Yachts & let the Netters Work this Winter to Keep the Wolfves from the Door of Thier Homes --Thier Familes need cash to feed em, the Truck & Boat Payments,Fuel dock, the SLIP RENTS comes due in Jan, Not for a Month but FOR a year it may be as high as 5,000.oo--Utility bills , Heating bills --The Fishery is controled by a three way split of TOTAL Yearly State Poundage-- hearing (11-30-11)--1/3 rd to -gill netter ,1/3rd to the pound netter & H&L his 1/3rd--Let em fish thirer 1/3rd ---If , I may Readerate if you kill the winter gill nets & move ALL the allotment to H&L as Brandon wants THIS will Happen

--Watermen will become Charterboat Captains-Then this warm weather industry in Md. will be Glutted --A fishing boat is nothing more than a Platform to fish off of --Commercial Deadrises will become charter boats in a LOWER COST BRACKET as to trip charging --Watermen Know the Bay like you know your Back Porch & will produce WELL--The Public will go the Cheaper route & leave the Shiny 200,000 Judges & Robbins between the poles--They already have the required STATE Linceses--all they need is a sea school course --

---Live & Let Live , we in the Rec. Fishery ( Rec.& Charter) have our own problems to solve -just a thought from the Deale Pulpit -;?-geo
Old 12-02-2011, 10:43 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colonial Beach, Virginia
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

More of the not in my backyard attitude. As a rec fisherman I would be willing to stop fishing for a period of time in order to allow the stocks in the bay to replenish naturally. The commercial guys will give the arguement that it is their livelyhood. The stocks of fish/crab/oyster are so low now that some will never be able to return to previous levels. You can do something now for a few years or do it forever in 10. Commercial guys had better come up with a plan B as plan A is not sustainable. As for myself, I will not be going into the commercial fishing industry.

Last edited by Big Fish Little Fish; 12-08-2011 at 01:11 PM.
Old 12-02-2011, 12:10 PM
  #12  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,936
Received 717 Likes on 335 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by B-Faithful View Post
Bottom line is that Maryland has an evident poaching problem as it pertains to commercial net fisheries on the bay. The incidents are resulting in "egregious" illegal hauls over the last decade or more. It is clear that with current funding that DNR cannot effectively control or enforce our commercial fisheries. The vast majority of DNR's budget comes from license and fee money and 80% of that revenue comes from recreational fishing. This doesnt include the 10% excise tax on recreational fishing gear that is said to go back to the states towards the science of managing our fisheries. DNR has even declared that they have about a 750k in managing the gillnet fishery under current management efforts (does not include stepping up enforcement). Therefore much of this deficit is being covered with recreational fishing revenue. What do you do to better manage and enforce this industry?

Do you try to get general funds at a time when our state already has financial shortfall issues?
Do you increase license and fees?
Do you tax the fish going out of state?
What do you do?

Recreational anglers are tired of supporting an industry that takes from them and is seemingly uncontrollable. Rec dollars need to be spent on enhansing and better enforcing rec fisheries. Status quo is not acceptable either..
Greg, kindly allow me to point-out that you are making assumptions and presenting statements as facts when you are unable to support your positions with factual information. Your arguements are based upon emotions ....not facts.

1) Yes, MD has a problem with illegal commercial fishing. Maryland also has a problem with illegal recreational fishing. The "take" from illegal recreational fishing is higher than commercial fishing. Do you want to deny this?

2) You said "It is clear that with current funding that DNR cannot effectively control or enforce our commercial fisheries" ...... why do you say this? Do you know of some cuts within the enforcement division that has directly resulted in fewer marine patrols in February in 2011 compared to previous years?

But I'll play this game ........ Do you think that an additional $500k will result in better enforcement? And if so, where should this enforcement $$ be best spent? Should it be spent on enforcing regulations trying to catch 10 illegal commercial gill netters working at 2am in February or better spent trying to enforce regulations on 10,000 recraetional anglers? If DNR really wanted to invest $100,000 to search 2,000 square miles of open water at 2am in the months of January and February trying to find 10 boats that may be selling an illegal gill net ..... how would you propose this be done? Does the DNR even have the equipment to make such a search? Maybe using a Bell Jet Ranger with the pilot's equipped with night-vision googles? Maybe use a thermal-detecting camera? Or would you be happier if the MD DNR simply used heat-seeking "Sidewinder" missles launched from an F-16?

And for your reference I attached the 2011 MD DNR Budget worksheet. You'll see that the DNR's budget went UP 7.7%. And you will also see, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, the MD DNR does not consider the illegal gillnetting seen in 2011 to be a widespread problem. More research will investigate.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/budge..._Resources.pdf


I'd recommend that all the you get off the soap-box and stop using the unfortunate events in 2011 as a pulput to advance an agenda. This anti-commercial fishing position is starting to sound like our much hated liberal Rahn Emanual when he said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste". Only in this case, the recreational fishermen are inflating a crisis and Rahn was referring to a mean for creating a larger gov't on the fear of people's uncertainty.

Last edited by chrisrack; 12-02-2011 at 12:56 PM.
Old 12-02-2011, 12:26 PM
  #13  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,936
Received 717 Likes on 335 Posts
Default

Here's Rahm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

Greg - Your argument sounds like it was taken from Rahm's playbook.

Last edited by chrisrack; 12-02-2011 at 12:57 PM.
Old 12-02-2011, 12:32 PM
  #14  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Castle Haven, MD
Posts: 1,623
Received 120 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

Amen, Chris.

Made the point on TF that I never trust numbers from people that are always begging for more money.

Good research, I was too lazy. I like Greg, but some of his cohorts in the anti-comm debate sound like they should be working for the Waterkeepers or Greenpeace - if we say it it's true.
Old 12-03-2011, 11:09 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Deale, Md.
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Question A Offer for Mannass Park fisherman

Originally Posted by Big Fish Little Fish View Post
More of the not in my backyard attitude. As a rec fisherman I would be willing to stop fishing for a period of time in order to allow the stocks in the bay to replenish naturally. The commercial guys will give the arguement that it is their livelyhood. The stocks of fish/crab/oyster are so low now that some will never be able to return to previous levels. You can do something now for a few years or do it forever in 10. Commercial guys had better come of with a plan B as plan A is not sustainable. As for myself, I will not be going into the commercial fishing industry.
---I got a 40' Robbins needs a weekend capt. --Apparently ya love the chesapeake like me -If intrested , consider Sea School this winter & getting your 6 pac licence ---Call or e- mail me --Only 1 hr from M P to Deale--;? www.audaciousfishingcharters.com

Last edited by gullfinder; 12-05-2011 at 05:54 PM. Reason: wanted to
Old 12-03-2011, 06:09 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colonial Beach, Virginia
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Now how am I going to run the river all summer for myself if Im working for you.
Old 12-04-2011, 12:05 AM
  #17  
Senior Member (used to be B-Faithful)Captains Club MemberPLEDGER Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 18,097
Received 1,996 Likes on 1,010 Posts
Default

I just got back from Philly and it is late so I will be a short as possible.

Chris, you act like this past winter was the first time these egregious hauls have taken place. These problems have been taken place for more than a decade. Heck the winter of 2010 shows that there was a bust of 9.3miles of illegal nets found off of Rockhall in one sting operation. These finds are even occuring after the feds came in and embarrassed our state with an 8 year investigation that showed millions of lbs of illegally harvested fish. This problem is not new this year. It is just finally getting more press and stakeholder outrage.

I am not sure throwing more money at the problem is the solution to the problem. However more men on the water would go a long way though. I do know that ~$550+k of monies designated for recreational fishing is being used to attempt to regulate a fishery that is seemingly uncontrollable and that is putting recreational fishing in the Chesapeake Bay in jeapordy. (There is strong support growing for greater reductions on striped bass fisheries and the northern states were even trying to push for more than a 50% reduction on Maryland anglers. While it failed this time, the issue is not dead and it will arise again.. http://www.baltimoresun.com/features...,3724124.story ) This inappropriate use of money is unacceptable as is status quo to egregious illegal hauls.

I also am not sure who I am being lumped in with and why but will make my positon clear. I am NOT antiwatermen. I am very pro-recreational fishing and am a strong recreational fishing rights advocate. I am active in both the MSSA and RFA. My goals and interest solely revolve around protecting and enhancing the sportfishing opportunities in our state. I believe our allocation policies for striped bass are out of whack with the needs of the state and does not maximize the use of the resource well for our state. (basically we sell our fish out of state for cheap while other states enjoy much greater striped bass fisheries - and our bay rec fishery is nearly dependant upon the species) I also believe the lack of management of our commercial fisheries has left us prone to egregious illegal hauls that jeapordizes all other uses of the resource, particularly recreational fishing. I also do not believe the cost of management for a wealth-extracting industry should fall on the backs of recreational fishing and the industries that support us. I base much of my beliefs on strong politically conservative principles. (ie. individual freedoms and economic self-sufficiency)

Now you tell me, how can DNR meet ALL its objectives: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries...evisedPres.pdf

Last edited by iFishMD; 12-04-2011 at 11:07 AM.
Old 12-04-2011, 05:38 AM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Waco, TX 76706
Posts: 2,578
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

No reason not to increase commercial license fees, but if the poaching is really as bad as depicted, then the penalties for it are not stiff enough. Sink their boats and jail them, that is likely the only way to put a stop to it.
Old 12-04-2011, 04:46 PM
  #19  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Castle Haven, MD
Posts: 1,623
Received 120 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

Was at the marina Saturday when a crabber came in. Had a Ches. Bay umbrella rig with 5 hooks in the shads that was on his crab pot lines.

He wasn't crabbing in VA.

Not a comm. Recs need corraling too.
Old 12-05-2011, 05:21 AM
  #20  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,936
Received 717 Likes on 335 Posts
Default

I don't question this Greg. Illegal commercial and illegial recreational fishing ahs been going on in the Chesapeake Bay since the mid-1800's when the 1st game law was established.


Budget: Your argument regarding the budget for managing bass is getting into a great deal of assumptions and speculations here Greg. As someone who had been at the "head table" of these State Fish and Wildlide budget discussions, I can assure you with great confidence that these estimated dollar amounts given to you by the MDNR are inflated to present the best argument for "increase my budget". The is no clear evidence that recreational dollars are supporting recreational angling (general tax dollars also support recreational angling) by the same token recreational anglers are not supporting commercial angling by any level of clarity. The REAL ISSUE here is the illegal take of rockfish in the Bay. This needs to be better addressed. What the liberal-leaning State of MD is attempting to do is take advantage of a bad situation created by a handful of commercial anglers by creating a financial hardship for all such that their occupation becomes so costly and so burdensome that they just give-up.

You make a comment Greg:

Chris, you act like this past winter was the first time these egregious hauls have taken place. These problems have been taken place for more than a decade. Heck the winter of 2010 shows that there was a bust of 9.3miles of illegal nets found off of Rockhall in one sting operation. These finds are even occuring after the feds came in and embarrassed our state with an 8 year investigation that showed millions of lbs of illegally harvested fish. You are correct Greg. The commercial watermen who are setting these illegal nets should be held accountable. I'd even support a "one-strike-your-out" rule. Illegal harvest of rockfish has been taking palce for years by both recreational and commercial anglers. But where did you come up with the figure of "millions of pounds of illegally harvested fish". I've never seen a figure higher than 50,000lbs. The State reports only 30,000 lbs.



I also believe the lack of management of our commercial fisheries has left us prone to egregious illegal hauls that jeapordizes all other uses of the resource, particularly recreational fishing. I also do not believe the cost of management for a wealth-extracting industry should fall on the backs of recreational fishing and the industries that support us. I base much of my beliefs on strong politically conservative principles. (ie. individual freedoms and economic self-sufficiency)You are making way too many assumptions here Greg. It's NOT the lack of management that resulted in the handful of illegal gill nets last winter..... it was the act of a few illegal watermen that decided to evade the law. Again, we still haven't proven or clear demonstrated that the cost of commercial-enforcement is being absorbed by the recreational anglers.

Last edited by chrisrack; 12-05-2011 at 05:33 AM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.