5 Attachment(s)
Report: MA gamefish bill meeting
I got back late last night, after being at the meeting from 11am-4pm yesterday. It was interesting to see how everyone interacted and observe the political process first-hand.
I'll try to have the complete report up by 12 noon today as I go through my notes and get a chance to post up with the pics I took.
Here's a tip:
Most of it will be boring. To those who were speaking however, it was their shot to be heard. Everyone who wanted to speak got a chance. :thumbsup:
The posting will be here for a historical record, and may be more lengthy than you're used to seeing me post. :eek:
If you want to understand just the basic points of the outline, skip to the end. ;)
Remember, people...you heard it here first. I'll also post up the same thing on www.stripercoastsurfcasters.com in their public forums for anyone who isn't a member here and can't view the pics here at www.stripersandanglers.com. :HappyWave:
Pics of the MA Assembly, the Great Hall:
Attachment 9291
Attachment 9292
Attachment 9293
Attachment 9294
Attachment 9295
6 Attachment(s)
Background and summary of speakers
The room was packed beyond belief, SRO crowd. :scared: There were 4 bench areas that each seated approx 20 people, accounting for about 80. There were another 60-80 people ringing the perimeter, and stacked up on the sides.
[The pics are poor due to the bad indoor lighting. I took them without flash. ]
Attachment 9296
Attachment 9297
Attachment 9298
Attachment 9299
Attachment 9300
Attachment 9301
In all, I estimated 130-160 spectators/participants in the 40x20' room. Of that amount, some were before the Assembly on other matters. It would be fair to say that around 100-120 people were there on the striped bass matter. I could be off a little on my estimates.
If you ran into such a concentration of bass in the outside world, ya might say they were "stacked like cordwood". :lookhappy:
They summarized the language of the bill HB796, An Act Relative to the Conservation of Atlantic Striped Bass. This was originally presented to the Assembly for the first time in Jan 2009.
The first part of the day's sessions consisted of the Representatives and Senators speaking about this Bill, either For or Against.
It became apparent from the very start that there were a lot of strong viewpoints on each side. There was definitely some hostile tension and bad feelings. To the credit of each side, both opposing groups managed to maintain a civil manner, and only had to be admonished by the Chairman once when things got a little loud. :thumbsup:
4 Attachment(s)
Senator and Representative testimony - who represents who
The panel:
Rep William Strauss (chair)
Sen Anthony Petrucelli (co-chair)
Rep Carolyn C Dykema
Rep Timothy R Madden
Rep Ann Margaret Ferrante
Sen Bruce E Tarr
Attachment 9302
Attachment 9303
Attachment 9304
Attachment 9305
Since I don't live in Mass, I tried to be as impartial as possible. Many know I have strong opinions and might wonder if thats possible. Notice I said "as impartial as possible". :lookhappy: I originally went there to speak out in support of the bill. After I heard the implications, I had some reservations.
Actually, I have some real questions about the testimony presented on both sides. It bugs me that so many only wanted to see their side of things, and refused to consider the position of the other side.
In the end, I realized that's what our representatives, fishing organizations, and lobbyists are for. It seems like dirty politics, but that's how things are run in this world. :kooky:
They listen to our opinions, and then decide among themselves behind closed doors. Our job as voters is to decide who best represents our interests, and then lobby that politician with letters, campaign donations, or donations to a group that can represent us en masse. Otherwise, gov't politely listens, but they are mostly listening to their Constituents.
Constituents as a bloc have the most power in getting politicians' attention because they are the key group that, when mad enough, can vote a politician IN, or OUT OF, office.
I'll be trying to present a fair and balanced paraphrasal of peoples' statements here. I hope my biases don't show through too much. I understand each politician has a self-preservation interest to represent the voters in their district. They're just doing the best to maintain job security, like everyone else.
I will try to point out which politicians seemed more favorable to recreational fishermen, without seeming to endorse a certain politician. You guys and girls in MA have to keep yourselves informed and make your own decisions.
2 Attachment(s)
Speaker summaries: Senators and Representatives
As mentioned, all these came from my notes, paraphrased as accurately as I could. With these and the Spectator summaries, if anyone at any time has any corrections that need to be made in spelling of names or accuracy of testimony, feel free to contact me and I'll be glad to edit.
*************************
Attachment 9306
1. Rep Peaks: (Spearfishermen might be interested in this)
She first got up to support several spearfishermen in her district who are inconvenienced by the restrictions MA has placed on spearfishermen. They're going to Rhode Island to spearfish. They want the language changed so they don't have to do that. I think the bill was HB799.
Spectator supporters:
Attachment 9307
Face Winston and the Mass Freedivers club got up to speak.
"Spearfishing is sensible, respectable, and has very little bycatch. It's allowed in other states, but not MA. Please consider allowing it here."
2 Attachment(s)
**** Russell, author of striper wars
**** Russel wrote the book Striper Wars. I think it was published in 2005, chronicling the timeline.
Attachment 9256
One of the chapters in there is dedicated to Bob Pond. :thumbsup: A little about his book:
Attachment 9257
[Mr. Pond, a resident of Attleboro and North Attleboro, was an avid fisherman who revolutionized striped bass fishing in the 1940s after discovering a method for catching the fish on the surface. He turned his knowledge into a business manufacturing multi-hooked swimming lures that the game fish found irresistible.
His Attleboro-based Atom Manufacturing cranked out wooden and plastic lures beginning in 1945 and continuing after he sold the business in 1998.
Mr. Pond was also a visionary in conservation, pointing out the threat to the fish from coastal fish traps and diseases.
Founder of the conservation group Stripers Unlimited, Pond's work, alongside that of the late Rhode Island Sen. John Chafee, is widely credited with helping save striped bass from extinction along the East Coast.
Mr. Pond persisted in his efforts despite being scoffed at by many sportsmen and scientists. Today, bass fishing constitutes a $1 billion a year business, said New York writer Frank Pintauro, who noted that Pond's vision helped open America's coastlines to a new, populist sport.
"At the end of World War II, when America's beaches were becoming a playground for everyman, rather than just the wealthy, Bob was a pioneer lure maker for what some have called the golden age of surf-casting," he said. "He was an extraordinary guy."
So influential was Mr. Pond's role in molding the sport, that some of his original lures have fetched up to $750 apiece from collectors.
But Mr. Pond's efforts in awakening the need for conservation is perhaps his most important legacy.
"Bob Pond was way out ahead of all the experts in sounding the alarm in the 1960s about dangers facing the striped bass, and without his tireless efforts on this magnificent fish's behalf, we wouldn't be out there catching them today," said **** Russell, environmental journalist and author of "Striper Wars: An American Fish Story. "He was a pioneer in ocean conservation, long before the impacts of overfishing and coastal pollution became topics of widespread concern." Russell's book contains a chapter about Pond's work. ]
***************************************
I didn't get a chance to personally meet Mr Russell or any of the other sf guys.
However, I did read up on some of his articles. I thought they made sense. I also looked for a hidden agenda. I went to his web site and looked for any PETA or PEW Trust affiliations. I can tell you that if I found any of those, I wouldn't be talking about him here.
I did read that he was an "environmentalist". :huh:
I don't like that term, and don't consciously associate with anyone who's described like that. I feel I have nothing in common with tree huggers.
Even though I care deeply about striped bass, I would never want to be labeled an environmentalist. The word has too many elite connotations for me. :laugh:
Anyone who can share anything else about Mr Russell, positive or negative, please let me know.
Here's a link to his site. It talks about how he was involved in striped bass conservation in the 1980's when the stocks collapsed. If he still has the same passion for striped bass 25 years after the stocks collapsed and were brought back, I have to give him some credit:
His testimony and statement:
http://www.dickrussell.org/index.htm
Saving stripers will require tighter net of regulations 2-6-09
http://www.dickrussell.org/articles/savingstripers.htm
Striped bass in trouble again? 12-13-08
http://www.dickrussell.org/articles/trouble.htm
The phone calls and PMs keep me going
VSDreams, I honestly spend way too much time on these issues. What pushes me is there are many out there who don't know any of this stuff, because it's never been presented to them before.
I want to give it my best effort. My energies are fueled by the countless phone calls and PMs I get thanking me for trying. :HappyWave:
Many of those contacting me are old-timers, who have seen this happen once, and see the potential of it happening again. Quite a few of them are tired of fighting. A general consensus among a lot of old timers I know and a lot of other fishermen is that we might as well ignore this. They feel another moratorium is inevitable given all the fighting we recreational fishermen do. They feel things will get shut down anyway, what's the use of trying?
Sometimes I wonder if in the grand scheme of things if it's worth it? Why fight a growing trend of anglers who don't want to believe it unless they see it before their very eyes? :don't know why:
My answer:
It's the phone calls and PMs. I thank you guys for that. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Thanks to all who keep pushing me, even the grouchy ones. :laugh: :HappyWave:
The wrap-up and my analysis
I tried to be as fair and impartial as I could here. Those who know me know I have a problem with people who feel the law is written for others to follow, and not them.
I realize the majority of commercial fishermen, and recreationals, are honest and want to follow the laws.
However, I know of both recs and comms who have very creative ways of disregarding the laws and getting away with it. This becomes a bigger problem where you have an activity like fishing, where it's very difficult to have universal compliance.
There aren't enough officers in the field. People who disregard the law regularly know they have a slim chance of getting caught for fishing violations. The fines are so small that it's almost worth it to cheat for the dishonest ones. They view it as the cost of doing business. :don't know why:
These are some of the questions that arose for the state of MA, based on the responses from both sides:
1. Negative tourism impact from closing down commercial fishing.
I think this is a poor argument, and simply can't be supported by the numbers. Look at any of the other states that have shut comm fishing down. I don't believe any of them have been economically harmed by it, in terms of aggregate dollars coming into the state from fishing.
2. People have to eat wild striped bass or they won't come to MA.
I don't think that argument holds water. Mass is a beautiful state, and a preferred destination for many families. There might be some unhappy people. I would bet that it wouldn't change net tourism dollar inflow or tourism traffic into the state if this were changed.
3. The striped bass stock is sustainable.
I heard that phrase so many times by Comms my head was spinning. :kooky:
IMO the problem with the concept of sustainability is that they use MSY as a benchmark. Simplified, that means that they are managing the resource for the "hypothesized" maximum yield that won't cause the biomass numbers to go down.
Fisheries terms explained here:
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...ead.php?t=5533
This is faulty science, people. It's attributable to the management practices of the NMFS, ASMFC, and NOAA. The way to realistically manage the biomass for future growth is complex. It would require a series of newer calculations, such as predicted entrants into the fishing world, growth of that unknown number, and the variance and standard deviation of that growth rate.
It becomes complicated when you consider all the other variables that can affect fishing results, such as weather, bait migration, etc, etc. So it's not clear how these variables are factored into the equation.
Fisheries management is also a fallacy if you don't look at the global biomasses of inter-dependent species when making these decisions.
Simply repeating a mantra that:
The numbers are screwed up because they don't take into account a,b,c, d, e, and f...gets us nowhere.
I don't have the answers for that. I wanted to make note of it for the historical record.
4. The big bass are all offshore because that's where the bait is:
I hear this so many times from people it causes my head to spin as well. :rolleyes:
If that were empirically true, then every time you had large schools of bait, you would consistently find good numbers of large bass underneath. Although other bait will be targeted, bunker are the preferred food source for the biggest bass because they're the easiest meal.
Big bass are lazy, ask author H Bruce Franklin. The charter boat guys and professional fishermen know this as well, and that's why they'll get their biggest bass near high bait concentrations.
Also, this statement that the bass are where the bait is in MA, should be always true for large concentrations in any state, if the biomass and numbers of large bass are statistically accurate. That simply was not true last year for NJ. At times, with water temps being optimal, there were miles of bunker schools off the coast of NJ, with only a few big bass under them.
That to me indicates a problem. There will always be a Captain who claims they found bass anyway.
This goes to the M&M theory, where of course the biggest bass will always be found in the middle of the highest bait concentrations. The important indicator of a stock's health is the edges of the bowl, representing its geographic range, and not just a few hot spots in the middle.
M&M theory explained here:
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...p?t=760&page=5
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...p?t=760&page=7