Nrp charges four tilghman island men with oyster poaching - dnr news release

[Martin Gary]

Released from our communications office Friday:

Contact: Sgt. A.A. Windemuth
410-260-8003 office
410-713-8449 cell
awindemuth@dnr.state.md.us


NRP CHARGES FOUR TILGHMAN ISLAND MEN WITH OYSTER POACHING
Annapolis, Maryland (January 28, 2010) – Maryland Natural Resources Police (NRP) have charged Bartlett Wade Murphy Jr., 36; Edward Bruce Lowery Jr., 45; Bobby Lee Gowe, 25; and Richard Nicholas Fluharty, 24, all from Tilghman, Md., with Oyster poaching related charges.

NRP officers were patrolling Broad Creek in Talbot County in an open patrol boat at 1:30 a.m. on January 21 when they discovered four watermen on two vessels illegally power dredging for oysters.

The poachers were working with their navigation lights off in order to avoid detection, but NRP officers were able to observe their illicit activity with night vision goggles. As the NRP officers approached the closest vessel, “Lady Katie”, they found two men culling oysters with lights strapped to their heads to illuminate the boat’s deck and working area. The watermen on the vessel were identified as Murphy and Lowery. The “Lady Katie” and her crew were more than 7,500 feet into a well-marked hand tong only area where power dredging is prohibited at all times.

When the Officers approached the second boat, “Lil Lady”, the crew gunned the boat’s engine and attempted to flee. After a few minutes the vessel stopped, and the two poachers, Gowe and Fluharty, were arrested without further incident. The officers determined the poachers were taking oysters more than 8,000 feet into the well-defined hand tong only area. Also, found in the water was a glow stick that the crew used to mark their unlawful spot.

All four watermen were charged with power dredging outside legal hours, power dredging in a restricted hand tong area and possession of oysters on board a vessel more than two hours after sunset. Each of these citations carries a prepayable fine of $125.00 and a maximum fine of $1000 for the first offense per offense. Gowe and Murphy received additional citations of operating a vessel without navigational lights which carries a prepayable fine of $85 and a maximum fine of $500. A court date has been set for March 18, 2010 in the District Court of Maryland for Talbot County.



###


Note: If you choose to use an acronym, please refer to the Maryland Natural Resources Police as “NRP”. Thank you.


The Maryland Natural Resources Police is the enforcement arm of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). With an authorized strength of 247 officers and a dedicated staff of civilian and volunteer personnel, the NRP provide a variety of services in addition to conservation and boating law enforcement duties throughout the State of Maryland. These services include homeland security, search and rescue, emergency medical services, education, information and communications services on a round the clock basis. NRP is the only police force aside from the Maryland State Police that has statewide jurisdiction.

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources is the state agency responsible for providing natural and living resource-related services to citizens and visitors. DNR manages nearly one-half million acres of public lands and 17,000 miles of waterways, along with Maryland's forests, fisheries and wildlife for maximum environmental, economic and quality of life benefits. A national leader in land conservation, DNR-managed parks and natural, historic and cultural resources attract 11 million visitors annually. DNR is the lead agency in Maryland's effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay, the state's number one environmental priority. Learn more at www.dnr.maryland.gov

[hackeyfly]

No penalty for attempting to flee? Good job, but the penalties gotta get some sting to 'em. Keep the heat on.
Pat in Joppa

[bone-a-fide]

Those fines are a total joke. No wonder this continues and will continue until the penalty is more than a slap on the wrist, assuming that this is not the first time they have done this. I would bet most poachers go for a long time before getting caught. The fines are jsut a business expense.

[paxfish]

This is what the bay is up against, folks.

Thanks to the NRP guys who worked at 1:30 am in the freezing cold. You guys are tough as nails.

[27 sailfish]

7,500 feet is over one mile over the boundary. Guess that is why they were out at night.
This will never stop until the fines are much higher.
$125.00 - gee that is 4 bushels of oysters. I'll bet they were getting more then that each night.

Wonder if these guys are going to be charged under the new rules / points system ?
Having the trail local - anyone wanna bet - PBJ and a low fine.
Seems they should all lose the right to work the bay for at least a year.
Anyone want to bet these guys have prior poaching convictions ?

I'd like to see GPS senders on all commercial boats - just like are on UPS trucks / snow plows / etc.
This way - NRP could monitor them. Kinda like the ankle braclets some criminals must wear.

I gotta wonder where the oysters that were stolen were going ?

[Johnfishes]

Mr Lowery has a "few" previous National Resources "NR" charges, No stranger to breaking the law

Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr. 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County Circuit Court Information Closed/Inactive 05/18/2007 State of Maryland vs Edward Bruce Lowery Jr.
000000FL13314 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court Traffic Closed 10/15/2008
00807812T5 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 04/13/1999
00807897T6 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR Closed 03/08/1999
00807898T0 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR Closed 03/08/1999
00815979S3 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 02/27/1992
00815982S6 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 03/23/1992
00821766S1 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 02/17/1992
00821770S5 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 04/13/1992
00863506S0 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Kent County District Court NR Closed 05/06/1993
00867989S3 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR Closed 04/25/1994
00867991S5 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR Closed 04/26/1994
00867992S6 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR Closed 04/26/1994
00869182S6 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Queen Anne's County District Court NR Closed 07/16/1994
00869183S0 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Queen Anne's County District Court NR Closed 07/16/1994
00871213S0 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 03/02/1994
00877413S5 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Caroline County District Court NR Closed 08/12/1995
00881713S0 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 08/06/1996
00890046S3 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 08/13/1998
030500001172005 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr Defendant Talbot County District Court CONT Closed 02/04/2005
0305SP000242005 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr Defendant Talbot County District Court TNHO Closed 02/02/2005
0Y00032676 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Snow Hill District Court NR Closed 09/19/2001
0Y00036652 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR Closed 02/05/2007
0Z34119701 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CV ACTIVE 12/21/2009
1Y66115827 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 02/24/2008
52 items found, displaying 1 to 25.
Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 03/08/2001
2Y00047805 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 12/06/2005
3N00003629 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court CR Closed 02/11/1997
3Y00047806 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 12/06/2005
3Y00047841 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 12/16/2004
3Y66147476 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR ACTIVE 10/07/2009
4N00017042 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court CR Closed 11/22/2006
4Y00048738 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 03/22/2005
4Y66115830 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 02/24/2008
4Y66135563 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR ACTIVE 10/01/2009
4Y66147477 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR ACTIVE 10/07/2009
5N00017057 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court CR Closed 11/29/2006
5Y00000831 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 07/20/1999
5Y66107788 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 01/09/2007
5Y66135564 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1985 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR ACTIVE 10/01/2009
5Y66147478 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR ACTIVE 10/07/2009
6N00017030 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court CR Closed 11/22/2006
6Y00010100 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR Closed 12/02/1999
6Y00048740 Lowery, Edward Bruce Jr 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 04/18/2005
0000000B50A15 Lowery, Edward Bruce 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court Traffic Closed 12/05/2008
00829715S5 Lowery, Edward Bruce 08/1965 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR Closed 02/10/1993
00877223S4 Lowery, Edward Bruce 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 09/12/1997
00899099S5 Lowery, Edward Bruce 08/1965 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR Closed 01/25/1999
2Y00006295 Lowery, Edward Bruce 08/1965 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 04/04/2001
2Y00042730 Lowery, Edward Bruce 08/1965 Defendant Somerset County District Court NR Closed 02/28/2005
52 items found, displaying 26 to 50.

[27 sailfish]

Bear with me not having much experience with the law.
Can you explain what the charges were ?
What does closed mean ? Is that a conviction ?
If they were all poaching charges - that is unreal.
I'll give any man the benefit of making a mistake - or two. Maybe even a third time but no more then that.

[Johnfishes]

Mr. Murphy is no stranger to the criminal justice system either. Armed Robbery, Assault, NR violations etc
000000CO79099 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court Traffic Closed 05/08/2004
000000CO99405 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Wicomico County District Court Traffic Closed 03/30/2004
000000FL13925 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court Traffic Closed 01/23/2009
000000FL14051 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court Traffic Closed 01/23/2009
000000SS92556 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court Traffic Closed 11/12/2008
000000SS92557 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court Traffic Closed 11/12/2008
00863167S4 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 08/15/1994
0F00004074 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CR Closed 03/16/1997
0Y00020797 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR Closed 11/21/2002
0Y66108273 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 02/01/2006
1F00004075 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CR Closed 03/16/1997
1Y66116177 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Kent County District Court NR Closed 11/19/2007
20D03004901 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr Defendant Talbot County Circuit Court Domestic Violence Closed/Inactive 06/04/2003 Joanne Nicole Frank vs Bartlett Wade Murphy Jr
20D03004902 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr Defendant Talbot County Circuit Court Custody (Two Party) Closed/Inactive 06/04/2003 Joanne Nicole Frank vs Bartlett Wade Murphy Jr
2Y66115261 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR Closed 05/07/2008
3N00003783 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court CR Closed 03/18/1997
4F00004106 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CR Closed 03/20/1997
5F00004107 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CR Closed 03/20/1997
5Y00021495 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR Closed 11/21/2002
6F00004108 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CR Closed 03/20/1997
6F00013509 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Jr 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CR Closed 02/07/2004
00877720S4 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Sr 04/1934 Defendant Kent County District Court NR Closed 11/17/1995
00895326S5 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Sr 04/1934 Defendant Annapolis District Court NR Closed 02/26/1996
030500007471997 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Sr Defendant Talbot County District Court CONT Closed 06/25/1997
1Y00011887 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Sr 04/1934 Defendant Kent County District Court NR Closed 11/05/2002
00825831T6 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 04/1934 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 03/05/1998
00863461S4 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 04/1934 Defendant Dorchester County District Court NR Closed 11/15/1994
00877204S6 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 04/1934 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 12/31/1996
00879733S1 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 04/1934 Defendant Somerset County District Court NR Closed 11/25/1996
00884820S6 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 04/1934 Defendant Kent County District Court NR Closed 11/27/1995
030500005542004 Murphy, Bartlett Wade Defendant Talbot County District Court REPL Closed 05/25/2004
0Y66107790 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 01/09/2007
1Y00011117 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 04/1934 Defendant Kent County District Court NR Closed 11/01/2000
2F00004076 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 10/1974 Defendant Dorchester County District Court CR Closed 03/16/1997
4Y00011281 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 04/1934 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 11/14/2002
6Y66107789 Murphy, Bartlett Wade 10/1974 Defendant Talbot County District Court NR Closed 01/09/2007
20D04005180 Murphy, Bartlette Wade Sr Defendant Talbot County Circuit Court Custody (Two Party) Closed/Inactive 05/26/2004 Joanne Nicole Frank Jr vs Bartlette

[Johnfishes]

Skip

No expert either but is you do a google search for "MD Judicairy Case Search" and enter the defendents name it will give you what I posted above. Click on the case number and it will give you the details of each case including disposition. I believe closed means that the case is no longer active.
Sad thing is that most of these commercial violators posted on the DNR site are no stranger to the judicial system. Dont get me wrong the majority of the commercial lisense holders are honest hard working folks. The state needs to take a serious look at the penalties and come up with a deterent to the habitual offenders. In my opinion dredging for oysters in a closed area not only is bad for the resource but unfairly works against there fellow watermen. You would think that the honest watermen would raise hell with the state and support tougher laws. The cost and danger that the Natural Resources Dept incurs with this one case isnt covered by the fines and penalties.

[27 sailfish]

Don't hold me to this - but I'm pretty sure the new rules go into effect in February. It's kinda complicated but short version is guys like these poachers will lose their license for 60 days. I think they can be charged with multipule offenses and lose the license for a year.
The paper I got reads : Md register vol 36 issue 26. It was handed out last week at DNR meeting about the new rules. There are 5 - 10 and 15 point violations. If I'm reading it right - these guys racked up at least 30 points. That will be a one year suspension - but not for a few weeks.

Guess they wanted to get some last minute poaching done before the violations mean something.

These two cases are perfect example of poaching. Night time , over the boundary , illegal gear , no lights.

It is a shame a few bad apples are giving the honest watermen a bad name. Hopefully the new rules will get them off the water soon.

[Porkchunker]

Each of these citations carries a prepayable fine of $125.00 and a maximum fine of $1000 for the first offense per offense. Gowe and Murphy received additional citations of operating a vessel without navigational lights which carries a prepayable fine of $85 and a maximum fine of $500.

That is a joke. In Montana where I came from, one could lose the boat and all related gear used in the commission of the crime...to include the truck one drove to/from the point of origin. In this case, if Maryland had their laws right, they could also confiscate the refer truck used to transport the ill-gotten gains.

Maryland has a long way to go to catch up with how to protect natural resources...and they call themselves ecologically-minded Democrats...now that is another joke.

Dave

aka

[27 sailfish]

John fishes - I owe you a beer one day. Thank you for the instructions , I was able to google it and went over some of the cases.

UNREAL - that is all I can say. The tiny fines blew me away.

I urge every TFer to take time to research these guys - I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[natsdad]

I see domestic violence issues with Murphy. Now I'm sorry I read this thread.

[27 sailfish]

Mr. Lowery is going to be in DNR court February 19th in Annapolis - oystering on a suspended license.

[paxfish]

Skip

Dont get me wrong the majority of the commercial lisense holders are honest hard working folks.

John - We'd all like to think that. But sadly it's not true. The honest ones are in the minority according to DNR:

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/11202009/indytop113227_32218.shtml

I'm glad to see DNR getting some resources on the issue and stepping up enforcement. Especially on these guys who have multiple violations. This is a cultural issue that must change .

[philk999]

Zam what I will say in Marty's defense is these are gentleman who have had multiple violations, oystering during off hours, not using their navagation lights which is not only dangerous, but they knew they were doing something wrong and trying to hide, using illegal equipment for the area they are oystering and in my opinion these gentleman need to be brought to our attention so maybe enough pressure can be brought to bear to keep them off the water or have them start doing things legally, because right now they feel paying small fines is part of the cost of doing business and that has to change.

Plus with everyone claiming we need better water qualtiy, getting these guys off the water and protecting what is left of the 2% of the historical population of oysters is a major step in the right direction, because these gentleman apparently don't care.

I also know there are recs doing some poaching, and I hope if there are recs out there doing what these guys are doing, I hope that Marty will bring them to our attention also.

[C-Hawk18]

John - We'd all like to think that. But sadly it's not true. The honest ones are in the minority according to DNR:

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/11202009/indytop113227_32218.shtml
.

Paxfish - I'm sure you are referring to the below quote in the article, even though "almost half" is NOT a majority. But this statement is not 100% true and is a bit misleading. I have a request in with the DNR for all of those records through the PIA, but they are kinda dragging their feet getting me the info. In an email from Mike Nayor he has already changed his statement from what was written below.

"Almost half of the state's licensed watermen were cited for a DNR violation last year, including crabbing, fishing and oyster infractions, said Mike Naylor, DNR assistant director of fishery services."


Skip - based on your post.....
Mr. Lowery is going to be in DNR court February 19th in Annapolis - oystering on a suspended license.

I would not consider this guy a Commercial Waterman.......because he is not longer "state licensed" (it's suspended, right?) So now he is breaking WAY more laws then he has been sited for as he legally (at this point) does not possess a valid license. He's just a poacher plain and simple.

[paxfish]

Given the criticality of oyster restoration, it makes a lot of sense to raise awareness on stories like this. These guys can do a LOT of damage to sanctuaries and poaching from one another in a very short time. Couple that with the fact that around 50% of Maryland commerical watermen have a violation (or many) in the last year, you start to understand one reason 20 years of restoration work has failed. These guys operate in a culture of crime that is going to take a while to modify. Increasing the penalties is key. And for case like this? Where they know exactly what they are doing, we should have no problem taking away the gear that allows them to commit the crime.

With regard to posting stories of recreational poaching of oysters? Probably a pretty rare occurrence. If you want to see all the DNR poaching press releases, this is a good place to start: http://dnr.maryland.gov/nrp/blotter.html

If you see other poaching stories out there, by all means post them. No poacher should get off easy.

[C-Hawk18]

Martin,
I think its great that the NRP are going after the commercial poachers. But I think it seems odd that someone like you that works for our Government, and is paid by all taxpayers, would start threads on a Recreational fishing board about Commercial poachers. I've never seen you post a thread about Rec poachers, and this is a rec board. It almost looks like you are trying to pit recs against coms. You must be smart enough to know that rec poaching (mostly because of our huge numbers) is atleast as big of a problem as com poaching. I know catching com poachers must be a much easier task then getting rec poachers, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.
Also, A few days ago there was a thread where people were wondering how many rec fishing violations are issued a year, Nobody was able to find any info on it. Do you have that info, Maybe even a list of all the violaters names too...Thanks



With regard to posting stories of recreational poaching of oysters? Probably a pretty rare occurrence.
If you see other poaching stories out there, by all means post them. No poacher should get off easy.

Here is one from your link from 4 days before the Tilghman Island charges.....but this was not posted by Martin.....or anyone else.......wonder why?

http://dnr.maryland.gov/dnrnews/pressrelease2010/010410.asp

Crisfield Resident Charged With Oyster Violation

Crisfield, MD (January 4, 2010) - The Maryland Natural Resources Police (NRP) has charged Donald Robert Wharton, 44, of Crisfield, Md. with possession and transportation of unculled oysters. On December 23, a Somerset County Sheriff’s deputy who was investigating a suspicious vehicle complaint on William Maddox Road in Crisfield found unculled oysters in Wharton’s truck.

“We must all understand the importance of following the rules for taking oysters,” said Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Director Tom O’Connell. “These regulations are simply prudent measures to protect and aid in the restoration of this environmentally and culturally important shellfish.”

In Maryland it is illegal to possess oysters attached to their habitat or cultch—the hard substrate that oysters must attach to in order to survive and grow. The regulation is intended to protect undersized oysters (under three inches) and to preserve the critical habitat that juvenile oysters need to survive. The culling of oysters is the act of sorting legal oysters from undersized oysters and returning the small oysters along with the cultch to thrive and grow. Removing cultch and undersized oysters removes important habitat for future oyster generations.

The regulation includes a reasonable allowance in a legal harvest of oysters by permitting a combined total of 5 percent of undersized oysters and cultch consisting of shells, stones, gravel, and slag.

The NRP believes Wharton was harvesting oysters for personal use. Marylanders are allowed to harvest as much as a bushel a day without a license during a season that extends from October through March with fishing times from sunrise to 3 p.m.

A first conviction of violating this regulation may result in a fine up to $500.

Wharton is scheduled to appear in the District Court of Maryland for Somerset County in Princess Anne on February 11, 2010.

***He plead guilty and was given a total of $250 in fines and court costs.....half what he could have been given

[Tom Powers]

C-Hawk . . . I disagree on the commercial waterman statement. I believe that his intention was to harvest seafood for resale not harvest for personal use. This would make him a commercial waterman. . . whether or not he was a licensed commercial waterman is another matter.

[C-Hawk18]

C-Hawk . . . I disagree on the commercial waterman statement. I believe that his intention was to harvest seafood for resale not harvest for personal use. This would make him a commercial waterman. . . whether or not he was a licensed commercial waterman is another matter.




"Almost half of the state's licensed watermen were cited for a DNR violation last year, including crabbing, fishing and oyster infractions, said Mike Naylor, DNR assistant director of fishery services."


Tom - this is the statement Mike Naylor makes........and this seems to be everyone's reference to "Commercial Watermen".

[paxfish]

Thanks C-Hawk. Glad to see that guy was caught. It looks like some inter-agency cooperation was in there too.

On a slightly different topic, do you know how many commercial licenses are not actively used?

[kidz]

Doesn't matter if they are comms or recs, illegal is illegal and they need to have penalties that cost more. C-hawk, thanks for reading the statements and clarifying what you think they nean. I think the conspiracy theories that some come up with are interesting to ponder about, but why can't we just thank Martin for the article instead of making it coms versus recs. No accusation have been made and the posts is about the DNR catching poachers. C-hawk and Zam have to bring up rec versus comms whenever someone has a post using the words Commercial waterman or state licensed waterman. Just because you say it is a rec forum, when these two phrases turn up, you guys turn up to start the conspiracy ideas. Its just the winter time, no fishing, thoughts turn to whats happening on the water elsewhere. If you see a current news article concerning poaching, feel free to post and let us know. Just remember illegal poaching is what the Dnr is dealing with and hopefully the fines for first time offenders will become higher to make poachers stop. Poachers who continue to do so after being caught before should receive severe fines and penalties that should include loss of boat and license. Another storm headed our way , so get your snowblowers and shovels ready.

[C-Hawk18]

On a slightly different topic, do you know how many commercial licenses are not actively used?

No - but that was part of my request from the DNR....I'm let you know (if) when I receive the information



I think the conspiracy theories that some come up with are interesting to ponder about, but why can't we just thank Martin for the article instead of making it coms versus recs. No accusation have been made and the posts is about the DNR catching poachers.

Kidz - I have no problem with posting about ANY violators, but if you are going to take the time then why not post both? My point would be....Why didn't Martin ALSO post the one that I posted? It is readily apparent that both came from the same NRP Blotter link that paxfish posted.

[27 sailfish]

I'd like to see ALL poacher's names posted - once convicted.
Knowing their name would be out there for everyone to see - might , just might - convince them to play by the rules.
Our local paper - Md Gazette - prints names of DUI / DWI arrests almost every week.

I am horrible at remembering names - always have been. What is sad - I'm starting to recongize some of these repeat poacher's names. For me to remember them says a lot.

[C-Hawk18]

I'd like to see ALL poacher's names posted - once convicted.

Skip - That's exactly what I am talking about. Post them all.....don't skip by one to post another.

BTW - My boat is almost ready to go (the 16' alum) - let me know when you want to hit the Patapsco

[Alley Cat]

Looks to me like fines are low enough to be just part of cost of doing business licenises should be gone. They are stealing from both the honest waterman and the taxpayers. It seems some of them have long rap sheets, but I would bet they will pre-pay and it will all be forgotten. If they do go to court will probaly have the pity pot out crying about their livelyhood

[Martin Gary]

According to COMAR 08.02.13.03:

(b) The suspension of a person's tidal fish license or authorization for a period of not less than 180 days and not exceeding 365 days during the oyster harvest season for:

(i) The unlawful harvest of oysters from a leased oyster bottom or from more than 150 feet within an oyster sanctuary, oyster reserve, or area closed to harvest by the Department of the Environment, when the area is designated and marked with buoys or other signage or the person knew or should have known that the harvest of oysters from the area was unlawful; or

(ii) A violation of a time restriction for the harvest or possession of oysters by more than 2 hours;

[kidz]

Zam, what tough questions? If you go back and read, you brought up the statement about Nrp going after ccommercial waterman. C=hawk chimes in and accuses Martin of slanting the post to being about commercial waterman. You and C=hawk most get off to always complain about these posts that are facts and yet no one is bashing the commercial waterman. The fact that Nrp is catching people who harvest oysters and fish illegally is something every one should be glad of. If you guys read a post that includes the words waterman or commercial waterman, you always try to make the post into recs versus comms. I will admit that when ever I see your name or C-hawk involved in a post, I do read it to see if you guys do what you always do. After a while, you guys come off as hysterical with your accussations, conspiracy theories and ability to ruin a post. Nothing personal, just the facts.

[BILL H]

ZAM,
I believe Martin has a right to post whatever he wants to this board. This is a recreational fishing board, and users post what they want.

We don't tell you what to post (well...most of us don't). If you want to air all the dirty linen on Rec poachers, please do so. Illegal fishing is illegal fishing. So if you are outraged about Rec illegal fishing charges, and you have the time, post the names, shout them from the treetops, tape them up on lamp posts in Baltimore (but only if you want to).

But don't tell the rest of us what to post. if you want, make an effort to post commercial cases on a watermen's board, and you can even add recreational cases. Good luck, by the way.

[C-Hawk18]

Zam, what tough questions?

Maybe this one below? Especially since this is predominately a REC site, don't you WANT to know when another rec breaks the law? like the old "Police your own" enforcement?


Kidz - I have no problem with posting about ANY violators, but if you are going to take the time then why not post both? My point would be....Why didn't Martin ALSO post the one that I posted? It is readily apparent that both came from the same NRP Blotter link that paxfish posted.


I will admit that when ever I see your name or C-hawk involved in a post, I do read it to see if you guys do what you always do.

Wow - never had a follower before.....wait.....are you a stalker?

[kidz]

THere you go C=hawk, read into it the way you always do. Twist it to make a amusing point that you can chuckle about. Maybe not a follower, just someone who sees that you come on Tidalfish to try and stir things up and make it a recs versus comm thing. As I said, you and Zam are hysterical and for some, truly amusing. Try posting something useful to make yourself look like you are concerned with poaching and illegal activities on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Just don't make an information thread into your typical recs versus comms bullcrap. Hope the Nrp increases the fines for first time offenders to $1000 and forfeiture and loss of license for life. Thats how you help curtalil poaching and illegal harvestinf on the water.

[C-Hawk18]

Maybe not a follower, just someone who sees that you come on Tidalfish to try and stir things up and make it a recs versus comm thing. .

So let me get this right.....I question as to why the (apparent) commercial violation was listed.....and not the (apparent) rec violator right before it....and I'm the one making it Rec vs Commercial?

I'll just wait for Martin's reply as to why ....or why not........guess I'll be waiting a while....

[kidz]

Yes,read your last response,it is what Isaid ,that you highlighted. Thanks for backing up my statement.

[Martin Gary]

You don't have to wait. The bottom line is that the Department and its officers are going the extra mile to protect the oyster resource. As violations occur, we are letting the public know the Department is serious about protecting and restoring our oyster resource. As i acquire the information, my colleagues and I are doing everything we can to let the public know what is happening and the good work of the NRP. I am trying to distribute all the releases, but I'm sure I've missed more than just one. If you think I am being discretionary, you would be wrong. We have been publishing the news of the oyster infractions in myriad locations, including watermen trade publications. Part of the rationale for publicizing this information is to put their name out to their peers and the community at large. Regardless, it should be clear by now the Department is serious about this. If you have any suggestions on how we can better get the word out regarding the excellent work of the NRP, please let me know. I would be happy to post it on www.watermen.org. if I am allowed access. We'll see. I just registered.

Marty

[philk999]

Thanks for posting the info Marty, we need to make it known that the NPR is getting serious on catching violators of the laws protecting our natural resources, especially repeat offenders, and maybe some of them may get the message that it is not business as usual any more.

[Black Irish]

Thanks for posting Marty. It's been difficult to finally get the ball rolling on REAL oyster restoration. Of course there are a few still left hanging around, trying to put a negative spin on anything that puts a spotlight on those that get caught.

The real irony here is that the poachers want to file suit over water quality during the day but are out stealing oysters at midnight.

Good luck on your application to the watermen's board. :clap:

[Matt]

somewhere on this thread someone said illegal is illegal and a poacher is a poacher, or something like that. I disagree. In Maryland, commercial poachers are clearly treated differently. They get a slap on the wrist. A commercial poacher could haul away a truckload of marine life, with clear intent, and their punishment would be less than a rec. Its because Maryland has a culture where commercial guys are coddled like a bunch of babies who can't be held responsible for their own demise. Watermen aside, its at least a little disingenuous for a DNR official to post this report. Hello DNR, this is your fault. Your agency allowed an environment where lawlessness is tolerated. If you feel so violated by poaching that you need to post about it...I have an idea. Do your job! Lobby the legislature for steeper fines. Deal with the stinking entitlement program. Take away a poachers "right" to repeat the crime. Try that. I submit if you try it you will be removed in favor of a more compliant sheep. Make no mistake, the state of Maryland's marine fisheries is abysmal. The fishery service is officially malfeasant. With all due respect to the DNR guys who would dare to make a difference (who will never be promoted)...Maryland DNR fisheries deserves all the criticism for the culture that gives us this kind of criminal activity. There's no incentive for comms to do better.

[Ken Brice]

I would not consider this guy a Commercial Waterman.......because he is not longer "state licensed" (it's suspended, right?) So now he is breaking WAY more laws then he has been sited for as he legally (at this point) does not possess a valid license. He's just a poacher plain and simple.

So if a teacher seduces a kid in the summer, when they are NOT teaching, wonder why they call it "Teacher seduces student"? ??? Just like if a cop does something wrong
off duty, it's still reads cop did..x x x. He still has a Commercial license, just the oyster part is suspended.. Bet if it were OCT he could still be crabbing... You know all
the internet answers, check it out... Any one can say or type anything they want on a computer... lol

[Ken Brice]

Just for saying..What if a commercial waterman, took freinds out Rock Fishing (hook and line) and say they poached rockfish,
took too many... What would the paper read?? Rec got caught or Commerical Waterman got caught?? Just like the teacher,
just like the cop.. Things that make you go Hummmm

[Matt]

Matt - I hardly think that DNR officers enjoy seeing the few bad apples get free passes any more than police officers like rolling up the same lifetime criminals over and over. These are honest, honerable hard working people who are trying their best with limited resources. I respectfully disagree. You need to walk in their shoes before disparaging them as a group. Jim

I'm not talking about the NRP. I'm talking specifically about DNR's marine fisheries group. The rest of Maryland's DNR is actually runs an accomplished wildlife management operation, NRP included. Maybe too accomplished, if the deer population in Montgomery county is any evidence. The marine wildlife population in the bay is, on the other hand, a failure. Because the DNR fisheries group is more like a welfare agency than wildlife managers. They hardly raise a finger to end this debacle. Posting about the outcome of their inaction on the internet may make them feel good, but its DNR's fault. DNR's marine fisheries group measures themselves against complete failure; anything better than complete failure is a success by their standards. Low standards indeed. The state of Maryland's Cheasapeake is truly a natural resource disaster. A status quo, prolonged disaster. Painful to watch.

[Alley Cat]

OK, got it. Yes, I guess you can't exactly call it a success but I blame business greasing politicians as the reason we are in this sorry state. There has been no honest effort to curb pollution and runoff until lately. At this juncture it's an uphill battle. e.g. finally an oyster restoration program and all kinds of groups start organizing efforts to destroy it. Makes me ill.With this being an election year a lot of things will get plenty of lip service then it's back to the same ole. I hope I am wrong but history is against it.

[Matt]

OK, got it. Yes, I guess you can't exactly call it a success but I blame business greasing politicians as the reason we are in this sorry state. There has been no honest effort to curb pollution and runoff until lately. At this juncture it's an uphill battle. e.g. finally an oyster restoration program and all kinds of groups start organizing efforts to destroy it. Makes me ill.

I'm with you on runoff and pollution in fact I've been spending my free time on this issue. Look at the number of tidal creeks and rivers with impairment listed on MDEs website. Its amazing. Dozens of tidal creeks and rivers are impaired. MDE is complying with the CWA to identify the impairment. Any action to clean them up? MDE is doing stuff. I trust they are on the right path. My concern is with DNR. The fisheries group, in my honest opinion, is not competent to manage this. Its no longer a wildlife program, its a welfare program. So called biologists? Its not about biology anymore. We know what this is about. MWA flexing their muscles, as welfare recipients. Undertrained semi-scientists as the puppets. Its a sad case of exploitation, on the water and in Annapolis.

[C-Hawk18]

My concern is with DNR. The fisheries group, in my honest opinion, is not competent to manage this. Its no longer a wildlife program, its a welfare program. So called biologists? Its not about biology anymore. We know what this is about. MWA flexing their muscles, as welfare recipients. Undertrained semi-scientists as the puppets. Its a sad case of exploitation, on the water and in Annapolis.

Your Kidding....I never would have guess that you felt this way about the DNR from any of your OTHER posts.......