Report: MA gamefish bill meeting

[DarkSkies]

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

















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". 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.

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.

[DarkSkies]

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.

*************************



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:




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."

[DarkSkies]

2. Rep Karyn E Polito: (Representing Recs)






She spoke in support of recreational fishermen in her district, saying that the bill would be a win for the Commonwealth. She stated that approx $90MM was brought into MA revenues each year by recreational fishing and related activities.


Here's a copy of her supporting argument letter below.

[DarkSkies]

3. Rep Clive Turner: (Representing Comms)
" Bass fishing is the backbone of commerce in my district. Many of my constituents will be negatively impacted if you pass this bill. I do not support it."

[DarkSkies]

4. Senator O'Leary: (Representing Comms)

"I'm against this bill. There is too much legislation regarding striped bass as it is. I realize there are some concerns, some competing perspectives.

We're not at a point where we need to intervene - leave it up to the NMFS.

Why target the commercial people as the focus of this problem? The problem may be bigger than this, and it isn't fair to put the blame squarely on their shoulders."

[DarkSkies]

5. Representative Peaks: (Representing Comms)




Note: Representative Peaks is the MA state representative to the ASMFC

"This bill will serve no meaningful conservation purpose. This will put a negative impact on tourism.

The bill falls more reasonably under the ASMFC auspices.

If it's about the science - I can tell you the striped bass stock has been successfully rebuilt according to the statistics. Striped bass recovery is the biggest fish recovery success story ever, and there is no danger at all now.

As for Mortality -- 81% of the fishing mortality is attributable to the Recs, only 19% to the Comms. The segment of the industry that is killing the most bass is the Recreational fishermen.

Commercial fishermen are facing tough times. These people will be put out of business if this bill is passed. There will be a large ripple effect in the local seaside economies.

Negative impact on tourism - Restaurant owners in my district claim that people "plan thier vacations around coming to the Cape to eat wild striped bass. They will not come to our state to vacation any more if they can't eat their wild striped bass."

[DarkSkies]

6. Representative Matthew Patrick: (Representing Recs) from Bourne, Mashpee, Barnstable





"The overall biomass is not down, but breeding females are down as a % of this total number.

We have seen a decline in breeding females. Females are always the biggest fish when you are talking about bass larger than 30". That is why it's necessary to protect them.

During the Moratorium put in place by the lower states, the Chesapeake Bay stocks had crashed because large females were aggressively targeted by anglers.

I am a fisherman, and have some experience fishing for striped bass.

Striped bass represent a billion dollars yearly of revenue in MA, if you look at all the aggregate economic activity generated by Recreational anglers here and elsewhere coming to fish for them.

Commercial fishing represents about $24 million of yearly revenue based on the aggregate effect.

The business of fishing and its related industries is either the largest or 2nd largest revenue stream in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This bill represents a "starting point" Don't leave it up to the DMF. They were the ones in charge many years ago when the stocks collapsed.

We cannot sustain a collapse of this magnitude again.

Some studies and results have shown - (documents available for the committee's review)
a. Consistently taking large fish changes the gene pool. Bigger fish are genetically superior, and there is some concern that eliminating them or reducing their numbers encourages less genetically fit fish to become a bigger part of the biomass.

b. 3000 Commercial permits were taken out in 2008, at a fee of $65. Of those 3000, only 1207 permit holders reported catching any fish. It is my understanding that they do this to ensure a consistent portion of quota is given to commercial fishermen.

c. Advisory warnings - several states now have advisory warnings against women and children eating too many striped bass because the larger ones have higher PCB concentrations.

I am not a man who wants to put these commercial fishermen out of work. I don't want to see their livelihood taken away. If there was a way to restrict fishing in some way by contacting the DMF and restricting commercial fishermen from harvesting big females and still allowing them to fish, I would be all for it.

I would also bring your attention to the Southwick study publicized by StripersForever. The goal of all of us should be to look at the breeding females and figure out how to protect them.

Here are my recommendations in addition to supporting this bill:
1. Figure out a way to save the spawning females.
2. Find a way to buy out commercial fishermen so they are not financially impacted if we pass this gamefish bill.
3. I would like to see a slot fish limit of 20-26", and the number of keeper bass reduced from 2 to 1. "

[BassBuddah]

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.

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 are 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.

The political landscape is harsh and confusing for lots of folks. That may be why many don't get involved. I think your presentation was very fair and accurate. Thanks for breaking it up with the pictures Dark.