Making Rockfish illegal to catch period.

[Big Liar]

When all of you on here (including Brandon) that are wanting to band all nets because you are so concerned about the species. When you write up the bill proposal, be sure to propose that it be illegal to fish for rockfish in any method. After all, you guys are trying to protect the species. Right? It's not at all possible that you are the pot calling the kettle black and just want to continue to catch the fish you are trying to protect.

You are using an incident of illegal activity to fuel your fight to ban all net. Well every year there are also recreational violation. Why not stop all fishing?

That is what I thought. By the way. I currently only hold an LCC. No TFL or rockfish allocation. Yet.

Who's behind me?

[Dashaway]

Ahem, it's "ban the nets"

[jdhunts]

Maybe the DNR closed the season early because they figure someone knows who owns the illegal nets. Waterman are a tight family and probably won't "rat" one of their own out without a little push in their own wallet! Also I'm sure the wholesalers know also so let that hit them in the wallet also!!!
I SUPPORT THE DNR 100%! All of the sport fishing violations probably would not turn up 20,000 lbs of illegal fish!

[B-Faithful]

It is about ensuring a wise use of the resource. Recreational fishing for rockfish benefits the state far more than the commercial rockfish market does. I am not saying we need to make rockfish a gamefish but by reducing our commercial allocation and making rockfish available through commercial hook and line only will benefit our state far more economically. Plus, it would make our commercial fishery management far more efficient with a net ban. Our current commercial rockfish allocation is excessive and makes up nearly 1/3 of the entire commercial take of all states under the ASMFC. I assure you our recreational take doesnt come close to that. Now you factor in a culture of acceptable illegal poaching that stands to jeapordize both our commercial and recreational harvest of the fish and you have just cause to ban the use of nets for harvest of rockfish commercially all together.

To me it is about wise use of a limited natural resource.

[shaddart2004]

Im with you Big Liar stop it all,I caught alot more and bigger fish when nobody could keep em.

[Z28YJ]

I, for one, am not for a cessation of recreational or commercial harvest of rockfish. I am, however, for regulating the fishery in a way that limits bycatch, sets quotas that will provide for a sustainable harvest, and allows for easy monitoring of the fishery with the limited policing powers that are available.

[klgladhill]

Im with you Big Liar stop it all,I caught alot more and bigger fish when nobody could keep em.

Shad Dart: Your comments show true ignorance, You should spend some time studying fisheries management, you would then learn how those big fish you speak of occur. And no it's not by preservation.

[Brandon]

I think it's a bit extreem to go to no fishing for rockfish, but if we do not do something to preserve the stock we might just find ourselves in another moratorium. Other states recreational and commercial fisheries have thrived when nets have been ban. Florida as the example and I know some commercial fishermen there who fish for baitfish as well as other species and they are making some real loot.

I would also suggest that for the bait fishery needs that cast nets be allowed. The rest is hook and line.
I am not saying that recs to do break the low and poach, but the magnitude of the impact when nets are involved is not even comparable, case in point the two nets that were just pulled. Problems with these nets have gone on for years, it's time to try something else IMHO.

[LTF]

Kind of ironic isn't it? There was discussion of Virginians boycotting fishing in NC if they didn't do something about the way the trawlers were abusing the fishery. It looks like they might have done it to themselves.

Before the arguments start that the water got too cold, let me say that yes, maybe. Probably not though. The temps have stayed pretty stable and the fish have moved in and out of the same area off NC since December. I also heard reports of fisherman running outside the 3 mile line in search of them and not finding them as far as 12 miles out, and there's no way the water's cold that far out. Still, let's hope that it is the tempurature, or that there is another large school that will move in. Better yet, let's hope for a large population that will stay where we can't touch it. Maybe, there are enough of them left to keep the fishery open. If not, maybe they should close down striper fishing to everybody for a while.

I say that, because it appears that at least the local population has been all but fished out, so the immediate solution may be a moritorium. Long term management should be started with banning netting.

The world changes, and those who can't keep up can only blaim themselves when they fail. The commercial industry has changed and flourished in Florida. Why is NC so resistant to change?

[hollywood9s]

It is about ensuring a wise use of the resource. Recreational fishing benefits the state far more as a gamefish than it does on the commercial market. I am not saying we need to make rockfish a gamefish but by reducing our commercial allocation and making rockfish available through commercial hook and line only will benefit our state far more economically. Plus, it would make our commercial fishery management far more efficient with a net ban. Our current commercial rockfish allocation is excessive and makes up nearly 1/3 of the entire commercial take of all states under the ASMFC. I assure you our recreational take doesnt come close to that. Now you factor in a culture of acceptable illegal poaching that stands to jeapordize both our commercial and recreational harvest of the fish and you have just cause to ban the use of nets for harvest of rockfish commercially all together.



I think it's a bit extreem to go to no fishing for rockfish, but if we do not do something to preserve the stock we might just find ourselves in another moratorium. Other states recreational and commercial fisheries have thrived when nets have been ban. Florida as the example and I know some commercial fishermen there who fish for baitfish as well as other species and they are making some real loot.

I would also suggest that for the bait fishery needs that cast nets be allowed. The rest is hook and line.
I am not saying that recs to do break the low and poach, but the magnitude of the impact when nets are involved is not even comparable, case in point the two nets that were just pulled. Problems with these nets have gone on for years, it's time to try something else IMHO.

Well said on both accounts! :thumbup:

[shaddart2004]

Shad Dart: Your comments show true ignorance, You should spend some time studying fisheries management, you would then learn how those big fish you speak of occur. And no it's not by preservation.

Klgladhill,Did you think before you posted your response?What is your experience with fisheries management?Do you even fish?I like the last line 'its not by preservation' I dont remember the rockfish starving to death or effected by disease when the moratorium was in place last time.I was fishing I can make the then and now comparison.Just the facts judgmental one.When I show true ignorance believe me the thread cops will respond.I will excuse your ignorance this time.

[klgladhill]

Klgladhill,Did you think before you posted your response?What is your experience with fisheries management?Do you even fish?I like the last line 'its not by preservation' I dont remember the rockfish starving to death or effected by disease when the moratorium was in place last time.I was fishing I can make the then and now comparison.Just the facts judgmental one.When I show true ignorance believe me the thread cops will respond.I will excuse your ignorance this time.

Uneducated and emotional, dangerous combination. Do a few searches and all of your assumptions will be answered.

[johnnylaw]

isnt the cause of the ban poaching? poaching is cheating i wouldnt play cards with a cheater and i dont want to fish with em' either so ban em'. "if you know who the owner of the nets is and you dont turn them in then your helpin them cheat so i dont want to share the precious resource with you either. ban the nets until they come clean!!

[capt.george]

Comm. Brandon White --& others May I point out the Reason Md. Has A 2 hook Per Line limit , Gotta go .A tundra is out back Warning of a possible Renagade OTTER--

[Big Liar]

I think it's a bit extreem to go to no fishing for rockfish, but if we do not do something to preserve the stock we might just find ourselves in another moratorium. Other states recreational and commercial fisheries have thrived when nets have been ban. Florida as the example and I know some commercial fishermen there who fish for baitfish as well as other species and they are making some real loot.

I would also suggest that for the bait fishery needs that cast nets be allowed. The rest is hook and line.
I am not saying that recs to do break the low and poach, but the magnitude of the impact whis en nets are involved is not even comparable, case in point the two nets that were just pulled. Problems with these nets have gone on for years, it's time to try something else IMHO.

My point is that you guys are quick to propose extreme measures on commercial watermen, whenever anything negative happens. Yet every year there are complaints about people fishing outside the 3 mile limit, and none of you have ever once proposed to close the atlantic recreational fishery.

I just think it's hipocritical that you guys are so quick to try and force restrictions on another group of fishermen, yet would never propose anything on your own group. Why don't you propose identify/tracking device be required on all recreational boats fishing offshore? Start out by fixing problems in your own house before being so quick to demand changes in someone else's house.

[shaddart2004]

Uneducated and emotional, dangerous combination. Do a few searches and all of your assumptions will be answered.

Dangerous is correct thats why people like you Mr Nobody would NEVER make stupid comments to someone like me in person.

[paxfish]

You are using an incident of illegal activity to fuel your fight to ban all net.



Not true. What you are seeing is an intense reaction to the latest in a long string of chronic illegal commercial poaching events that have happened over the years. To the point where it appears to have become an ingrained cultural issue.

This illegal activity has cost the fishery millions of pounds of fish, and it is definitely impacting the striper population overall. Law abiding citizens of Maryland have a duty to stop this travesty. Further, it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot manage the net fishery effectively.

Therefore I support stopping all netting. I don't necessarily support applying that quota anywhere else. Which means I'm not interested in an allocation grab. Just an end to a destructive practice that cannot be effectively managed and enforced.

[Big Liar]

Not true. What you are seeing is an intense reaction to the latest in a long string of chronic illegal commercial poaching events that have happened over the years. To the point where it appears to have become an ingrained cultural issue.

This illegal activity has cost the fishery millions of pounds of fish, and it is definitely impacting the striper population overall. Law abiding citizens of Maryland have a duty to stop this travesty. Further, it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot manage the net fishery effectively.

Therefore I support stopping all netting. I don't necessarily support applying that quota anywhere else. Which means I'm not interested in an allocation grab. Just an end to a destructive practice that cannot be effectively managed and enforced.

And have you ever proposed anything to stop any illegal activity by recreational anglers?

I'm all for stopping illegal activity, but I'm against punishing all commercial fishermen due to the acts of a few. If you guys come up with intelligent proposals to the problem, I would stand behind you. The problem is; because you are in direct competition for the same resource, this is the solution that the group comes up with.

Just because your enemy has a hang nail, you can not instruct his doctor to cut his freakin arm off!!!!

[fly flinger]

After Florida banned nets the fish rebounded, the out of state fishermen came in $$$$$$, and the good times are rolling in FL. One big problem is ghost nets & traps that keep killing after being lost or abandoned. If the people who use these devices did a better job of maintaining them then we all would benefit. I will not miss the nets if they disappear forever. Another HUGE problem if that dirty word: bycatch. How many American Shad and striped bass are killed every spring in our rivers? If hook & line was the only way to fish commercially many would drop out of the trade, lower effort would lead to higher prices which would benefit those willing to work harder at catching fish using this method. Fish populations would increase and smiles would break out.

[paxfish]

Just because your enemy has a hang nail, you can not instruct his doctor to cut his freakin arm off!!!!

I said:
" latest in a long string of chronic illegal commercial poaching events that have happened over the years. To the point where it appears to have become an ingrained cultural issue. "

That ain't no hangnail...

[Big Liar]

I said:
" latest in a long string of chronic illegal commercial poaching events that have happened over the years. To the point where it appears to have become an ingrained cultural issue. "

That ain't no hangnail...

Your suggestion to punish law abiding watermen because you think it's a easy solution, does not fit the crime. Yes. I want the responsible people caught, but there will most likely be that many fish kept the first weekend of the spring trophey season. (500 40lb fish) Yet I'm not proposing that the season should be cancelled.

Make smarter proposals, not easier ones.

[BigWillJ]

I just think it's hipocritical that you guys are so quick to try and force restrictions on another group of fishermen, yet would never propose anything on your own group. Why don't you propose identify/tracking device be required on all recreational boats fishing offshore? Start out by fixing problems in your own house before being so quick to demand changes in someone else's house.
Say what?

I see the uproar as a restriction on, and the protection of, a resource, not on a particular group. Just so happens the group in this case is commercial, or so we are to believe by the very nature of the equipment found in the latest egregious events.

A rec is allowed to keep ONE rockfish certain times, TWO at another time, and only during open seasons. Not to mention ONE stinkin' weakfish, and I could go on about recreational size limits and closed seasons for other species. If rec allowances/quotas, by WHATEVER means used to determine such, are exceeded, recs would be made to stop harvesting also.

I enjoy seafood dinners out just as much as the next person, so for me, it's about protection of a resource, which in turn preserves the jobs of anybody who wants to make a living off our natural resources, as well as preserves the enjoyment of a recreational take.

Why even bother to "take sides"? It's never accomplished much in years gone by, and to this day only continues to raise the ire of anyone who chooses to do so.

[uncljohn]

Obviously someone is pissed at his February net season being closed when he should be pissed at his fellow watermen who set these illegal nets. I would bet a few $ that if the DNR found 20,000# of rock illegaly caught by recreational fisherman, they'd push for some rec closure or change in rec limits.

[paxfish]

Your suggestion to punish law abiding watermen because you think it's a easy solution, does not fit the crime. .

The net fishery requires a modicum of integrity across the practitioners of this form of fishing. Given the chronic and systemic poaching that continues to occur while netting, the enormous cost of trying to regulate it, and it's significant impact on the rockfish population, it is clear to me that fishing with nets is not a manageable fishing method.

The efficiency of netting means that these criminals have a huge negative impact on fishery stocks when they are successful.

For me, it is no longer about punishment. Punishment has proven not to work. The commercial net fishery cannot be managed and needs to be shut down.

[Big Liar]

Obviously someone is pissed at his February net season being closed when he should be pissed at his fellow watermen who set these illegal nets. I would bet a few $ that if the DNR found 20,000# of rock illegaly caught by recreational fisherman, they'd push for some rec closure or change in rec limits.

As I've stated before on another thread. I currently only crab commercially. The closed season does not affect me. I'm just standing up for what is right.

As far as what paxfish states. There is a reporting system in place to monitor what is caught and sold. It these guys were going to be able to sell all these fish, it would have to be via a black market or if they used that many tags - they would incriminate themselves. So if there is a black market to sell fish on, banning all nets would only hurt the legal activity. It would make it more difficult to blackmarket rockfish, but would most likely not stop it.

Now, like I said in other posts. What are you guys going to propose to stop recreational poaching? I have not heard anything yet. You have no idea if more fish are poached recreationally or commercially because there is not even an accurate track of rockfish legally via recreational fishing. Yes. This is a horrible incident, but if your going to propose that no one be allowed to fish with a net, you should be willing to do the same for rod and reel. That's a shame, since I'm a recreational fishermen.

[paxfish]

This is a horrible incident, but if your going to propose that no one be allowed to fish with a net, you should be willing to do the same for rod and reel. That's a shame, since I'm a recreational fishermen.

I challenge you and a buddy to catch 20,000 pounds of rockfish in a day or two with your rod and reel.

With regard to recreational fishing? Yes. I believe recreational fishermen should not be able to use nets either. The gear is too efficient in the face of a declining rockfish population and it's use has proven to be unmanageable.

[C-Hawk18]

I challenge you and a buddy to catch 20,000 pounds of rockfish in a day or two with your rod and reel.

With regard to recreational fishing? Yes. I believe recreational fishermen should not be able to use nets either. The gear is too efficient in the face of a declining rockfish population and it's use has proven to be unmanageable.

How about 110,000 Recs with rods and reels. Just one lega keeper each and you have 150,000lbs? ....but recs don't have any impact on the fishery...right?

Yeah - It's "THEM......not US" mentality again

[hackeyfly]

Look, I can't speak for the other recs on this board, or on the bay in general, but as far as I'm concerned, a rec poacher should see every bit as serious sanction as a comm. Take his gear and boat, I don't care. And I don't wanna hear about shrinkage in the cooler or any other BS. No fish goes in my cooler without length to spare. Hell, out of 200-300 stripers caught by me in the last few years, I intentionally killed maybe 10. Maybe another 20 died as a result of my C&R. You guys wanna go tit for tat on penalties for violations? I'll support ya all the way. I believe the majority of reasonable anglers would concur. Let the mouthbreathing scum that poach fend for themselves.
Pat in Joppa

[paxfish]

How about 110,000 Recs with rods and reels. Just one lega keeper each and you have 150,000lbs? ....but recs don't have any impact on the fishery...right?

Yeah - It's "THEM......not US" mentality again

See, now that's the thing that is driving the comms nuts. They want it to be and "Us versus them" mentality so that there are clear battle lines. But this issue is much more complex. For example, I would not be averse to a reduction in the rec fishery if needed. Surprised? Great. Do recs have an impact on the fishery? Sure they do. Neither of these revelations is relevant to the issue at hand.

That issue is whether or not nets should be allowed. I contend that they should not, because it has been proven time and again that we are incapable of managing and enforcing a net-based fishery. And when it appears that criminals are chronically abusing efficient gear widely throughout the bay, the impact on the fishery is huge. Do we need to walk through the 1.x million pounds of rockfish for which many, many commercial watermen were busted last year too?

I don't want your allocation. I want the opportunity for plunder and wanton illegal destruction of our fisheries to be removed. As we face a rapidly declining rockfish population, it becomes very clear to me that eliminating nets is a smart move forward.

[27 sailfish]

I have called DNR poaching hotline on Recs that I saw keep too many fish.

1 800 635-6124

There is a difference in the gain vs lose for a rec or comm who poaches.

Rec loses his good name among his peers plus likely gets a fine. 1-2 fish just is not worth it to most.
Most sport fisherman value the fishery too much to poach.

Comm gets money for the fish - more he takes , better the gain.
Poach enough and get away with it - when caught they are ahead on money. Often the fines are low.

[Big Liar]

See, now that's the thing that is driving the comms nuts. They want it to be and "Us versus them" mentality so that there are clear battle lines. But this issue is much more complex. For example, I would not be averse to a reduction in the rec fishery if needed. Surprised? Great. Do recs have an impact on the fishery? Sure they do. Neither of these revelations is relevant to the issue at hand.

That issue is whether or not nets should be allowed. I contend that they should not, because it has been proven time and again that we are incapable of managing and enforcing a net-based fishery. And when it appears that criminals are chronically abusing efficient gear widely throughout the bay, the impact on the fishery is huge. Do we need to walk through the 1.x million pounds of rockfish for which many, many commercial watermen were busted last year too?

I don't want your allocation. I want the opportunity for plunder and wanton illegal destruction of our fisheries to be removed. As we face a rapidly declining rockfish population, it becomes very clear to me that eliminating nets is a smart move forward.

Pax,
Then are you also saying that all guns should be banned? Guns are used in the majority of crimes and keeping them from criminals is impossible to enforce let alone expensive. Don't give me the story of guns have multiple uses. They are used either legally or illegally. Those are the two major categories.

[paxfish]

Pax,
Then are you also saying that all guns should be banned? Guns are used in the majority of crimes and keeping them from criminals is impossible to enforce let alone expensive. Don't give me the story of guns have multiple uses. They are used either legally or illegally. Those are the two major categories.

Nope. I didn't say anything about guns.

Are you suggesting there is a 28th amendment to the constitution stating that the right to use nets shall not be infringed?

:)

[going2fast]

ok after reading opinions from both sides on this i feel i must chime in. no im not going to get on a soapbox just give my opinion. ive been a comm waterman for 30 years on the potomac. i have never held a CRL only bait net and crab pot licenses. I remember in the 70s you could go out to one of the lighthouses at night and slay the rocks. 5 fish limit at the time i believe. by the mid 80s they were very hard to find, then the moratorium. this same blame game happened then when the real culprit was pollution. the moratorium helped the fish bounce back and even though i couldnt fish for them for several years im happy for where the fishery is today. i dont fault the comms here just there ethics. its the DNR that wrote the rules with this loophole about head count instead of poundage. that needs to change. but its not fair to target every comm as threatening your fishery. there will always be a few bad apples in the peck. these "watermen" that just got convicted of running elligal nets on the potomac were my neighbors, literally. and i could not be more pleased with the outcome of there trial. problem is this had been going on for longer than i can remember but the DNR just doesn't have the resources to police the thousands of miles of waterways. every year my biggest problem is not some other comm but the weekend warrior rec guy stealing crabs out of my pots at night. but im not going to lobby for an end to night fishing. that would be ridiculous. all i can do is let the authorities know what is happening and try to be more vigilant. same goes for these guys running illegal nets. someone knows who they are and should speak up. but to target a mans way of life because of a few bad apples is absurd. if you saw johnny rec guy catch over his limit of flounder you wouldn't try to have flounder season closed would you? same theory. these comms in NC are doing what every other person does on a daily basis and isn't even aware of it. how many of you drive 64 in a 55 speed zone because you know the cops wont ticket you unless you are more than 10 miles over the limit? harmless but same concept. until they rewrite the laws, these guys will stretch the law as far as they can. just remember there are plenty of people out there that will use this fodder to push there extreme agenda and the results would be devestating not beneficial.
just my 2 cents. please no hate responses

[Barefoot]

the real culprit was pollution. the moratorium helped the fish bounce back

If the real culprit was pollution how come the rockfish came back?

Same thing with yellow perch.

Same thing with crabs.

Reduce fishing pressure, and populations do better.

But you say the real culprit is pollution?

The real culprit in my opinion is that we (meaning rec and commercial) are taking too many rockfish.

[Big Liar]

Nope. I didn't say anything about guns.

Are you suggesting there is a 28th amendment to the constitution stating that the right to use nets shall not be infringed?

:)

Pax,
No. But there are groups out there that are trying to push that through as well. Just because it was written on a piece of paper 200 years ago or 20 years ago, does not mean that some group of radicals can't convince our govt. to change things. It happens all the time. Are the changes always right? No. Should most of the jobs in this country have been allowed to be outsourced? (Sorry different subject) I blame this one thing to be the single cause of our current bad economy. Even if we create new hi-tech jobs for tomorrow, the next day our business executives will send the new jobs over seas as well.

I know it hard to believe, but there are law abiding watermen who do work harder than most avg. people in a dwindling profession. These guys that are full time watermen have learned to deal with allocations and limits and restrictions. It means thdy have to work harder to make ends meet. And on days where they are lucky enough to stumble in to a big bounty, do stop when they reach their legal limit even though they have outstanding bills to pay or families to take care of.

Now because of the actions of some, a group such as the MSSA feels the best approach is to take away the allocation from the entire group.

[going2fast]

as you state barefoot crabs, yellow perch etc have been affected by regulation in a good way. but i was around when these fish were dissapearing. you couldn't catch a fish without lesions in the 70s and for a population to go from healthy as in numbers of fish to collapse in a few years time makes no sense. lawmakers historically get into bed with whoever has the deepest pockets. they are not going to blame the wastewater treatment plants because they have more pull than you or me. the moratorium just happened to fall at a time when the river was at its most polluted. as soon as the hydrilla started cleaning up the river the fish returned with a vengeance but it was several more years before we were allowed to fish for them. same for the yellow perch. just as the latest battle against chicken farmers being the culprit for a majority of the pollution in the bay and not you and me every time we flush the toilet. my good friend has been mass raising chickens on a farm in rockingham county for 5 decades. his coops lie within 150 yards of mossy creek arguably the best trophy trout stream in va. trout need very clean water to survive so im guessing his operation is not affecting the water quality like the feds say it is. but hes an easy target and an uneducated person is bound to believe the feds when they blame him instead of themselves. do you ever wonder why most wastewater treatment plants are built on flood plains? free cleanouts every time it floods. and you really dont want to know how much raw sewage is released into the waterways on superbowl sunday alone because the plants cant handle the load. ive witnessed this myself when i worked part time at a wtp. again this is just my opinion. it may or may not be fact.

[going2fast]

[Barefoot Crabs] that would make an awesome name for a seafood restaurant!!!

[capt.george]

I'm Just Heartbroken, because of all the hard work & Sacrifice that We all did here in Maryland from the Flats to Crisfield , Dug Hatchery ponds , Manned the Hatcheries, User groups Donated Funds & ran fund Raisers for the Promotion of a Strong "World Class Fishery"--We the Recs, Charters, & Watermen--Watermen & Chartermen were used in a program to reinburse us for our loss of rockfish income -It was not a Giveaway program , We reported for work when Called -A 8 hr Day paid me 180.00 for Vessel use, Fuel, & any other thing that would Happen -My Mate was given 50.00 for a 8 hr day WHEN HE WORKED WITH ME on the boat ONLY-I worked in the Hatchery, Made YOY surveys in the Potomac on LM bass, worked at the Oxford lab. & also did Studies with the Lab on the Boat --When I charted for Blues,Bottom Fish NO STRIPER HARRASMENT was allowed, & would result in Citations-The Fishery Recovered because the Nursery states of Maryland & Delware did not boat a Stripe in FIVE years-The rest of the states Continued to fish --Now There is a push to Ban Rockfishing in Winter & remove the income these men that Sacrificed Five year to build up --The Poaching that Developed this winter is Gutwrenching to many in the Commercial World , & has wrongly Painted a Worldwide picture that ALL watermen are Thiefs --These illegal sets may have been placed to be Found by other than Maryland Watermen-Thats why i Hope the Setters are found & punished -We MUST Have Tight & Continuing Enforcement Of Buyers & the Fail safes set up to prevent the Purchacing & Selling of Poached Fish 364 Days a Year -Resturants Need to be made to show comm. Gill Tags in the fish in the cooler , as well as Filets, ( the tags are to be AVA. for Officers inspection till Consumed) We Have the Laws , but they must be Enforced --Summer Stings need to be Done with DNRP & CG riding Together like in the Past --Contrary to Belief removing the Winter Fishery Allotment, the Summer Allotment will Not Be larger -Its time we Re-new our Yesterday's Attitude of WORKING TOGETHER for Md. Fisheries -geo.

[shoot-straight]

i have to say i can find no credible reason to say that pollution had anything to do with the population crash in the 80's. all data suggests overfishing by everyone as the culprit. if it was pollution, the fish would not have bounced back the way they did.

i respect your opinion however.

[Brandon]

We just want to get rid of nets, not ban commercial or recreational fishing. It's managing the striped bass resource responsibly so we have it for the future. Net's are greatly jeopardizing the stock and the enforcement and management of net fishing in the bay is being subsidized by recreational dollars. The nets are not only creating an unsustainable situation with the striped bass stock, but it's unsustainable from it's own finances.

Here comes no nets in Maryland. Who's behind this movement?:clapping2: did you hear that? No? Oh, that's over 7,000 people who have signed a petition to ban nets in Maryland waters. That's the biggest signed petition that has been done my any fishing related entity/fishing organization since I can remember back at least 20 years. Oh, and it was done by one guy who has only given it a bit of effort, once the next stage ramps up you can expect a lot of Marylanders to get on board. Sorry man, nets have to go. Hook and line is a fair way to fish and manage the resource for both recs and commercial.

[hollywood9s]

We just want to get rid of nets, not ban commercial or recreational fishing. It's managing the striped bass resource responsibly so we have it for the future. Net's are greatly jeopardizing the stock and the enforcement and management of net fishing in the bay is being subsidized by recreational dollars. The nets are not only creating an unsustainable situation with the striped bass stock, but it's unsustainable from it's own finances.

Here comes no nets in Maryland. Who's behind this movement?:clapping2: did you hear that? No? Oh, that's over 7,000 people who have signed a petition to ban nets in Maryland waters. That's the biggest signed petition that has been done my any fishing related entity/fishing organization since I can remember back at least 20 years. Oh, and it was done by one guy who has only given it a bit of effort, once the next stage ramps up you can expect a lot of Marylanders to get on board. Sorry man, nets have to go. Hook and line is a fair way to fish and manage the resource for both recs and commercial.
:thumbup::thumbup: Wholeheartedly agree, although i wouldn't be opposed to gamefish status either.

[C-Hawk18]

Here comes no nets in Maryland. Who's behind this movement?:clapping2: did you hear that? No? Oh, that's over 7,000 people who have signed a petition to ban nets in Maryland waters.

Seriously though, do you honestly believe that 7,000 signatures is going to get the attention of ANY Politician? I mean even if all those who signed were Maryland residents (which they aren't) that would still only be 25% of those living in Somerset County.

In reality 7,000 out of 5,699,478 residents is .122%

If you take away the out of state people it probably leaves about 1/10 of 1 percent.

[Brandon]

What I believe is that those signatures where collected by essentially one guy in a a few weeks time. I believe it is the largest collection of signatures from any fishing group in MD in the last 20 years from what I can remember. If you want to make your numbers look a little better you can compare it to tidal fishing license holders, both rec and commercial and do the simple division for a per cent that way.

Following your reasoning MD DNR should not listen to any fishing group, MSSA has about 6-7k from what I understand and CCA MD a few thousand. Reality is MD DNR and the state in general does listen to these groups. Thus I believe 7,000 signatures is a great start that should grab some real attention that people are concerned about the situation and support banning nets in the bay. Should the petition need more signatures I know Jerry has some other things to promote it in the works.

[C-Hawk18]

What I believe is that those signatures where collected by essentially one guy in a a few weeks time. I believe it is the largest collection of signatures from any fishing group in MD in the last 20 years from what I can remember. If you want to make your numbers look a little better you can compare it to tidal fishing license holders, both rec and commercial and do the simple division for a per cent that way.

Following your reasoning MD DNR should not listen to any fishing group, MSSA has about 6-7k from what I understand and CCA MD a few thousand. Reality is MD DNR and the state in general does listen to these groups. Thus I believe 7,000 signatures is a great start that should grab some real attention that people are concerned about the situation and support banning nets in the bay. Should the petition need more signatures I know Jerry has some other things to promote it in the works.

Just one guy with a "Sticky" post in a Forum boasting almost 60,000 members

But it's not just a "License Holder" concern....it is all the others who eat Rockfish too. Of that 5.6 Million people if 1 in 100 purchases rockfish then that would be 56,000. (Just 1%) Present a petition to those 56K people and see if they will sign it.......right after you tell them that the cost of rockfish is now going to triple. (Since the commercial fisherman will no longer be as "efficient" and it will cost him much more to get those same fish)
If I were a commercial fisherman I would prepare a petiton to "Save the Nets" using the above group. I would think it would be quite easy to obtain quite a bit more then 7000 to counter the "Ban" petition.

[crbfisher]

I have stopped writing in TidalFish after reading so much ambiguous rhetoric over the winter about gill nets. TidalFish has become a great example of how internet forums are breaking down the fundamentals of human communication. But after my experience on the water yesterday I feel compelled. That being said I am going to go out on a limb here and say how I feel about this issue with the caveat that I will sit down and have a face to face civil conversation over beers with any rec. angler, fishing guide, commercial waterman, or poacher on the matter. Here is what you need to know about me. My Dad bought a house on the water in Grasonville in 1985. He had spent a great deal of time on the ES as a youngster and loved it. He doesn't fish, hunt or anything. But as a young teen I took to the life fast and when I came down on the weekends I would force him to take me out to fish or crab and because he didn't know what he was doing we rarely caught much. (We were chicken neckers in local venacular) Now I am a self taught amature light tackle angler. I use to troll but evolved away from it and was disgusted by how much fish was wasted when we kept trophy's. I LT jig with barbless hooks and keep about 4 fish a year.

To start: Bring back a 1 year moratorium. Everything stops for Rockfish with the principle in mind that if you take a fish tank full of goldfish. Then you take a little fish tank net and you start scooping goldfish out it won't be long before you are out of goldfish. I think we are all wrong. Recreational fisherman entitle ourselves because we think since we only go out once in a while then breaking the rules won't hurt anything. That way of thinking is a failure to see the big picture. If 30,000 people do it than it can be very destructive. We also entitle ourselves that because Virginia and North Carolina are so haphazard in their conservation then we need to take what we can get.

My experience with commercial waterman is only what I see and is, admittedly, not well formulated or educated. I do not know any commercial guys personally. I see them as inconsiderate thugs on the water who assume that the water and anything that is in it is theirs for the taking because they were their first ("My father, my grandfather my grandfather's father were waterman, its all I know... yadda, yadda yadda"). They deliberately run their boats through breaking fish when recs are jigging them and they won't hesitate to flip me the bird as they drive by. The people using gill nets are just taking free money. They don't plant anything, they don't sew anything they do not contribute anything to the future populations. If we run low on Rockfish then take perch, spot, menhaden, crabs...anything they can sell for cash. When regulations are created they cry poor mouth and need to be subsidized. I see it as people failing to evolve.

The average recreation angler is just as bad. Everyone wasnt to catch the huge fish and get their picture taken with it. I especially love to see the picture with the guy gill raping the fish that he "release back in the water". I can't tell you how many huge dead fish I have seen floating in the water over the last 10 years. I guess that is catch and release. Or one catches a huge trophy and goes home with 11 or so pounds of rockfish filets so that it can sit in their freezer until they find it a year later and throw it out. I have made all of these mistakes too and I am changing my ways. I for one will follow any new regulation even if it means not fishing for a spell in order for the greater good. I really want my kids to see a decent fishery when they get older.

So big liar, I am with you. Lets ban all rock fishing until we get a handle on this problem. Because this year there are a lot less fish in the water and its not just because of the weather.

If you are going to blast this post you are wasting your time because I am not going to argue with anybody over a key board. I am not afraid of anyone or a sensitive little fella and will peacefully debate with anyone in person.

[C-Hawk18]

^^^^Crbfisher - your post makes ALOT of sense....but I fear you are in a 1% group of recreational fisherman. Most think that "they" are NOT part of the problem.

[crbfisher]

C-Hawk 18.

Your right and I should have included that in my rant. I am well aware that I am in a very small group and that's why I never chimed before. But my small group will indeed grow the fastest in the next 10 years.

I always appreciate your posts.

[nb1214]

C-Hawk 18.

Your right and I should have included that in my rant. I am well aware that I am in a very small group and that's why I never chimed before. But my small group will indeed grow the fastest in the next 10 years.

I always appreciate your posts.

Contrary to what C-Hawk18 will say about me, i agree with everything you just said, if a moratorium on catching, not just keeping rock will help the fishery I am all for it. The failing to evolve comment makes a ton of sense. Outlaw rock fishing and ill start fishing for blues and croaker and still enjoy my days on the water. We all need to step up and do our part to insure that this resource remains for future generations.

[Matt]

When all of you on here (including Brandon) that are wanting to band all nets because you are so concerned about the species. When you write up the bill proposal, be sure to propose that it be illegal to fish for rockfish in any method. After all, you guys are trying to protect the species. Right?

First of all the watermen have a message board where uninformed people can post in the comfort of one minded censorship. Second, people do not want to "protect" as much as they want to conserve, so the answer to your illogical false dilemma is, "no". Lastly, why post or read a recreational fishing message board?

[C-Hawk18]

First of all the watermen have a message board where uninformed people can post in the comfort of one minded censorship.

Where is this? Show it to me? I want to see some proof. Got any? You're just making up $hit to fuel the Rec vs Commercial fire.

[rj]

Where is this? Show it to me? I want to see some proof. Got any? You're just making up $hit to fuel the Rec vs Commercial fire.


http://www.watermen.org/forum/index.php?action=register

[Matt]

I tried to register there once and the site admin stated in no uncertain terms that I would have to give him my commercial fishing license number before I could log in.

[C-Hawk18]

I tried to register there once and the site admin stated in no uncertain terms that I would have to give him my commercial fishing license number before I could log in.

So this is a site where commercial fisherman go to post stuff about Commercial fishing? I thought you said it was a place....

where uninformed people can post in the comfort of one minded censorship.

Hey wait....it sounds like you might be saying that Commercial fisherman are "uninformed people"....is that right? The guys who are out on the water, busting their a$$ everyday rain or shine, snow or wind....etc.........I guess some uneducated person could see them as "Uninformed"......but of course "they" are the problem..........it's not "US".

[kidz]

:popcorn:

[Matt]

its sad how people get so emotional on the internet. Stick the facts chawk and quit crying

Has anyone tried to register there recently?

[C-Hawk18]

Stick the facts chawk and quit crying


What? - You post something......that I REPLY to.......and you tell me to Stick to the fact? Yeah OK

What's up? Hasn't DNR done anything lately for you to complain about?

[Matt]

do you have any rockfish related facts to add?

[C-Hawk18]

do you have any rockfish related facts to add?

If I did have anything relevant to the topic, I would have posted it. I wouldn't have tried to DIVERT the original subject and tried to make it (once again) a Rec vs Commercial argument......like some people on here ALWAYS seem to do.

[Big Liar]

First of all the watermen have a message board where uninformed people can post in the comfort of one minded censorship. Second, people do not want to "protect" as much as they want to conserve, so the answer to your illogical false dilemma is, "no". Lastly, why post or read a recreational fishing message board?

Matt,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your question. I was camping this past weekend and had no access to the web, or I would have provided you with answers in a more timely manner.
To answer your question: I do hold an LCC license which allows me to crab commercially. A recreational fishing license is also complementary with this license. Since I don't hold a commercial fishing license, but only a recreational license - I feel that I should be able to a read recreational fishing board. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I'm here reading your post that may come accross as anti-comm, or is it that a fellow recreational fishermen has the guts to stand up and say that a net ban petition that only affects comms that is started and supported by recreational fishermen is hypocritical. I really have nothing to gain by oposing the ban other than my own peace of mind.
I'm sure that having the LCC may have swayed my view point towards protecting all watermen from any attacks from other groups. I'll give you that, but I believe that my stand stems more from doing the right thing and not just the easy thing.
As far as the other board. I am a member and I will tell you that there are comments over there about some of the topics discussed here and how one sided they are. Sorry that you don't know the secret hand shake and can't read them. If you feel that left out, tell Brandon to start a private sub-board on here requiring a MSSA membership. He could name it Watermenhaters and you could all chat until your hearts content without fear of someone pointing out anything stupid that you post.:thumbup:

[crbfisher]

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

[Brandon]

Big Liar

Talk about one sided, tell the Watermen to open up their forum.That place is so one sided that it does not allow recs in at all. Even if you do have a commercial license number you can be denied if "whoever" does not like you or your opinion. That's not conjecture, that is fact from people being denied. Further, that place has made up stories about people to promote their side of things and bashed individuals and allowed it to happen on a regular basis. Talk about one sided, give me a break man:hysterical: I am not making it up because one "person" on that forum threatened me with a law suit once, funny thing is that person committed slander against me. I have it all saved.

TidalFish.com is a RECREATIONAL ANGLER FISHING SITE, expect to find RECREATIONAL angler points of view. There were more watermen on this site, however I had to suspend many of their accounts because they really did not want to contribute to the site, but rather had an agenda to push their opinions all the time on a regular basis and try to ruin the place. If recs did that on their commercial site they would be kicked off as well. At least TidalFish.com lets people who know how to conduct themselves in a respectful fashion on here with out threats, name calling, always flying their agenda flag etc... the commercial watermen site allows no one other then those who agree with them. It's the pot calling the kettle black and the crying and whining by that fraction has frankly grown so old that I think most just ignore it anymore.


crbfisher,

You make some good points. I'd sum it up by saying that we all, recs and commercial anglers, need to take responsibility for our actions and the mortality of any fish species that we catch and kill or catch and release. Until that happens we'll all be fighting for a smaller piece of the pie and victims of shifting baseline syndrome.

Your points about watermen not putting back is one that is a great point and we need not forget. Not only do the watermen not give back, their industry is being subsidized to too large an extent. The fees they generate do not even cover the enforcement necessary to enforce their industry. Not to mention things like oysters where all the seeding etc is paid for my taxpayers and then they get to harvest and sell the oysters. I think it costs $180/bushel to restore oysters, they sell them for what maybe $30-$40 bushel? That's crazy, especially when we are at 1% of historic levels. Add on top of that the costs of enforcement and we see a crazy subsidized industry. It's one thing to help a group out, it's another to be footing most all the bill.

Rec anglers I think do need to take more responsibility for their impact on fish. The one good thing we have going is at least we pay our fees for enforcement and the tax we have on tackle is given back to help conserve and restore fisheries.

Brandon

[Big Liar]

Brandon,
I have to tell you that it made me smile as soon as I saw that you responded to my post before I even read it. I'm sorry that the guys on the watermen's board won't let you play in their sandbox, but I can't control them any more than you.

I can't comment on the oyster topic because I don't oyster. I do love to eat them so I buy a couple of pints twice a year, so I won't attempt to find any fault with you logic. I'll leave that up to someone who knows more than I. I will tell you that as a commercial crabber, that I fuel the economy much more as a crabber than I do as a recreational angler. I will spend thousands of dollars every year in equiptment, bait, license fees, and income tax. I will only spend on average 1/10 of the money recreational fishing than I do commercial crabbing and that's only crabbing on weekends.

I think you would agree that Maryland's resources could not substain the pressure if every recreational (crabber or fishermen) would turn commercial. Maryland tries to control the number of commercial watermen there are active. With that being said, the limited number of commercial watermen support the economy and the tax base, the best that they can. That is what our government expects of them. It is not the commercial watermens fault that their numbers are not as great as the recreational fishing population. That would be like saying that Talbot county needs to match the tax $$ collected of Baltimore county. Just because Baltimore county's population is 20 times greater, your tax rate (you do still live there) should be increased by 20 times. Are you broke yet.

Please respond. I just really enjoy these conversations. Since I'm still on your island here, does that make me Boston Rob and not Russell.dancedance

[Brandon]

I honestly have not thought about the watermen's forum until I read about it here and just thought that I should put the truth about that place since it was brought up. Are my feelings hurt about not being let in, nope not at all. Even if I had access, which who knows I might, I would not/do not read it. It's not worth my time, which I consider valuable. The only thorn in my side was getting threatened with a law suit by a person who slandered me on those forums and on top of it broke Tidal Fish terms of service. If someone disagrees with my stances/opinions that's fine, but to totally make things up to try to paint a picture of me that is absolutely not true, but yet present it as fact, does rub me the wrong way. So that's my story about that, enough time spent on it.

You very may spend more money with your commercial crabbing then your rec fishing. I would expect you to as a commercial crabber. But I bet I spend several times more then you do on your commercial crabbing on my recreational fishing.

Your point about taxes and comparing it to fishing is flawed. Taxes are relative to the population that live in the county and needed to sustain the population that lives there. Baltimore country has X tax bracket based on the amount it costs for enforcement, infrastructure etc to support the people in the county that live there. Talbot county has X tax bracket based on the people that live there and what it costs to support the people that live there. If the costs go up, the taxes go up.

In commercial fishing the costs of enforcement and infrastructure to run the fishery needs to be divided by the participants. That number then needs to determine the license fees and taxes that it must incur to support running itself. If the commercial industry can not pay to run itself then you either have to increase fees or stop doing it.

The recs have the same equation. That is why we sometimes have to raise license fees. Although I am asking some questions about how much the rec sector has been subsidizing enforcement for the commercial sector over the years. It might turn out that recs could lower their fees when taking out the subsidy we've been paying.

Talbot county has to pay to support the people that live in their county just as Baltimore County has to pay to support the ones that live in theirs. Of course the numbers (taxes, fees and totals) are different, however the fact remains that each has to pay for those that live there.

Brandon

[Matt]

I know the LCC has an interesting history and I think I've heard about it or read it more than once. Still, I consider this a commercial fishing license. The LCC allows people to catch seafood with intent to sell. That’s commercial fishing. With an LCC I think you can register watermen's closed board and then you can encourage them to host a more dynamic discussion about fishery and fishing related topics. Closing the discussion to comms only is sort of proof in itself about who is open minded and who is not.

To the point of this discussion, its always amazing how biased some people are, that they would throw out some kind of flagrant red herring like 'recs should close rockfishing if they are so worried about protecting the fish.' Nonsense. The best thing for the State of Maryland is to host a world class striped bass fishery and implement methods to make it sustainable. Maryland chose to host big money kill fisheries instead, opting to gain more in the short term. Now this thing is broken again the crooked net fishermen seem to be working overtime to ensure this fishery collapses. In this case those who are deploying these illegal nets are doing far more damage to the commercial fishing community than anything that was ever written on TF or any website. I am again amazed how commercial fishermen and their part timer cousins are willing to overlook repeated crime.

[LTF]

Brandon,

Let's not forget that commercial fisherman are making money off of these resources. Recs do not. At best, we subsidize our grocery bill. I think most of us don't come close to breaking even.

Henri

[Big Liar]

I know the LCC has an interesting history and I think I've heard about it or read it more than once. Still, I consider this a commercial fishing license. The LCC allows people to catch seafood with intent to sell. That’s commercial fishing. With an LCC I think you can register watermen's closed board and then you can encourage them to host a more dynamic discussion about fishery and fishing related topics. Closing the discussion to comms only is sort of proof in itself about who is open minded and who is not.

To the point of this discussion, its always amazing how biased some people are, that they would throw out some kind of flagrant red herring like 'recs should close rockfishing if they are so worried about protecting the fish.' Nonsense. The best thing for the State of Maryland is to host a world class striped bass fishery and implement methods to make it sustainable. Maryland chose to host big money kill fisheries instead, opting to gain more in the short term. Now this thing is broken again the crooked net fishermen seem to be working overtime to ensure this fishery collapses. In this case those who are deploying these illegal nets are doing far more damage to the commercial fishing community than anything that was ever written on TF or any website. I am again amazed how commercial fishermen and their part timer cousins are willing to overlook repeated crime.

Matt,
I'm all for punishment of those who are breaking the law. Just not for punishment for everyone that fishes because of a few law breakers. I thought we were still in the US where people were sentensed first and then punished. As I have said many times before. I don't know who it is that is setting the nets. Even if you hear something that is third hand information, try turning that information over to the authorities. Without hard evidence, you can't just start spreading lies about someone to the authorities.

As far as my LCC, it does not allow me to catch any more fish than your recreational license. It's a commercial crab license only.


Brandon,

I will take your word that you spend more fishing than I do crabbing. I'm not about to get in to a **** measuring contest with you. That was not my point. You fish more that 98% of the population and to that I am jealous. I guess if I had taken my programming skills and set up an internet site of my own, in time I may have been able to do the same. Anyway, my point was about the population. The smaller commercial population does pay more per person in to the state than the avg. recreational fishermen. Proving how much money is spent policing each group is hard to do. I would suspect that you are speculating about how much is spent by the DNR policing each group. I think it would be interesting to see the actual cost allocation breakdown for the DNR.

[kidz]

:popcorn: Anyone else think that certain posters get self satisfaction by posting and then waiting for a response. Good thing TF lets any one post as long as they do not act childish. Hope that DNR makes a decision quickly on whether to ban nets or let everything stay the same. Moratorium would make me happy, save the rockfish, screw those who defend the illegal poaching done by recs and comms. hopefully when the violators are caught, jail time is given. Send the message that poaching is a crime. Do the crime, get some time.

[C-Hawk18]

In commercial fishing the costs of enforcement and infrastructure to run the fishery needs to be divided by the participants. That number then needs to determine the license fees and taxes that it must incur to support running itself. If the commercial industry can not pay to run itself then you either have to increase fees or stop doing it.

The recs have the same equation. That is why we sometimes have to raise license fees.



So who pays for those who fish without licensing? How about those with Commercial Licenses committing Recreational Violations or those with Recreational Licenses committing Commercial Violations?


How do you figure out the costs? Does it cost more to watch 1 commercial fisherman or 100 recreational anglers? What is the ratio of Commercial to Recreational?
Any idea?

I think this "cost" measurement enforcement analysis a bunch of poppycock.....but since it appears to fit into YOUR agenda you may as well try and work an angle on it.

[Matt]

Matt,
I'm all for punishment of those who are breaking the law. Just not for punishment for everyone that fishes because of a few law breakers.


Sorry those few law breakers are making all commercial fishermen look bad, like it or not. Lets face it, Maryland has an alarming number of commercial fishermen who are repeat violators, with many many violations like the recent outbreak of out-of-season netting that clearly show intent.

[Brandon]

Big Liar
I am not speculating on how much it costs to police the commercial sector nor how much it generates. The data is available and being compiled and analyzed. I am not going to take the time to lay it all out here since a lot of hours of research have and are going into it. Not to mention even if I posted it some would just try to take an angle. Bottom line is if the industry can not support it's enforcement and infrastructure, or at least a large majority then it's not sustainable.

PS if you start a site, don't start a fishing one for the money, trust me on that one. Pick a bigger market that is not as fragmented and you'll do well if you execute. I tried both, the bigger not as fragmented market makes money and allows me to keep a place like this going since it's a passion.

C-Hawk18
So you think recs should have to pay for clean up of illegal gill nets, check in stations for commercial fishing and things like that? If you say yes, then I ask should the recs get more allocation since they are footing the bill?

[Brandon]

Matt,

It is a shame, it's almost embarrassing that Maryland now as the nickname in other areas of the coast as "The Poaching State". We have all these great natural resources and that's how we are now known.

[GonzoAngler]

License fees and violations... Simple. I wouldn't mind pitching in a few bucks to make sure DNR/NRP stays on top of the bad actors!

[capt.george]

Big Liar
I am not speculating on how much it costs to police the commercial sector nor how much it generates. The data is available and being compiled and analyzed. I am not going to take the time to lay it all out here since a lot of hours of research have and are going into it. Not to mention even if I posted it some would just try to take an angle. Bottom line is if the industry can not support it's enforcement and infrastructure, or at least a large majority then it's not sustainable.

PS if you start a site, don't start a fishing one for the money, trust me on that one. Pick a bigger market that is not as fragmented and you'll do well if you execute. I tried both, the bigger not as fragmented market makes money and allows me to keep a place like this going since it's a passion.

C-Hawk18
So you think recs should have to pay for clean up of illegal gill nets, check in stations for commercial fishing and things like that? If you say yes, then I ask should the recs get more allocation since they are footing the bill?

--POPPYCOCK-See Ya Tomorow Night, At the big house --

--Pre-Question -If A Rec Boat comes in , & Goes on a Second trip Is That boat now a POACHING BOAT?--Law States Rec. one trip a Day--Charters Two Trips a Day --Photo Devices Should Be on Every Entrance Day Marker Pole for later Observation By DNRP http://youtu.be/ifdgrfr0Bkk

[Matt]

Matt,

It is a shame, it's almost embarrassing that Maryland now as the nickname in other areas of the coast as "The Poaching State". We have all these great natural resources and that's how we are now known.

I completely agree. As you know I am not a fan of how Maryland runs these fisheries. Frankly its hard for me to blame watermen too much for the games they are allowed to play. The State is allowing this to persist.

[C-Hawk18]

Matt,

It is a shame, it's almost embarrassing that Maryland now as the nickname in other areas of the coast as "The Poaching State". We have all these great natural resources and that's how we are now known.

You know what is FUNNY.....try searching for the Poaching state....what comes up? Shawn's blog and this post........WOW MD is really on THE MAP!

I guess the saying "It is what you make it" sure fits here!

[Matt]

Just an observation but watermen and their apologists seem flippant about the rash of poaching. Given this poaching shows clear intent to disregard rules, I think this is worse than just poaching. It is flagrant crimnal behavior. Comms can cry and whine about all the mean recs and all the mean things we say but the simple fact is, the flippant attitudes about this kind of crime will do more to damage credibility of commercial fishermen than anything anybody writes here.

[Brandon]

C-Hawk18
So you think recs should have to pay for clean up of illegal gill nets, check in stations for commercial fishing and things like that? If you say yes, then I ask should the recs get more allocation since they are footing the bill?

[C-Hawk18]

C-Hawk18
So you think recs should have to pay for clean up of illegal gill nets, check in stations for commercial fishing and things like that? If you say yes, then I ask should the recs get more allocation since they are footing the bill?

Two totally different things - Illegal Nets (that no one has a clue WHO put there) vs Check-In stations. Sure the Commercial Fees should pay for the Check-In stations. If a Commercial waterman is found violating the law by placing an illegal net, and it then has to be recovered, I believe that HE (or SHE) should foot the bill. No one else. Kinda like in a criminal trial where fines are imposed.

BTW - Isn't the Recreational Allocation of rockfish already more then the Commercial Allocation?

[Big Liar]

Absolutely C-Hawk18.

Matt,
I've never been flippant about poachers or poaching. My sarcasism is only towards the people who want to lump all watermen in to a single group of bandits and scandrals based on their limited knowledge. Then these same people want to pass as many restrictions as possible against all watermen, but these same people never suggest the same type of treatment when recreational anglers are caught poaching. I've never seen a petition with 7000 names on it to address fishing over the 3 mile line or people fishing in closed rivers during spawning. I've only seen this group up in arms whenever the word watermen was involved.

Do I enjoy submitting posts to get under your skin in a round about way? Absolutely. Does it attract people to read my post and thus draw more attention to both sides of this argument? I hope so.

[kidz]

I read some posts to see if the poster always does the same thing. Consistently trying to to twist or change other posters words. When I read certain posts I already know that the post in not about solving problems or coming up with an idea. Like politicians, these posters talk alot and try to slow down what really needs to be done. Committes formed, other reason possibly associated with the problem and the always good delay tactic( what about the other group and what their doing or not doing). Mostly I am entertained and laugh at the responses. These posters should be grateful that TF allows them an opportunity to post. When the DNR finally announce who they catch poaching with illegal gillnets, I for one, will still want a moratorium on rockfish and any other resource that needs to be save from the low levels currently in the bay.

[C-Hawk18]

C-Hawk18
So you think recs should have to pay for clean up of illegal gill nets, check in stations for commercial fishing and things like that? If you say yes, then I ask should the recs get more allocation since they are footing the bill?


Thinking about your last sentence, and since you are asking I was wondering what YOUR thoughts are on that? If one group is spending more, should they get more?

[Big Liar]

I read some posts to see if the poster always does the same thing. Consistently trying to to twist or change other posters words. When I read certain posts I already know that the post in not about solving problems or coming up with an idea. Like politicians, these posters talk alot and try to slow down what really needs to be done. Committes formed, other reason possibly associated with the problem and the always good delay tactic( what about the other group and what their doing or not doing). Mostly I am entertained and laugh at the responses. These posters should be grateful that TF allows them an opportunity to post. When the DNR finally announce who they catch poaching with illegal gillnets, I for one, will still want a moratorium on rockfish and any other resource that needs to be save from the low levels currently in the bay.

Brandon,
Let me tell you how grateful I am that you let me post here on your island. dancedance I'm sure all of the watermen that are still on here all thank God every day that we are still allowed on TF. :yes:
doh Oh that right. I am a recreational angler. doh

I'm not sure how I'm delaying what needs to be done. I want either the DNR to catch whom ever set the nets --- and/or --- if restrictions are put in place because the stocks are low, I want the restrictions to be fair and just and I want them to be put in place to best preserve the species. I don't want one group that also takes fish to force restriction against another group in order that they may harvest more. Even though I'm in the recreational group.

I don't think I'm unfair in wanting that. I actually think that I'm being fair and unselfish.

[Matt]

Matt,
I've never been flippant about poachers or poaching.


Nonsense. You absolutely are being flippant. Making Rockfish illegal to catch period...? The logic behind that post managed to look past criminals actively engaged in senseless intentional crime - "Hey Recs" according to your reasoning, "if killing rockfish is so bad why don't you all stop killing rockfish." Forget about the crime. Forget about the repeat violations. Forget about the criminal intent. Forget about the waste and the scurrilous roachlike behavior. Lets boil this all down to a simple little paradigm where killing fish is killing fish regardless of laws or facts. The entire premise of your first post on this thread is a flippant rationalization. And to tell you the truth, it doesn't make me mad or get under my skin or whatever. I welcome posts like these because they make all comms look bad. The more uncaring comms and their apologists look out in the open, the less work the rest of us have to do.

[C-Hawk18]

Nonsense. You absolutely are being flippant. Making Rockfish illegal to catch period...? The logic behind that post managed to look past criminals actively engaged in senseless intentional crime - "Hey Recs" according to your reasoning, "if killing rockfish is so bad why don't you all stop killing rockfish." Forget about the crime. Forget about the repeat violations.

Does this have something to do with nets that are already ILLEGAL? I thought what (almost) everyone here was trying to do is ban nets that are legal right now. Meaning that it is not a crime to use them.

I might be wrong but I think Big Liar is saying that if you want to stop something that the Commercial fisherman are LEGALLY doing right now, in the name of Fishery Conservation, then would you also make what you (as Recreational fisherman) are LEGALLY doing, Illegal in the name of Fishery Conservation.

[Big Liar]

Nonsense. You absolutely are being flippant. Making Rockfish illegal to catch period...? The logic behind that post managed to look past criminals actively engaged in senseless intentional crime - "Hey Recs" according to your reasoning, "if killing rockfish is so bad why don't you all stop killing rockfish." Forget about the crime. Forget about the repeat violations. Forget about the criminal intent. Forget about the waste and the scurrilous roachlike behavior. Lets boil this all down to a simple little paradigm where killing fish is killing fish regardless of laws or facts. The entire premise of your first post on this thread is a flippant rationalization. And to tell you the truth, it doesn't make me mad or get under my skin or whatever. I welcome posts like these because they make all comms look bad. The more uncaring comms and their apologists look out in the open, the less work the rest of us have to do.

No. My original point was that if recs are so eager to close an entire industry and put tons of good people out of work because there was evidence of poaching going on and this same group is crying that the rockfish population is crashing. Then why does this same group of anglers not suggest to reduce the recreational harvest.

If the petition was to get the DNR more equiptment or manpower to help catch the poachers, then I'm all for it. During WW11 every person that looked like they were from Japan was taken and put in camps because of fear. We quickly learned later that this was a mistake. This is the same opinion you and others have as evident by the last couple of lines in your post.

[kidz]

LOL, these last posts are exactly what I posted about. Big liar- recreational fisherman with commercial crab license? C-hawke thought the post was about banning legal nets ? Big L started the post with his comment about making rockfish illegal to catch. Twist and turn. LOL at these guys when they post like this. You guys should team up and start your own forum.

[Matt]

No. My original point was that if recs are so eager to close an entire industry and put tons of good people out of work because there was evidence of poaching going on and this same group is crying that the rockfish population is crashing. Then why does this same group of anglers not suggest to reduce the recreational harvest.

If protecting netters is that important why take it up with recs. Recs aren't netters. You could start your pro-netter campaign over on the watermen's board, log in with your LCC and ask the netters to clean up their act. Ask the honest ones rat out the bad apples. See how that goes over. Good luck.

[johnnylaw]

will all the recs who have ever put over 1 ton of fish in there boat in a 24 hr period please stand up.....(sound of crickets).....why is this even a discussion??? TONS of illegally caught rockfish, TONS, TONS. are you fricking kidding me, no one wants to ban fishing for them just a method that allows so much fish to be brought in so easily. obviously there is no other way to stop the poachers from using them without a baywide survellance system so i vote for making it illegal to own one. but if they are going to stay legal then i wish some serious pressure would be put on places selling the fish to the public. back track it, do you think the poachers would get caught if we were talking about tuna?? the ocean is way bigger then the bay. jmho

[Black Irish]

Why argue anything here when it involves commercial interest? We all know who is on what side. It's always the same little group of watermen wannabes that think they represent their group and no matter how blatent the lawlessness is, the defense is always the same - spin factor tactics and a bucket of sand to stick their heads in when faced with indisputable evidence. I find it sad and funny at the same time. But I also use it as inspiration to write to my lawmakers and the governor. The days of the old boy network are coming to an end and rightfully so. The bay has shown us it can't support the commercial pressure.

[C-Hawk18]

Why argue anything here when it involves commercial interest? We all know who is on what side. It's always the same little group of watermen wannabes that think they represent their group and no matter how blatent the lawlessness is, the defense is always the same - spin factor tactics and a bucket of sand to stick their heads in when faced with indisputable evidence. I find it sad and funny at the same time. But I also use it as inspiration to write to my lawmakers and the governor. The days of the old boy network are coming to an end and rightfully so. The bay has shown us it can't support the commercial pressure.

WoW - You must have LCC on Auto-search. Anybody mentions LCC and here you are.......Still haven't been able to get one, so you still hold that grudge.....what a shame......it's just the opposite of that saying "If you can beat em you may as well join em".....so if you can't Join em you may as well try to beat em.

[crabby and son]

I have read some of this post. Pop in every once in a while and it's the same ole stuff in different words and it's going absolutely NOWHERE. It's meaningless and a waste of ink but it is entertaining a small group of guys so I'll check back with the 3 stooges on page 14:wacko:.............Gary

[Big Liar]

Why argue anything here when it involves commercial interest? We all know who is on what side. It's always the same little group of watermen wannabes that think they represent their group and no matter how blatent the lawlessness is, the defense is always the same - spin factor tactics and a bucket of sand to stick their heads in when faced with indisputable evidence. I find it sad and funny at the same time. But I also use it as inspiration to write to my lawmakers and the governor. The days of the old boy network are coming to an end and rightfully so. The bay has shown us it can't support the commercial pressure.

That is so funny after this site was collecting signatures to close down a commercial industry. You really make me laugh. As far as being a watermen, I'm as much of a watermen as I wannabe. I guess that really bugs you. Oh well, you'll get over it some day. But I do have to ask, please show me where I've defended any lawlessness activity? I've only defended the men that fish legally with nets and I point out that you guys are using the media attention over the poaching to support your alternative agenda.

[Big Liar]

I have read some of this post. Pop in every once in a while and it's the same ole stuff in different words and it's going absolutely NOWHERE. It's meaningless and a waste of ink but it is entertaining a small group of guys so I'll check back with the 3 stooges on page 14:wacko:.............Gary

See you on page 14.

[Brandon]

C-Hawk18

Your response about those that set the nets and having to pay for the clean up makes good sense. I look forward to you carrying the flag on that issue, getting the commercial sector on board and getting that made into law. It's a great suggestion.

However, you did not answer the other part of my question, should recreational anglers have to pay for enforcement and infrastructure to regulate the commercial fishing industry? Shouldn't an industry pay the costs it takes to run itself when the industry is out there to make a profit and on top of it does not put anything back. Even when the watermen are doing "restoration" work they get paid by the day by DNR to do it.

What we have is an industry that is not generating the fees it takes to regulate itself and being subsidized by recreational angler fees. That's crazy for recreational anglers to have to foot the bill. Not to mention it's a situation that is not giving or putting back.

I just came from a joint SFAC/TFAC meeting. There were approximately 26 commissioners total and probably at least 10 DNR staff. We spent approximately 1.5 hrs talking about issues that pertain to nets, how to regulate the hook and line fishery because of the issues that are caused from having a pound net fishery and the games that goes on etc... That is a total of 54 man hours talking about stuff that could be eliminated by getting rid of nets.

Further, we have a big problem with not just gill nets, but with pound nets too:

1) All sorts of games go on with using tags from other gear types. Take a look in the catch records at the end of the last two years for hook and line. You will see huge spikes. Bunch of illegal activity going on there with tagging pound net fish as hook and line, has been for some time and it's time to end it.

2) We have pound nets being allowed in closed striped bass spawning rivers during the spawning season. It's outrageous and when the recreational angler community becomes more aware as well as the general public and lawmakers about this situation it is going to be pretty bad given all the attention and potential population problems we have with striped bass. We close spawning rivers to recreational fishing to protect the stripers, yet we allow nets in those rivers that are catching, killing, and catching and releasing stripers, the very striped bass we are trying to protect:52:

3) Pound nets are a hazard to navigation Not much more to explain on this one, the issue is apparent.

I am not saying ban commercial fishing, have at it with hook and line. Heck, with out nets the hook and liners will have even more relaxed regulations because the nets and the problems they create will not be around.

The time has come to ban all nets in the Chesapeake, it's simply the only answer anymore. :hammer:

[C-Hawk18]

However, you did not answer the other part of my question, should recreational anglers have to pay for enforcement and infrastructure to regulate the commercial fishing industry? Shouldn't an industry pay the costs it takes to run itself when the industry is out there to make a profit and on top of it does not put anything back. Even when the watermen are doing "restoration" work they get paid by the day by DNR to do it.


I'm not really sure how it is that the Recreational Fisherman is paying for the Commercial Enfocrement and Infastructure....but I'll answer your question with a question. Is it right that I should have to pay for all the LAZY people in Md who do not work? For Food, Housing and utilities for probably 2/3rd's of the City of Baltimore's population?
You want to make this a $$$$ issue then don't talk about the pennies that it costs to run the Commercial Fishery as compared to the Millions it costs for Welfare.
Is this about Conservation or Money? I guess when the $$$ goes towards YOUR cause you bring it up.

Now let's get back to your "Pound Net" theory. So Pounds nets are placed in those "Spawning" rivers targeting other species...right? So if you want to use this argument that these nets are causing stripers to be killed, then I say BAN all fishing in spawning rivers. People who are fishing for SHAD, PERCH or LM BASS are also catching Stripers....right? So by your own logic you would agree that ALL fishing should be BANNED in spawning rivers.

Then let's move on to the H&L fishery. Out one side of the mouth you say that there has been plenty of landings data to say that Commercial Fisherman can survive with the H&L fishery only. They catch plenty of fish to make a living...right? Then out the other side of the mouth you say that there is Illegal Tagging of Pound Net caught fish (as H&L) that needs to stop. So is the H&L data accurate or is it not? Like in the above case it's both depending on which argument you are trying to push.
As a note when I say "you" I'm not referring to YOU as an individual, I'm referring to the group. (of those who want to ban nets)

[Big Liar]

If protecting netters is that important why take it up with recs. Recs aren't netters. You could start your pro-netter campaign over on the watermen's board, log in with your LCC and ask the netters to clean up their act. Ask the honest ones rat out the bad apples. See how that goes over. Good luck.

Matt,

I take it up here instead of there, because this is the place where the people are trying to push to get all netting banned. If the neighbor's kids from the house to your left are throwing rocks at your house, it does not make any sense to confront the neighbor that lives to the right of your house. By the way I do have an account on the watermen's board, and there are discussions about how to stop the illegal activity.
You have never once heard me defend poaching. I've only defended the legal activity of netting. Whereas here, everyone's answer to stop the illegal activity is to place further restrictions on the guys that are fishing legally. To me that is sort of like confronting the neighbor to your right scenario. Just because he is also your neighbor, does not make him responsible for your other neighbors’ activities.
I know you guys that keep commenting repeatedly on this thread will never agree with me and I have a pretty good grasp on why. However, as other people read through this post - they may come to see that I'm not the one trying to push a personal agenda.

[B-Faithful]

C-Hawk, are you implying that watermen are in need of welfare or their industry should be subsidized?

Brandon, you also need not only consider license and fees generated by commercial and recreational fishing... What about the tax benefits the state receives from commercial vs the recreational fisheries? I understand 80% of commercially harvested striped bass go out of state and are not subject to sales tax. We all know the recreational side pays 10% federal excise tax on top of 6% sales tax on all fishing gear, we buy many times more times the fishing boats, fuel, service work, etc. The recreational side also provides many more times the jobs..

[Big Liar]

C-Hawk, are you implying that watermen are in need of welfare or their industry should be subsidized?

Brandon, you also need not only consider license and fees generated by commercial and recreational fishing... What about the tax benefits the state receives from commercial vs the recreational fisheries? I understand 80% of commercially harvested striped bass go out of state and are not subject to sales tax. We all know the recreational side pays 10% federal excise tax on top of 6% sales tax on all fishing gear, we buy many times more times the fishing boats, fuel, service work, etc. The recreational side also provides many more times the jobs..

Talk about twisting someone words. Come on. That's even a stretch for you.

Again with the we pay more money approach? The recreation population is how many times larger than the commercial population? So if we assign the commercial license fees and additional regulation to every recreational angler, how much more money would the state take in? This has nothing to do with why you guys want the nets banned anyway.

[Brandon]

C-Hawk18

The recreational community is paying for the commercial fishery enforcement and infrastructure because the commercial sector does not generate enough income to cover the costs to regulate its own industry. Not sure how much more simply I can lay it out. The numbers are available, don't believe me, then I encourage you to invest your time and do the research.

Few easy points for you in case you decide not to invest the time:

1) If the commercial sector is not generating enough money to cover the costs for the regulation and enforcement of it's industry, then where is the money coming from? It's coming from the recs.

2) The commercial sector does not pay Maryland sales tax on their boats or equipment. Was hard for me to believe too, but this is probably not new news to you or Big Liar, just not talked about. So not only do the fees the commercial sector not cover their costs, they reach into the taxpayer pockets.

3) Recreational anglers pay Maryland sales tax on their boats and equipment AND also have a federal tackle tax. The tackle tax gets put into a pool and given back to the states to give back to fisheries.

The commercial industry is essentially running on a welfare program. This time has come to put this stuff to a halt, it's not sustainable.

re: Hook and Line: you say I/we talk out of both sides of our mouth with hook and line. I am not sure to the extent you understand the dynamics between gill nets, pound nets and hook and line. But if you attended the joint SFAC/TFAC meeting last night (not sure if you were there or not?) you would have witnessed first hand why the hook and line fishery has problems, it all relates to having nets in the bay. With out nets we could have a hook and line fishery that could attain it's limits because we would not have to build in all these crazy complex regulations to protect the cheating. Hook and liners could fish with more liberal regulations and given they would be using the same gear as recs, enforcement could be shared. Even though the recs would still be footing the bills for enforcement, giving back to the fishery and maintaining the infrastructure around regulations, the recs would most likely not have problem with doing it because of the natural synergies that exist between having commercial hook and line and rec hook and line.

What I/we are proposing with banning nets in the bay is not some new crazy idea, the majority of the coastal states ban nets and its worked out fine, with many cases demonstrating the increased fishing and opportunity for both recs and commercial fishermen. Take a trip to Florida to check it out for yourself.

Maryland is operating under an archaic fisheries system and philosophy. I understand Maryland history and know we have a rich history going back to colonial times, but that does not mean we should be running things under colonial philosophies, it's time to update ourselves to modern times facing the realities of which we live and exist.

The time to ban nets in Maryland has come.:hammer:

[Matt]

Matt,

I take it up here instead of there, because this is the place where the people are trying to push to get all netting banned. If the neighbor's kids from the house to your left are throwing rocks at your house, it does not make any sense to confront the neighbor that lives to the right of your house. By the way I do have an account on the watermen's board, and there are discussions about how to stop the illegal activity.
You have never once heard me defend poaching. I've only defended the legal activity of netting. Whereas here, everyone's answer to stop the illegal activity is to place further restrictions on the guys that are fishing legally. To me that is sort of like confronting the neighbor to your right scenario. Just because he is also your neighbor, does not make him responsible for your other neighbors’ activities.
I know you guys that keep commenting repeatedly on this thread will never agree with me and I have a pretty good grasp on why. However, as other people read through this post - they may come to see that I'm not the one trying to push a personal agenda.

This isn't as much about defending criminal activity its about taking a position in favor of net fishing without recognizing that net poachers are doing more to bring scrutiny on honest netters than anything recs are doing. Poachers have ignited the netting controversy. The recent net ban crusade is their fault. Stop blaming recs. Blame the criminals. As long as the net fishing community tolerates poachers, they will all live in the same cloud of shame. Most industries are quick to rat out their competition when their competition is getting a leg up by cheating. For some reason this industry protects each other no matter how egregious the offense.

[C-Hawk18]

C-Hawk, are you implying that watermen are in need of welfare or their industry should be subsidized?


Of course not. I'm implying that lots of people pay for the likes of others.


Brandon, you also need not only consider license and fees generated by commercial and recreational fishing... What about the tax benefits the state receives from commercial vs the recreational fisheries? I understand 80% of commercially harvested striped bass go out of state and are not subject to sales tax. We all know the recreational side pays 10% federal excise tax on top of 6% sales tax on all fishing gear, we buy many times more times the fishing boats, fuel, service work, etc. The recreational side also provides many more times the jobs..

It looks like what you are saying it that those who contribute more should get more?

So the guy who buys a 60' sportfisher with twin diesels and has Penn Internationals all attached to his Custom Rods with 1000 yds of Braid should get more then the Senior Citizen who uses a 202 Zebco Combo from the Pier at Fort Smallwood? or should they both be allowed the same amount?

It's about the Money or it's about the resource........unless you can somehow work an "Angle" to your benefit, right?

[Brandon]

Matt

Excellent point. I guess the commercial sector should be commended for sticking together at some level. I am not sure if there is honor in that, something to debate over some beers one night I suppose. Unfortunately for the honest watermen the "we all stick together" is going to close net fishing in the bay and bring a lot of other issues about the industry into the forefront. At the end of the day it will be a good thing for both the commercial and rec fisheries, fishing will be better for all.

[Black Irish]

Brandon, the commercials pay no sales taxes at all (with a tax id #) for boat, motor, fuel, gear, equipment, bait, repair parts, or anything else related to the cost of doing business, right down to the pencil to fill out his reports with. Even the poachers nets lost to the DNR grappling hooks will be written off.

[Brandon]

C-Hawk

Interesting take, so let me get this straight with your line of reasoning. You said, "I'm implying that lots of people pay for the likes of others.":

1) So recreational anglers should foot most of the bill for the infrastructure and enforcement of the commercial sector

2) The commercial sector, a for profit venture, should not have to pay sales tax and be subsidized by the tax payers in Maryland

3) The commercial sector should get the right to take from a public resource, of which others pay to maintain, and sell what they take to make a profit

4) The commercial sector should get to take and not pay to help "replant", "maintain" or "restore" the public natural resource

5) When the industry does do "replanting" or "restoration" work they should get paid for doing it from taxpayer money of which they did not contribute because they are not charged sales tax.

6) When the industry cheats, the clean up should be paid for by the recs and taxpayers. I know you are going to lead the charge to get this changed, but until then it is the attitude and reality of the situation.

Sounds like you support the commercial industry running under a welfare program. Helping an industry is one thing when it gives back and makes an effort. In this case we have an industry attitude that is taking, not policing its own industry, not giving back and then wants to take some more and on top of it make a profit from it. Huh, interesting approach, but sorry I can not support that.

[Big Liar]

Matt

Excellent point. I guess the commercial sector should be commended for sticking together at some level. I am not sure if there is honor in that, something to debate over some beers one night I suppose. Unfortunately for the honest watermen the "we all stick together" is going to close net fishing in the bay and bring a lot of other issues about the industry into the forefront. At the end of the day it will be a good thing for both the commercial and rec fisheries, fishing will be better for all.

Brandon,

Just like is mentioned here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/outdoors/bs-sp-thomson-outdoors-column0515-20110512,0,3321571.story

I honestly don't think a net ban will pass. If it does not, do you have another plan of attack to stop the poaching? Will you still care enough to try to stop poaching or is the passion just in banning nets?

[Brandon]

Big Liar

Appreciate your opinion. Sometimes people do not know what they do not know. As stated before I'm not going to reveal deep insight into what is going on with the net ban initiative, 1) because I am not the leader in it, I am just a supporter and it would not be right for me to do so, 2) because of who reads these forums.

I respect your opinion that it might not pass. I do not get paid for this policy work, thus I allocate x hours of my valuable time. I've chosen to allocate that time to a net ban. I believe the only solution is a net ban. If the poaching continues and the industry does not police itself it will only continue to help the net ban cause and help it gain more and more support.

If you do not believe the net ban will happen, then you can invest your time in worrying about how to stop net poaching. At least everyone will be working towards what they beleive is a solution to the problem.

Brandon

[Big Liar]

C-Hawk

Interesting take, so let me get this straight with your line of reasoning. You said, "I'm implying that lots of people pay for the likes of others.":

1) So recreational anglers should foot most of the bill for the infrastructure and enforcement of the commercial sector

2) The commercial sector, a for profit venture, should not have to pay sales tax and be subsidized by the tax payers in Maryland

3) The commercial sector should get the right to take from a public resource, of which others pay to maintain, and sell what they take to make a profit

4) The commercial sector should get to take and not pay to help "replant", "maintain" or "restore" the public natural resource

5) When the industry does do "replanting" or "restoration" work they should get paid for doing it from taxpayer money of which they did not contribute because they are not charged sales tax.

6) When the industry cheats, the clean up should be paid for by the recs and taxpayers. I know you are going to lead the charge to get this changed, but until then it is the attitude and reality of the situation.

Sounds like you support the commercial industry running under a welfare program. Helping an industry is one thing when it gives back and makes an effort. In this case we have an industry attitude that is taking, not policing its own industry, not giving back and then wants to take some more and on top of it make a profit from it. Huh, interesting approach, but sorry I can not support that.

So if I read this post of yours, it is quite obvious to me that you do not like any commercial fishing activity at all. It sounds like your true feelings are to get rid of all commercial watermen. I kind of already guessed that this was your feelings, but this last post really spells it out. Are you sure you should be on any committee feeling like this. You keep claiming that this push will help hook and line fishermen, but I believe they would just be next on your list to attack.

Companies in a lot of industries get tax breaks. Not just fishing. This is not unique to fishing. Do you have other boards up against all types of businesses that get tax breaks?

[Brandon]

I am not against commercial fishing, but I am against nets. You can save and copy this from me. Brandon White says, "I am not againist commercial fishing. I will not go after hook and line fishing (to be clear I do not consider long lines hook and line fishing), I believe hook and line commercial fishing is a sustainable, fair way to commercial fish when done under a well managed and designed system. Cheating goes on on both the rec and commercial side, that's just human nature, but the magnitude that it can happen with hook and line is no where near what it is with nets. I enjoy eating seafood and appreciate the privilege of being able to do so by catching and keeping my own fish and having it provided by a sustainable, well managed, commercial fishing industry "
Save that quote and if I stray from that make sure to sent it to every press outlet you can.

I do not have a problem helping cover some costs of the commercial fishing industry if the industry did not have such problems and when confronted the industry push back and ask for even more. That's a terrible attitude that I can not support and that is the attitude with commercial net fishing in the bay.

Now, instead of trying to turn the discussion to what you think I think, answer the questions regarding if you think we are recs and tax payers should be supporting subsidizes to such an extent in the commercial fishing industry. Your interjection to try to introduce other industries is like getting pulled over for speeding from a police officer and telling him he should not give you a ticket because there are other bad people ou there he should be focusing on. Tell the judge that and he will not care, you were speeding and you get the ticket. The topic is commercial fishing in MD. Let's stay on point.

re: "Are you sure you should be on any committee feeling like this" I am absolutely positive I should serve on as many commitees as possible because you mis-characterized and interpreted how I feel and what I believe. Further, I serve on a "Sport Fish Advisory Commission" As the name implies, that is made up of recreational anglers who hold rec angler beliefs and positions. While I am not against commercial fishing, I know those that are that serve on the commission as well as others. Should they be entitled to their views and allowed to serve, you bet.

[C-Hawk18]

If the poaching continues and the industry does not police itself it will only continue to help the net ban cause and help it gain more and more support.


Sometimes people do not know what they do not know.

Maybe this is the case? Do you know if any Commercial Fisherman in the area have been questioned as to whether or not they know anything?

I wonder though of ALL the Recreational Fishing violations that DNR has written this year.......how many of those violators were turned in by another Recreational Fisherman.....do you think even any were?

[Brandon]

You said, "Do you know if any Commercial Fisherman in the area have been questioned as to whether or not they know anything?"
Yes I know. I am not going to give out details on a case being developed on a public forum, much less to anyone else who is not in the know.

You said, "I wonder though of ALL the Recreational Fishing violations that DNR has written this year.......how many of those violators were turned in by another Recreational Fisherman.....do you think even any were?"
Stop wondering and do the research for yourself. You might find some good information. In fact I know you will, another instance you do not know what you do not know, but you can find out by putting forward some effort. I can not subsidize the answers for you, if you want to partake in the discussion you are going to have to do some work here.

You keep asking questions, some of which you can find the answer to by doing some research which I encourage you to do and report back, but you are not answering any questions.

Do you support the current welfare program of which the commercial fishing industry is currently operating under?

[Big Liar]

Now, instead of trying to turn the discussion to what you think I think, answer the questions regarding if you think we are recs and tax payers should be supporting subsidizes to such an extent in the commercial fishing industry. Your interjection to try to introduce other industries is like getting pulled over for speeding from a police officer and telling him he should not give you a ticket because there are other bad people ou there he should be focusing on. Tell the judge that and he will not care, you were speeding and you get the ticket. The topic is commercial fishing in MD. Let's stay on point.


Should Maryland Tax Payers (not specifically recs) pay to support subsidizes? That is the country we live in. to such an extent in the commercial fishing industry. Probably more excessive than I like. There are definitely worse subsidizes. Question for you: Should a non-fishermen have to substidize recreational fishing?

Have I ever recieved a dime from this subsidy? No. Is there a higher cost for the DNR to enforce commercial activity? I don't think so. I've been checked twice in my life. Once while recreational crabbing years ago and once while commercial crabbing. Seems pretty even for my personal experience.

Oh by the way. I'm polite to policemen whenever I've been pulled over. If I've done something wrong, I have no problem paying the fine. If however I got pulled over and ticketed because I was on the road at the same time as you and you were speeding and I was not, I would be upset. I think you see my point in your example. That would be like me saying that all recreation anglers be punished as well as commercial anglers because of the illegal nets found. Does that make sense to you? It does not to me. Just saying.


re: "Are you sure you should be on any committee feeling like this" I am absolutely positive I should serve on as many commitees as possible because you mis-characterized and interpreted how I feel and what I believe. Further, I serve on a "Sport Fish Advisory Commission" As the name implies, that is made up of recreational anglers who hold rec angler beliefs and positions. While I am not against commercial fishing, I know those that are that serve on the commission as well as others. Should they be entitled to their views and allowed to serve, you bet.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think that person so jaded should represent the state on any board.

[C-Hawk18]

Do you support the current welfare program of which the commercial fishing industry is currently operating under?

I honestly do not see any WELFARE program here.

[Brandon]

Big Liar
You said, "Have I ever recieved a dime from this subsidy? No".
Huh, the other day you were saying in this thread how much money you spend in your commercial crabbing efforts. When you bought all this equipment did you pay MD sales tax? That's a question for you.

You said, "Is there a higher cost for the DNR to enforce commercial activity? I don't think so."
Please provide data to support your position so I can gain better insight to your statement.

You said, "I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think that person so jaded should represent the state on any board."
Well, your entitled to your opinion, but I do not think, nor do many others, that I am "jaded".
Used as an adjective jaded means, "
1. dulled or satiated by overindulgence: a jaded appetite, 2.worn out or wearied, as by overwork or overuse.
3. dissipated.
Used as a verb, which you did not use it as it means, to make or become dull, worn-out, or weary, as from overwork or overuse.

I am not any of those things. Am I a guy who does not agree with your agenda or opinion for the most part, yes. Am I guy who works hard to push his beliefs, yes. Is that a threat to you and your fellow colleagues, yes. So I expect you to say that I am X, this that and other, although if I were you I would use another adjective to describe me then "jaded" if you want to be more effective in your dis-crediting efforts.

I do not really expect you to understand where I or others are coming from because you are in the wealth extraction side of things where your job depends on you not understanding.

[Brandon]

C-Hawk18

Would you feel better if we called it a greatly subsidized industry? If that does not work for you, please gives us your opinion of how you would characterize the costs that the industry does not cover for its regulation and enforcement that others are paying for? Please enlighten us all what you call that?:scratchchin3:

[Brandon]

Big Liar

I missed this from you, you said, "Question for you: Should a non-fishermen have to substidize recreational fishing"

I need your help before I can answer that question, your question is based on the premise that non-fishermen are paying to subsidize recreational fishing. Please provide me the data that supports your claim of which your question to me is based. Once I have that data I will be better able to answer your question. I await your data so I can answer your question in a prompt manner.

Brandon

[C-Hawk18]

Huh, the other day you were saying in this thread how much money you spend in your commercial crabbing efforts. When you bought all this equipment did you pay MD sales tax? That's a question for you.



Well I also hold an LCC - I have never used my license # to gain any tax exempt status...



You said, "Is there a higher cost for the DNR to enforce commercial activity? I don't think so."
Please provide data to support your position so I can gain better insight to your statement.


I can give you a real simple example on this one.
5000 Commercial Waterman can be followed 1 for 1 with 5000 Officers.
100,000 Recreational Anglers will need 100,000 Officers to follow them 1 for 1.

Not sure what the ratio of Commercial's to Rec's is, but I'm sure it's at least that......now do you have some data to support your position.


C-Hawk18

Would you feel better if we called it a greatly subsidized industry? If that does not work for you, please gives us your opinion of how you would characterize the costs that the industry does not cover for its regulation and enforcement that others are paying for? Please enlighten us all what you call that?:scratchchin3:

Welfare is where something is "given" like $$, Aid, etc......how is the cost of Enforcement and Regulation benefitting the Waterman?

Who are the "others"? How much are "they" paying? Can you please provide some hard data on this?

[Brandon]

C-Hawk/Big Liar, are you one and the same? I asked you "both" two separate questions, yet all were answered under your C-Hawk name. Ummm, I smell something fishery going on here:scratchchin3::eek2:

[C-Hawk18]

C-Hawk/Big Liar, are you one and the same? I asked you "both" two separate questions, yet all were answered under your C-Hawk name. Ummm, I smell something fishery going on here:scratchchin3::eek2:

Nope - I just quoted what you asked BL (along with what you asked me) and then I answered it with MY answers......you hold the Keys to the site, check the IP addresses.

[kidz]

C-Hawk/Big Liar, are you one and the same? I asked you "both" two separate questions, yet all were answered under your C-Hawk name. Ummm, I smell something fishery going on here:scratchchin3::eek2:

:popcorn: Might as well be. Brandon you are doing a great job trying to get answers to your questions. Maybe these guys are ADD and can't remember the actual question. Sometimes being on the water a lot can do things to your mind.

[Big Liar]

Big Liar
You said, "Have I ever recieved a dime from this subsidy? No".
Huh, the other day you were saying in this thread how much money you spend in your commercial crabbing efforts. When you bought all this equipment did you pay MD sales tax? That's a question for you.

You said, "Is there a higher cost for the DNR to enforce commercial activity? I don't think so."
Please provide data to support your position so I can gain better insight to your statement.

You said, "I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think that person so jaded should represent the state on any board."
Well, your entitled to your opinion, but I do not think, nor do many others, that I am "jaded".
Used as an adjective jaded means, "
1. dulled or satiated by overindulgence: a jaded appetite, 2.worn out or wearied, as by overwork or overuse.
3. dissipated.
Used as a verb, which you did not use it as it means, to make or become dull, worn-out, or weary, as from overwork or overuse.

I am not any of those things. Am I a guy who does not agree with your agenda or opinion for the most part, yes. Am I guy who works hard to push his beliefs, yes. Is that a threat to you and your fellow colleagues, yes. So I expect you to say that I am X, this that and other, although if I were you I would use another adjective to describe me then "jaded" if you want to be more effective in your dis-crediting efforts.

I do not really expect you to understand where I or others are coming from because you are in the wealth extraction side of things where your job depends on you not understanding.


I owned my boat before I ever started commercial crabbing so I did pay tax on it. All the bait and most of the supplies I buy and pay the exact same amount as any recreation angler. I have bought some of my supplies from Speddens which I do use my commercial number which makes it tax exempt. If you want I can ask them to sum it up if you want. It may come up to $300 per year. If your truly worried about that $18, I can make a donation to a charity if you like.

As far as the jaded comment. I was referring to the people that you said were on the board that are against all watermen. If you prefer that I use a different word, do you mind if I use biased?

I asked about recs being subsidized by all Marylanders is because some of the money that funds the Maryland DNR comes out of the general budget.

I and C-Hawk18 are not one in the same. We share some of the same opinions it appears, but I do not know who he is. He does seem like someone that I could get along with. If you want to know my identity, I have no problem with that. I can send you a private msg with my name, address, phone number, watermen's #, SSN, and anything else you care to have. I have nothing to hide.

[Brandon]

Big Liar,

You said, "I have bought some of my supplies from Speddens which I do use my commercial number which makes it tax exempt. If you want I can ask them to sum it up if you want. It may come up to $300 per year. If your truly worried about that $18, I can make a donation to a charity if you like."

Just so I understand this correctly, first you said you did not receive any money from the subsidized commercial fishing industry you are a part of, but now you are saying you actually have. And then you make a flippant comment saying, " If your truly worried about that $18, I can make a donation to a charity if you like." as if it makes it all OK if you do that. Point is you have received a subsidy when you said you did not and had you not been called out on it you would have never thought to donate the money to charity. I'd suggest that if you feel bad about taking the subsidy that you not donate it to charity, but rather donate it to NRP to help regulate your industry.

You said, " As far as the jaded comment. I was referring to the people that you said were on the board that are against all watermen. If you prefer that I use a different word, do you mind if I use biased?"

I thought you were referring to me with the word, you can call them whatever you want. I'd expect you to call them whatever names since they do not agree with you. They serve on a recreational committee, thus they will have recreational opinions. Just like when a member of a political party serves on that committee, it's pretty much expected they are going to hold opinions and stances based on that party. Your entitled to your opinion, so I respect that, I simply do not agree with it.

You said, "I asked about recs being subsidized by all Marylanders is because some of the money that funds the Maryland DNR comes out of the general budget."

This statement which is building on your question the way you asked it has the underling assumption that rec fisheries is getting the general funds money to support fisheries. I want to answer the question you asked me, but before I can do that please supply me with the break down of how the general funds are used at MD DNR, how much goes to rec fishing, how much goes to parks and recreation and of course how much is used to regulate and support the infrastructure for the commercial fishing industry. I am anxiously awaiting that break down so I can answer your question in a prompt manner.

Lately, I do not need your SSN, but it would be nice to disclose your first and last name here so we all know who we are talking to. You know who I am. If you have nothing to hide lay it out there.

[Big Liar]

With regards to subsidies. My bad. In my mind I was first thinking we were talking about getting paid to restore oysters and such. I guess that I have personally taken advantage of the system and I should be ashamed. Since I work for a major corporation that does not pay taxes on any of the material that they buy, should I also feel personally responsible for the millions of tax dollars that they do not spend? (Billion $ corp). I hope I don't have to donate that amount to the DNR as well.

As far as the exact percentage of money that comes out of the general fund to each activity within the DNR, as you have said before these numbers are hard to pinpoint. I believe that it is a true statement and enough simply to say some of the money comes from the general fund. I believe that you would have a hard time disputing that. I just would simply like your general opinion on the topic. I keep hearing how we as recreational anglers are solely footing the bill for the commercial industry, when the money to support both rec and comm is coming out of the general fund. I just think it interesting when you and others use the topic of recs paying for comms, when in reality a portion of both are being paid for by all Marylanders'.

My info. - As you already know, I had already sent everything to you via private msg. including my SSN and more. But I understand that you would not want to be resposible for posting my info without my signed authority. That is fine. My name for all of you that can't stand me or my view point is Lennard Wooters. Most people call me Lenny.

[C-Hawk18]

C-Hawk18

Would you feel better if we called it a greatly subsidized industry? If that does not work for you, please gives us your opinion of how you would characterize the costs that the industry does not cover for its regulation and enforcement that others are paying for? Please enlighten us all what you call that?:scratchchin3:

Ok - I gave you my example about why it is more for Rec enforcement as opposed to Commercial enforcement.....



I can give you a real simple example on this one.
5000 Commercial Waterman can be followed 1 for 1 with 5000 Officers.
100,000 Recreational Anglers will need 100,000 Officers to follow them 1 for 1.

Not sure what the ratio of Commercial's to Rec's is, but I'm sure it's at least that......now do you have some data to support your position.



So can you please give me the hard data that shows the Commercial is not covering it's cost of regulation and enforcement? And exactly how much "the others" are paying?

[Matt]

although I think the debate is almost over here I still think this is a really good discussion, highlights a bunch of common misconceptions by the commercial fishing advocates. I think this is really pretty simple. A fishery by definition is a business. People use the word like it describes the fish themselves, and sometimes like it describes the act of fishing. Fish are fish and fishing is fishing. A fishery is a business. Look it up. Once we have our minds around this fact, we need to reconcile the government's role in fishery management. Fishery management IS government. Fishing businesses are almost entirely subsidized by taxpayer funded management. This is where the welfare starts. Now, because govt is so bad at managing business, commercial fishermen get screwed. Maryland is particularly bad. This State allowed too many fisheries to become overcapitalized with all sorts of part timers like the LCC guys most of whom have almost no skin in the game, but can self finance through the most abysmal CPUE, effectively running out legit comms. The way Maryland let these inshore fisheries get over run has evidently angered some fishermen who now feel they must ignore the regs and the laws and just do as they please. The lack of effective punishment is yet another leg of the welfare program. The punishment does not fit the crime. Then, as if taxpayers didn't get the short end of the deal, comms are allowed to take way way more fish than any real science was able to justify. Enter the term "fishery science." We can't just call it science because its not science its guessing and usually bad guessing by people who have some kind of debatable financial interest. This almost completes the welfare program. When the State offers crabbers money because the fishing or crabbing is so bad, the program is complete. Its welfare.

The best answer, I think, is a complete revision in what we're doing. Taking away nets would be a wonderful start. Like Brandon I also am not opposed to commercial fishing but I have trouble with nets. Nets are too efficient. If we were talking about streamlining manufacturing production I would say efficiency is the goal. When it comes to removing wildlife for profit, efficiency is a short term proposition.

[Southerly]

there is no problem with efficiency in itself.

allowing business to be innovative and made more efficient is as much at the heart of a free-market, capitalist system as you'll ever find. if one guy can't catch them fast/cheap, someone else will. everyone gets benefit of the cheaper product from increased efficiency reducing overhead.

i have no problem with the efficiency in itself. in theory, they can sell their product cheaper, make more money somewhere else with additional available time, and be more productive in the economy overall.

in real life the problem with nets and their efficiency is when they're used illegally - how quickly, easily and automatically they can do their harm,..., even unattended as plainly seen in the press.

[Southerly]

to reduce confusion - this is clipped from merriam-webster online :

Definition of FISHERY

1
: the occupation, industry, or season of taking fish or other sea animals (as sponges, or seals) : fishing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fishing)

2
: a place for catching fish or taking other sea animals (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fisheries#)
3
: a fishing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fishing) establishment; also : its fishermen (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fishermen)

4
: the legal right to take fish at a particular place or in particular waters

5
: the technology of fishery —usually used in plural

[Matt]

in real life the problem with nets and their efficiency is when they're used illegally

Among other minor points in your post, I am especially struggling with this one. Are you stating your opinion or do you think this is a fact? I see the efficiency and legality as two separate issues. Entanglement gear, purse seines, trawls, and staked gear like pound nets can remove biomass faster and more indiscriminately than the fish can reproduce. Legal or not, this is a historical net fishing fact. Certain kinds of legal industrial net fishing have had ruinous effect on marine life all over the world. Some lesser forms of net fishing like gill nets and pound nets can have an equally disastrous effect on local populations. These are facts. My opinion is that if we took nets out of the equation we would probably see across the board rebound and windfall for all kinds of commercial hook and line fishing. As far as the legality goes, obviously the mortality caused by illegal nets needs to be part of the mortality equation. Based on the amount of criminal activity discovered last winter (extended by some factor to guess the total amount of commercial fishing crime) I think we now see that all forms of commercial fishing are taking a much larger toll on shared fisheries than ASMFC or any of the other fishery management agencies thought. My opinion also is that, as ASMFC is essentially run by commercial fishermen for commercial fishermen, I will assume they will make no adjustment in the overall fishing related mortality just as they made no adjustment to the non-fishing mortality when they learned that 70% of the stock was infected with myco and would most likely not enter the spawning stock biomass.

[Big Liar]

there is no problem with efficiency in itself.

allowing business to be innovative and made more efficient is as much at the heart of a free-market, capitalist system as you'll ever find. if one guy can't catch them fast/cheap, someone else will. everyone gets benefit of the cheaper product from increased efficiency reducing overhead.

i have no problem with the efficiency in itself. in theory, they can sell their product cheaper, make more money somewhere else with additional available time, and be more productive in the economy overall.

in real life the problem with nets and their efficiency is when they're used illegally - how quickly, easily and automatically they can do their harm,..., even unattended as plainly seen in the press.

I do agree completely with what you have said here. Unfortunately, the most efficient way to net for rockfish is clearly to leave nets unattended which the state has ruled illegal. Like with any business industry, there will be some people that cross the line in order to maximize profits.



Matt,
I don't think your jab at LCC holders is relative. Last time I checked, crabbers were not competing for rockfish with full time watermen. There has been a steady decline in LCC holders crabbing over the last 15 years. The increase has actually been in the recreational sector and it has been tremendous. I don't have a problem with anyone crabbing and I try to help anyone trying to catch crabs, but I just don't want you to blame the wrong group since you have such a total grasp on defining the problem.

[Big Liar]

I have read some of this post. Pop in every once in a while and it's the same ole stuff in different words and it's going absolutely NOWHERE. It's meaningless and a waste of ink but it is entertaining a small group of guys so I'll check back with the 3 stooges on page 14:wacko:.............Gary

Hey Curly,
We are getting close to page 14. You can look again. :hysterical:

[Big Liar]

Brandon,

I'm not sure if this will help you in formulating an answer or not. http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/pdfs/operating.pdf

[Brandon]

Matt,
Thanks for summing things up.

Jim,
The net ban has not lost any steam, if anything it's picked up. The signature acquisition has slowed for sure, but it's fishing season and I would consider what Jerry has done so far a complete success. He obtained more names for a fisheries cause via a petition then any fishing organization in MD, rec or commercial, has in the last twenty years that I can remember. Does it need more, yes, that will come. As for progress, it's happening, it's just not as visible at the moment. Stay tuned and please keep the word going about the petition, it will only happen if we are come together to make it happen, it can not be a one man effort.

Bottom line on nets is that the majority of states along the coast ban nets. The success of the fishery increasing for everyone is evident in those states. Florida in particular where the commercial guys in many cases are making more money then they were. There are more fish and prices stay more stable. The recreational fishing is pretty much off the charts. Why do you think so many travel there and spend tons of money to go fishing there. Maryland is losing so much money on being a destination anymore that it's sad to watch it happen. It used to be known as a place where people could come, fish the Chesapeake, catch fish and have a good time. No more, now our reputation is known as a place that has a ton of poachers, allows net fishing to continue, has dirty water and little fishing. Let me translate this into dollars, we're losing a ton in Maryland. Maryland has the potential be a great fishing destination, unfortunately we are letting that opportunity slip and with it lost revenue for the state. If the fish populations were where they used to be maybe nets would not be a problem, but with water poor quality, myco in as many as 75% of striped bass and overall fish populations decreasing, nets are simply too destructive. Time for them to go.

Thanks for the debate, I need to invest my time actually moving the net ban agenda forward so I will only be dropping into this thread from time to time. We've got good momentum and while debates like this are important, right now time needs to be spend with those that have the power to make the net ban happen.

Thanks
Brandon

[C-Hawk18]

Brandon - I see you're back on again....any reply to my question....http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/showthread.php/298567-Making-Rockfish-illegal-to-catch-period.?p=1724986#post1724986


Ok - I gave you my example about why it is more for Rec enforcement as opposed to Commercial enforcement.....

So can you please give me the hard data that shows the Commercial is not covering it's cost of regulation and enforcement? And exactly how much "the others" are paying?

[Southerly]

it's plain that illegal netting is difficult if not impossible to control and enforce. i'm looking here to learn more, not waste time,...

Maryland saw increase in visitors in 2009

State was one of five nationwide with more visitors


May 11, 2010|By Edward Gunts, The Baltimore Sun
Maryland was one of five states nationwide that saw their number of visitors rise in 2009, according to figures released Tuesday by the Maryland Office of Tourism.
The report by D.K. Shifflet & Associates of McLean, Va., showed that Baltimore had 29 million visitors last year, 1 million more than in 2008, an increase of 3.5 percent. Nationwide, Shifflet reported, the number of visitors dropped 5.5 percent.
Leisure trips to Maryland — those not related to business meetings or conventions — were up 5.2 percent, while the United States as a whole saw a 3.3 percent decrease. Business trips to Maryland were down 1.5 percent last year. Nationwide, such trips were down 12 percent.

[crabby and son]

What up Lenny? noidea And the beat goes on. What is the meaning of "is" I am not going to argue recs vs coms on this issue. The original topic was " Making rock fish illegal to catch period" I am on the side of the fish. If that is what it takes, do it. I don't think it has come to that point yet but it's getting close..............Curly

[Big Liar]

Crabby and son,

I was not looking to argue with you. Just when I read your comment back on page whatever, I found it funny and made a mental note to pull your chain when we got close to page 14. Sorry. I hope you will excuse my sense of humor. I feel that you have to stop and laugh once in a while.

[Big Liar]

C-Hawk18,
I don't believe that Brandon is going to answer either one of our questions. He is getting his political skills polished and puts off or skips around any questions where someone turns his owns points around on him. Who know, we may some day see Brandon run for office at some level.

[crabby and son]

Crabby and son,

I was not looking to argue with you. Just when I read your comment back on page whatever, I found it funny and made a mental note to pull your chain when we got close to page 14. Sorry. I hope you will excuse my sense of humor. I feel that you have to stop and laugh once in a while.

It did not offend me at all. I was making light of something that I made light. Chain pulling is cool with me:thumbup:.............Gary

[capt.george]

The Gloucester Daily has been reporting long before Rather came to town. Yesterday May 17 NOAA officials said sorry and that the make some reparations. For the latest coverage, visit www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing

[Southerly]

don't want to imply i don't learn nothing reading this stuff. i used to think Big Liar was a character made up by Brandon to get boards moving. i now have at least 85% confidence that is not the case. :))

[crabby and son]

don't want to imply i don't learn nothing reading this stuff. i used to think Big Liar was a character made up by Brandon to get boards moving. i now have at least 85% confidence that is not the case. :))

But he is still a CHARACTER!:hysterical::hysterical: Every one deserves their opinions. We all think what we say is right. It would be a dull world if EVERYONE thought the same. Battle on boys:2guns::2guns::52:.............Gary

[C-Hawk18]

don't want to imply i don't learn nothing reading this stuff. i used to think Big Liar was a character made up by Brandon to get boards moving. i now have at least 85% confidence that is not the case. :))

Maybe Big Liar WAS created by Brandon....and maybe I was created by Brandon also.....hence the reason he slipped up and almost accused us of being the same person.......and maybe also the reason he keeps "skipping" over my questions......

[Big Liar]

Thanks guys. I hope you all know that I would never wish anything bad on any of you, and respect that each of you have your own opinions as well. Oh and thanks for not sending me any death threats last night after finding out my true identity. I guess without my hidden identity anymore, it will be harder to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

[Brandon]

Big Liar/Lenny

Actually you are completely off base, I'll answer any question when people make an effort to do some work themselves vs. just express what they think and ask me a question so I can do the work and spell out the data/numbers that they themselves have not invested the many hours it took to collect and analyze. If I spell it all out there, they get to benefit from my hard work and continue to sit back comment and rebuff on work they did not do.

I/we have the numbers, still working on some others, but as long as I/we have them and those who oppose me/we do not then I/we sit in the position to better further my/our agenda. You can not criticize or argue with things you do not know. If you or C-Hawk18 care that much, do the research yourselves. The numbers are available, but it will take some invested time to get them. They are being made available to those that can make decisions that change our current situation/regulations/laws.

But, thanks for the:poke1: I'll play along for fun when I can for debate sake, but I/we are playing to win on this one, so there is no free ride.

[Brandon]

Southerly (http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/member.php/167029-Southerly)

Southerly

Thanks for the data on visitors to MD. Now break down the fishing industry visitors/customers. Charters are way way off again this year. We're going to see a bunch more guys go out of business. If the fishing were good these guys would have business, bad economy or not, when there is good fishing people go because they want to catch fish.

Brandon

[Brandon]

crabby and son,

In all fairness, you have to admit that comment was a little funny. It's serious stuff, but a smile now and then goes a long way:))

[Brandon]

Big Liar

Welcome to the club, I have even had threats against my wife. I guess people will try to bully you any way they can. If you really did have threats please send me the info. I will track them down and take appropriate law related action. I do not take any of that lightly and no matter what your opinion will not tolerate it on TidalFish.com.

Brandon

[Brandon]

Southerly

I have a great imagination and great creativity, but it would stretch me to make up Big Liar and have that conversation with myself....LOL. Not to mention I do not have enough time to do that stuff, although I have caught a few on TF that apparently do have that much time.:cowboy: Honestly, I'd rather be talking fishing and how to catch fish vs. policy stuff. :yes:

[Southerly]

i'm not at liberty to release that exact tourist data presently. but i can say, a large percentage come to visit just to see the illegal gillnets and dirty water. the rest are lookinto get murdered on the streets of baltimore. :eek2:

[Big Liar]

Big Liar/Lenny

Actually you are completely off base, I'll answer any question when people make an effort to do some work themselves vs. just express what they think and ask me a question so I can do the work and spell out the data/numbers that they themselves have not invested the many hours it took to collect and analyze. If I spell it all out there, they get to benefit from my hard work and continue to sit back comment and rebuff on work they did not do.

I/we have the numbers, still working on some others, but as long as I/we have them and those who oppose me/we do not then I/we sit in the position to better further my/our agenda. You can not criticize or argue with things you do not know. If you or C-Hawk18 care that much, do the research yourselves. The numbers are available, but it will take some invested time to get them. They are being made available to those that can make decisions that change our current situation/regulations/laws.

But, thanks for the:poke1: I'll play along for fun when I can for debate sake, but I/we are playing to win on this one, so there is no free ride.

So your not willing to give me your personal opinion on whether it is right for non-fishermen to substidize fishermen, but are willing to publicly say that you don't think its right for recreational fishermen to substidize commercial fishermen. You will only give me your personal opinion of this if I agree to play your scavenger hunt. Interesting. I think from now on, I should just give you the nick-name of eel.

[Big Liar]

Big Liar

Welcome to the club, I have even had threats against my wife. I guess people will try to bully you any way they can. If you really did have threats please send me the info. I will track them down and take appropriate law related action. I do not take any of that lightly and no matter what your opinion will not tolerate it on TidalFish.com.

Brandon

There were no threats against me. I was making light of the post again. Thanks for caring though.

[C-Hawk18]

I/we have the numbers, still working on some others, but as long as I/we have them and those who oppose me/we do not then I/we sit in the position to better further my/our agenda. You can not criticize or argue with things you do not know. If you or C-Hawk18 care that much, do the research yourselves. The numbers are available, but it will take some invested time to get them.

So I guess you aren't answering my question about providing facts to back-up your statement? Then it's just opinion and not fact.

You want everyone else to provide their Data but you don't want to provide yours.......I say you don't have it....prove me wrong.

[Big Liar]

Matt,

Just curious, your last name is not Lawrence is it?

[Brandon]

C-Hawk18, Big Liar

Man, you guys got me, I do not have any data to support what I am saying:rolleyes:

Good luck with furthering your agenda with your opinions. I'll do the best I can furthering mine.

Brandon

[C-Hawk18]

Man, you guys got me, I do not have any data to support what I am saying:rolleyes:

Good luck with furthering your agenda with your opinions. I'll do the best I can furthering mine.

Brandon

At least you admit you have a Agenda..........no supporting documentation......Good for Goose is Good for Gander!

[Brandon]

Yea I know, you guys got me. Good job man. BTW, I'm not trying to win some debate with you, I'm trying to get rid of nets in the bay. You hold no decision making power to help what I/we are trying to do. I am not going to reveal things in a public forum that you and those on your side can try to debate to support your agenda and try and use against what I/we am trying to do. I mean come on man, you do not show all your cards to the opponent if you want to win. Best of luck furthering your agenda to keep nets in the bay, I always enjoy a good battle.

As for my agenda, did you just catch that? I think I said it about a million times that I think we need to get rid of nets in the bay. If that's new news to you, I'm sorry you're just picking that up.

[Big Liar]

OK eel.

By the way, I'll be here in December just in case you need someone to vent to unless you extinguish my torch before then. I'm still hoping for the million dollar prize for being the last watermen allowed here on your island.

[Southerly]

re spending money to supervise the netting industry - i don't have any data but it's clear that all the money that's been spent over the years, increased penalties that were promised to stop poaching etc, haven't been enough to stop the repeated abuse resulting from the right to have nets onboard a vessel in Md waters of the Chesapeake.

it's not the first time, the first year,..., it's the long history. and i don't think the organized crime represented by the pro-fish fiasco could have been of anything close to the scale that it was without nets.

i'm not against watermen per se but what's it going to take?

[Big Liar]

Maybe that's the poachers agenda. To lower the appeal of the rockfishery in Maryland so low that no one will come to Maryland and fish, thus reducing the pressure on the fishery. You don't need to respond and bite my head off. I was just being as smart arse again.

[C-Hawk18]

You hold no decision making power to help what I/we are trying to do.

This is where you are dead WRONG. I DO have decision making POWER.


I mean come on man, you do not show all your cards to the opponent if you want to win.

So how people win court cases ALL the time? You know "Discovery". How a DEFENDANT is able to get everything evidentiary in a case.
YOU know ALL about that......don't you?

[crabby and son]

Holy Sheet! All the warriors are asleep:eek2: And the dust settles.............Gary

[Water_boy]

This is where you are dead WRONG. I DO have decision making POWER.

I hope that's not true but if so it certainly would help explain how the situation has gotten as bad as it is... time for a change.



So how people win court cases ALL the time? You know "Discovery". How a DEFENDANT is able to get everything evidentiary in a case.
YOU know ALL about that......don't you?

In my limited experience with "discovery" people tend to hold their aces until the end game. If you were as familiar with the process as you imply you would know that.

[C-Hawk18]

I hope that's not true but if so it certainly would help explain how the situation has gotten as bad as it is... time for a change.


I would expect you to have no Clue what I am talking about above. And it has NO bearing on the Poachers in Md.



In my limited experience with "discovery" people tend to hold their aces until the end game. If you were as familiar with the process as you imply you would know that.

It's readily apparent that your "limited experience" is VERY limited. "Holding your Aces" after being served with a Discovery Motion is a real quick way to lose your case.

[Water_boy]

I would expect you to have no Clue what I am talking about above. And it has NO bearing on the Poachers in Md.



Then what the heck are you talking about and why is it relevant?

[C-Hawk18]

Then what the heck are you talking about and why is it relevant?

..........
I am not going to reveal things in a public forum that you and those on your side can try to debate to support your agenda and try and use against what I/we am trying to do. I mean come on man, you do not show all your cards to the opponent if you want to win.

That's my Story and I'm stickin' to it!

[Big Liar]

Holy Sheet! All the warriors are asleep:eek2: And the dust settles.............Gary Had to say something didn't you. Just could not leave well enough alone. Now I'm going to have to blame you for anything that happens from this point forward.

[Brandon]

C-Hawk

What decision making power do you HAVE regarding this situation?

This is not a lawsuit, this is politics and discovery is not applicable here. But I do commend you on your knowledge from being the law enforcement arena and education of how our court systems work.

Your baiting tactics to try to get me to give up research that I have done that supports the cause that I support sounds more like something from the Christmas Story, are you daring me, double daring me or double dog daring me? Any which one I am not getting my tong stuck to the flag pole. You're not going to get a free ride off me, you'll have to invest your time getting the data so you know what you are up against.

[crabby and son]

Had to say something didn't you. Just could not leave well enough alone. Now I'm going to have to blame you for anything that happens from this point forward.

I'll take the blame so long as it doesn't cost me anything........gone fishin'............Gary

[Big Liar]

C-Hawk

What decision making power do you HAVE regarding this situation?


You can't expect our side to give up such critical information such as this. You have to do your homework if you want to know this type of information. How else are we going to maintain our stratigic advantages. The information is out there if you are willing to invest the time and energy to look for it.

[Big Liar]

"This year, NRP seized 10,825 yards of illegal anchored gill net, with 32,204 pounds of striped bass retrieved from these nets. This was the largest illegal poach seized in Maryland in decades. As a response, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1252, which establishes a new misdeameanor charge for the unlawful capture of over $20,000 worth of striped bass (as determined by the proceeds of the unlawful capture). The charge carries a penalty of up to than two years imprisonment."

Interesting. A new bill which seems to be designed specifically to combat poaching with the use of gill nets. This would lead me to believe one of the following two things: A) The state is still planning to have a commercial gill net season. or B) The state still expects that there will be poachers after the nets are banned.

Otherwise I think it would be a waste to pass a new bill against something that would not exist anymore. That is the whole idea behind your plan is it not. Ban nets and you will stop this poaching activity.

[Matt]

Brandon this is still an interesting thread but I think there's some financially interested participants here who aren't going to change their minds. You might recall I debated with a few of these folks regarding the pros and cons of Limited Crab Catcher licenses. I think a few of them are still LCC holders, and they still bristle at any negative comments about LCCs. My position was and still is the questionable condition of Maryland's most prestigious commercial fisheries (including crab and oyster) is largely caused by overcapitalization i.e. too many fishermen and too much gear. The amount of crab gear in the bay today after almost a decade at historical low crab population remains one of Maryland's most questionable fishery mismanagement issues. Nobody knows how much gear how many catchers what gear belongs to who how long any given pot has been soaking whether gear is adequately distributed over a given area there's no accountability for lost gear and almost no way to tell if a crabber has simply abandoned his gear in bankruptcy. The number of issues with this fishery are really too many to list. What we know is that the remaining harvesters have been working under limited margins of return for years now. There's a lot of desperation out there, and most of it comes back to low crab numbers. Also we know almost every year for the past ten some quasi-scientist declares the fishery recovered at the beginning of the season, then the landings and effort data continue to contradict when returns are in. The whole deal is a disgraceful misuse of resources, both of the bay's resources and the tax dollars that fund DNR to do nothing. When we look at the crab situation under a microscope, I think its easy to see that LCCs are still a big problem. Part time fishermen self financing through low CPUE. Fortunately the State did in fact recognize this issue and tried to buy back some of these entitlements. In an interesting rebuke of DNR's plan, not very many LCC holders sold their licenses back, even among the group that didn't report landings. As the dynamic situation unfolded it appeared that Maryland formally recognized commercial fishing licenses as personal property, to be bought and sold on open market. This is a problem. Fishing licenses should NOT be personal property. There is no good reason taxpayers should have to pay to buy back any fishing license. Unless the entitlement is so great as to imply some kind of social or corporate welfare. I think Maryland feels this is the case, whereas the removal of current legal entitlement must be accompanied by formal buy-out. As we peel back another layer we can see that the average LCC holder is not a person in financial need or distress. Many if not most LCCs don't report enough landings to litigate anything. What we have are a kind of commercial fishermen with other sources of income- primary income - perhaps and I think in most cases the LCC holders have fulltime jobs on the land and actually do not need the license at all, except to make a few extra bucks when its convenient, or when the crabs are running. From an overcapitalization standpoint, this is a real problem. The amount of latent pressure from this segment of the crab fishery formally jeopardizes any real rebound of crabs. The State knows it. I have many times complained about it here and in crab management forums mtgs etc. At the bottomline, the distressed condition of Maryland's crab fishery is driving comms to make up their income elsewhere. When we talk about why fishermen appear to be taking more risks and flat out breaking laws on prized finfisheries, I think it all traces back to a broken crab fishery.

[goose22]

Brandon this is still an interesting thread but I think there's some financially interested participants here who aren't going to change their minds. You might recall I debated with a few of these folks regarding the pros and cons of Limited Crab Catcher licenses. I think a few of them are still LCC holders, and they still bristle at any negative comments about LCCs. My position was and still is the questionable condition of Maryland's most prestigious commercial fisheries (including crab and oyster) is largely caused by overcapitalization i.e. too many fishermen and too much gear. The amount of crab gear in the bay today after almost a decade at historical low crab population remains one of Maryland's most questionable fishery mismanagement issues. Nobody knows how much gear how many catchers what gear belongs to who how long any given pot has been soaking whether gear is adequately distributed over a given area there's no accountability for lost gear and almost no way to tell if a crabber has simply abandoned his gear in bankruptcy. The number of issues with this fishery are really too many to list. What we know is that the remaining harvesters have been working under limited margins of return for years now. There's a lot of desperation out there, and most of it comes back to low crab numbers. Also we know almost every year for the past ten some quasi-scientist declares the fishery recovered at the beginning of the season, then the landings and effort data continue to contradict when returns are in. The whole deal is a disgraceful misuse of resources, both of the bay's resources and the tax dollars that fund DNR to do nothing. When we look at the crab situation under a microscope, I think its easy to see that LCCs are still a big problem. Part time fishermen self financing through low CPUE. Fortunately the State did in fact recognize this issue and tried to buy back some of these entitlements. In an interesting rebuke of DNR's plan, not very many LCC holders sold their licenses back, even among the group that didn't report landings. As the dynamic situation unfolded it appeared that Maryland formally recognized commercial fishing licenses as personal property, to be bought and sold on open market. This is a problem. Fishing licenses should NOT be personal property. There is no good reason taxpayers should have to pay to buy back any fishing license. Unless the entitlement is so great as to imply some kind of social or corporate welfare. I think Maryland feels this is the case, whereas the removal of current legal entitlement must be accompanied by formal buy-out. As we peel back another layer we can see that the average LCC holder is not a person in financial need or distress. Many if not most LCCs don't report enough landings to litigate anything. What we have are a kind of commercial fishermen with other sources of income- primary income - perhaps and I think in most cases the LCC holders have fulltime jobs on the land and actually do not need the license at all, except to make a few extra bucks when its convenient, or when the crabs are running. From an overcapitalization standpoint, this is a real problem. The amount of latent pressure from this segment of the crab fishery formally jeopardizes any real rebound of crabs. The State knows it. I have many times complained about it here and in crab management forums mtgs etc. At the bottomline, the distressed condition of Maryland's crab fishery is driving comms to make up their income elsewhere. When we talk about why fishermen appear to be taking more risks and flat out breaking laws on prized finfisheries, I think it all traces back to a broken crab fishery.

Still beatin' that dead horse huh Matt? hahahahahahahaha

[Black Irish]

"I think it all traces back to a broken crab fishery."

Which I believe can be traced back to a broken oyster fishery, if you look back into the late 80's/early 90's when the commercial crabbing licenses were handed out like candy bars because the oyster fishery collapsed.

It's a phenomenon known as fishing down the food chain.

[Big Liar]

Typical. First the fault is blamed on the honest watermen that net fish that the poachers have not been caught. Now it's the LCC holders fault that (TFL holders with rockfish allocation) are so broke that they have turned in to poachers. (according to Matt) :52:

I know you can't be done. Please explain to everyone how it's my fault that A) prisons are full, B) Gas is so high, C) high unemployment levels, and D) 9/11.

I should feel so ashamed that I found a way to make a hobby pay for itself. That if I was willing to get off of my butt and work a little harder and invest some money, I could make a little extra money to improve my life. God, I must be such an awful person. Please show me the light and point me back on the path, so I can be the person that Matt thinks I should be.

[Brandon]

I do not expect the commercial fraction here to understand things because their job depends on them not understanding. It really is that simple.

Have a nice weekend!

[Big Liar]

What he is saying is that we are stupid, and he thinks we're stupid because we must want to remain stupid in order to catch crabs. Let me point out my reasons for not agreeing with Matt's point as best as my unedumacated mind can muster.

Number of Commercial Crabbers has decreased by a large percentage over the last 15 years
Estimates of Recreational Crabbers has increased exponentially over the last 15 years
More people catching their own crabs leads to less demand locally
Poor economy leads to less demand locally

I will agree that if there were fewer commercial crabbers, then the supply would be less - creating more demand. At the same time if there were fewer recreational crabbers, then it is possible that demand in the market would go up as well. At this point, I would still not blame recreational crabbers for the rockfish poaching.

I understand that Matt most likely knows a commercial potter who complains about the sook restrictions that he has had to endure. This person has most likely blamed this on LCC holders that crab part time. There are no full time crabbers in Maryland because no one crabs year round, but that's a different discussion.

[Big Liar]

I know. I'm just feeding rope.

[kidz]

There seems to be a lot of master baiters on this thread. The original post was hijacked shortly after it was posted. LOL at those who point fingers and twist and turn statements. It was a partially good exchange , but answering a question with a question ruined it. Brandon kept it civil and informative. Then the usual "where are the facts to back up your response" came imto play.. Like I said before, it's about saving all the resources the bay has for the future by doing the right things. If it takes a moratorium, then do it. So the answer to BL post is yes for me. But I think the commercial guys and recs think not.

[Matt]

"I think it all traces back to a broken crab fishery."

Which I believe can be traced back to a broken oyster fishery, if you look back into the late 80's/early 90's when the commercial crabbing licenses were handed out like candy bars because the oyster fishery collapsed.

It's a phenomenon known as fishing down the food chain.

good reply. Yes, the domino game started with oysters. I completely agree. Crabs are going the way of the oyster. The fishing pressure Maryland allows on blue crab is reckless.

[kidz]

Pardon me but didn't the blue crab fishery rebound significantly due to political actions, translated into legal restrictions taken three years ago in partnership between MD and VA based on DNR studies and recommendations? I see that as a huge success by DNR and how that could possibly be turned around as a negative is beyond me. The "Broken Blue Crab Fishery," give me a break.

Should have happened more then 3 years ago. Do not have to be a scientist to know where crabs come from. Keep the original restrictions in place(take back the fall female harvest) and in five years everyone will be satisfied. BL has a point, make catching rockfish illegal. Moratorium to save the rockfish. That way when a illegal net is found or whoever fishes that net can be handled according to the laws. Hope the DNR produces who own the illegal nets found this year. I'm sure everyone wants to know and how the law will deal with the person or persons.

[Southerly]

i don't want to admit to even looking at this thread again, but i think we should at least wait to see what the watermen decide is best before criticizing,...

http://mikulski.senate.gov/media/pressrelease/4-28-11-2.cfm

[Matt]

Pardon me but didn't the blue crab fishery rebound significantly due to political actions

No.

[C-Hawk18]

Brandon - Maybe you can add this as an emoticon to make it quicker to reply to Matt....

[Brandon]

In all fairness to the discussion and thread, I'd suggest the crab subject be left out since this thread is about rockfish. If anyone wants to talk about crabs, start another thread please. It's not fair to the discussion to throw a hand grenade into a discussion that has been respectful and on topic for the most part.

My suggestion is simply to drop it, do not respond and bring the discussion back on topic.

Thanks for everyone's understanding and effort to bring it back on point.
Brandon

[kidz]

A moratorium or to make catching rockfish illegal are not good business decisions, at a time when we need to generate more revenue in MD. A moratorium is a crisis decision made when the population has crashed almost to the point of no return. There are far more sensible and economically wise ways to sustain the population that have been suggested and discussed ad nauseum on this board. Sure, the blue crab restrictions should have been enacted earlier and I'm sure DNR would have wanted nothing more. We should have gotten UBL much earlier too and stopped the flow of drugs into the US long ago but there are always powerful forces working against you just as fervently to prevent any government organization from reaching it's objectives... especially when there is a great deal at stake.

This sounds like a politician answering. Did the moratorium before and everybody survived. Wait for this, wait for that, BS take action now and we will not have a crisis situation.Government has always been a problem when special interest groups start their wheeling and dealing. Always have to please the people who are affected the most.. Still waiting for my share of bailout money for my small concrete business. Really don't see it happening though, I'll just have to suffer thru these hard times. Just my opinion, hate to see the future ruined because of inaction.

[Southerly]

complete moratorium including against targeting rock?

severity of the steps that need to be taken should depend on the severity of the problem. as i remember the moratorium, it was stated that the loss due to discard mortality was not acceptable and that all fishing for rock was banned.

however, it might be possible to shut down all rec fishing for rock, including any 'targeting' but allow some level of comm fishing and still have a full recovery of stock within 10 years.

personally, i could stop all fishing for rock including C/R for 1 year, 2 years,..., and come back when the stock was declared restored like nothing happened.

but it might also be possible to allow comm and charter only, or rec only, etc,...

if striper unlimited's research on the economic benefit of rec fishing is accurate, on first look it seems to make the most economic sense to preserve the rec sector through any type reduction.

however, the immediate, or short term economic benefit is not the only part of the equation, if you recognize that the comm industry includes real people supporting their families and that turning their livelihood on/off is unfair in some social sense, or creates a more longlasting damage to that part of the economy.

it's hard to explain that last point because i'm not in the business. but it's easy to understand how a local tackleshop or charter owner could lose their store or boat and permanently lose their business, even with a very short moratorium.

probably similar effects would occur throughout comm sector and would be concentrated in communities where there is not potential for other employment.

assuming asmfc 40% mortality reduction will restore stock in reasonable amount of time, more severe steps such as making rockfish illegal to catch period are not needed.

[Matt]

I won't mention the "C" word again but I will reiterate that the Bay's commercial fisheries are all tied together by commercial fishermen most of whom participate in multiple fisheries. When we see the kind of flagrant illegal plundering we saw this winter, its probably good to try to understand what is going on. Maybe its the economy? Maybe its the downturn in new home starts? Maybe its the value of the dollar against canadian currency.

Any other ideas?

[Southerly]

i keep thinking it's just a little light shining in places that have been dark for so long. dunno

[Matt]

If anyone could prove this has been going on for years, I think this would NOT have been going on for years. If anyone KNEW this was going on for years I guess I have to wonder why they chose NOT to do anything. For the record, I did NOT know this level of criminal activity was going on. Call me naive and I'll call you complicit. I think this is disgusting.

[Matt]

flippant comment # 27

[Matt]

Many great points made and agree with Southerly that the LCC topic seems like one of those high school SAT questions...which of these does not belong? However, Matt likely has good rationale for his sentiments on that topic, it just comes across as personally antagonistic to certain individuals. Jim

Just to be clear, if you or I made it personal I would refer back to page 13 where, instead of debating a point, you made a comment about me. In my view that was a narrow-minded approach to a relatively simple point. Either you believe other factors are involved in the desperate illegal behavior or you don't. Either way, talking about a specific type of commercial fishing license is not making anything personal, except evidently to people who hold those licenses.

As far as the concept that illegal netting has been going on for years, I won't dispute it. But that possibility in no way makes it more acceptable now. If netters have been doing this for years, as you and perhaps others seem to think, then I have to question, how can you be so sure? And how is this so widely known with nobody ratting out the criminals?

[crabby and son]

There is more dishonesty and cheating than you think. The reason being is that they can. There are no check and balances in place so why not take extra. It's just human behavior. The more I take, the more I make and NO ONE is watching me and if I get caught, it's no big deal................Gary

[gwag]

Does anyone know the regulation regarding gill netting in the Great Wicomico , there is one in front of my place above Sandy Point?

[C-Hawk18]

Does anyone know the regulation regarding gill netting in the Great Wicomico , there is one in front of my place above Sandy Point?

Seriously doubt it's a gill net. Pound or Fyke most likely

[gwag]

not a pound net or fyke it is in the middle of the river ,3 high flyers about 200 ft of net?

[C-Hawk18]

not a pound net or fyke it is in the middle of the river ,3 high flyers about 200 ft of net?

OK - I thought you were talking about the Wicomico in Md. I didn't realize you are in VA. It's probably a RECREATIONAL gill net as they allow them in VA. I'm not in VA not not up on there regs as much. I'm sure you can dig the regs out of this link

http://www.mrc.state.va.us/regulations/gillnetrules.shtm

[Matt]

Did you even read the link I posted, authored by DNR NRP where they had confiscated 71 illegal gill nets to date in 2006? So I am complicit because I haven't told DNR that illegal gill netting has been going on for years? Do you really think these guys would get away with this year after year if they returned to dock and bragged about it? Contrary to what many TFers think, commercial comms are not an organized band of thieves. The vast majority are decent, hard working, law abiding citizens. NRP knows who the dishonest ones are because most are repeat offenders with long rap sheets. When I make statements that may be controversial, I know I can back them up with facts. Don't be surprised when some readers get their hackles up every time. you run down DNR, particularly when it is totally irrelevant to the current thread. I promise to be civil and respectful so we can continue this conversation if you agree.

I don't like the characterization that I "run down DNR" ...I get to complain about an agency that my tax dollars go to who I don't think is doing a good job. If you want to say that is making it personal go ahead. But its a ridiculous contrived argument. Maryland has some of the most antiquated marine fishery policies in the country, period. The kind of fishing Maryland allows in the bay is a joke. If I sensed some remorse by my agency figureheads for the hole Maryland is dug into, I would cut'em some slack. Instead DNR goads people into going to time waster meetings for which most people have no clue what is the goal. When those meetings result in no change status quo pro-comm bs, there is absolutely no remorse within the agency. And no memory also, how decent well-meaning people were manipulated into thinking their attendance at a DNR meeting would make a difference when in fact the meeting was by law for DNR to be able to say they told dozens of people face to face what kind of questionable policy was coming this time. If you want to call that making it personal I say check your facts. That is a citizen talking about an agency for which he is dissatisfied.

As far as your claim that a "vast majority" of comms are whatever I say the vast majority are part timers self financing through down turns, causing a huge amount of latent pressure, making it nearly impossible for fulltime fishermen to make a living, honestly.

This whole poaching discussion is a lot more about the desperate condition of Maryland's commercial fisheries than anything else. If Maryland would conserve our commercial fisheries and put these fisheries into the hands of responsible professional fishermen instead of hack amateur part time aholes who have no skin in the game, the whole deal would be much cleaner and more respectable.

[Matt]

If I were king for a day I would make every commercial licensee pony up reported lands AND tax filings when they bought a license to prove they had a real vested interest. Other states have done this, and the results were a lot of people who failed to report landings or income were adamantly opposed to giving up their license. Why would anyone who doesn't make money care so much about their commercial fishing license? If the State removed all the "dormant" licenses, I suspect there would be an amazing rebound on all of our commercial and shared fisheries.

[C-Hawk18]

I don't like the characterization that I "run down DNR" ...I get to complain about an agency that my tax dollars go to who I don't think is doing a good job. If you want to say that is making it personal go ahead. But its a ridiculous contrived argument. Maryland has some of the most antiquated marine fishery policies in the country, period. The kind of fishing Maryland allows in the bay is a joke. If I sensed some remorse by my agency figureheads for the hole Maryland is dug into, I would cut'em some slack. Instead DNR goads people into going to time waster meetings for which most people have no clue what is the goal. When those meetings result in no change status quo pro-comm bs, there is absolutely no remorse within the agency. And no memory also, how decent well-meaning people were manipulated into thinking their attendance at a DNR meeting would make a difference when in fact the meeting was by law for DNR to be able to say they told dozens of people face to face what kind of questionable policy was coming this time. If you want to call that making it personal I say check your facts. That is a citizen talking about an agency for which he is dissatisfied.

As far as your claim that a "vast majority" of comms are whatever I say the vast majority are part timers self financing through down turns, causing a huge amount of latent pressure, making it nearly impossible for fulltime fishermen to make a living, honestly.

This whole poaching discussion is a lot more about the desperate condition of Maryland's commercial fisheries than anything else. If Maryland would conserve our commercial fisheries and put these fisheries into the hands of responsible professional fishermen instead of hack amateur part time aholes who have no skin in the game, the whole deal would be much cleaner and more respectable.

http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47858&d=1305933313

[C-Hawk18]

If I were king for a day I would make every commercial licensee pony up reported lands AND tax filings when they bought a license to prove they had a real vested interest. Other states have done this, and the results were a lot of people who failed to report landings or income were adamantly opposed to giving up their license. Why would anyone who doesn't make money care so much about their commercial fishing license? If the State removed all the "dormant" licenses, I suspect there would be an amazing rebound on all of our commercial and shared fisheries.

http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47858&d=1305933313

I thought this post was about MAKING ROCKFISH ILLEGAL TO CATCH.....

[Matt]

when fixing things is beating a dead horse, we should all be doing that. The question is, how do you fix something as broken as this without serious revision in the current policy. I posted an opinion. If you have an opinion about how to fix this, feel free to post it. The poster named "big liar" thinks we can fix illegal netting by controlling recs. An interesting opinion. Does big liar's other identity have an opinion?

[C-Hawk18]

when fixing things is beating a dead horse, we should all be doing that.

Just as an FYI- COMPLAINING about something is not doing anything to FIX it. All you're doingis ...http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47858&d=1305933313


The poster named "big liar" thinks we can fix illegal netting by controlling recs. An interesting opinion.

I don't think this post was referring to "FIXING ILLEGAL NETTING" I think is was about SAVING THE ROCKFISH.


Does big liar's other identity have an opinion?

Which "other" identity? If you're ACCUSSING someone on here of posting as 2 different people I sure hope you have some PROOF to back it up.

[Matt]

I said something about "big liar" ... why did you respond?

[Big Liar]

If Maryland would conserve our commercial fisheries and put these fisheries into the hands of responsible professional fishermen instead of hack amateur part time aholes who have no skin in the game, the whole deal would be much cleaner and more respectable.

I think someone just called me an ahole. I think he just called alot of members on here aholes. Brandon, I did not think this was allowed. I think he hurt my feelings. Mommy!!!!! He's being mean to me. Let me set you straight. I'm a professional hack and don't you forget it.

I wonder if you feel the same way about people that do general contracting jobs on the weekends? - or - People that work a second job at Walmart to make ends meet? Would you rather these people file for independense cards?

Also, I have never posted under any other user name. I even put my real name on here. Not sure what else you want. The fact that other people have similar believes as I, must really get to you. There are many more who feel this way, but they choose not to visit this site because they know what type of views are supported here.

[C-Hawk18]

I said something about "big liar" ... why did you respond?

Well......I never heard anyone in this post mention Matt.........so why did YOU respond?
BTW- Brandon knows my name and now he apparently knows Big Liars name....I think he can assure you that we are 2 different people.

[gwag]

If you cannot make an honest living ,obeying the laws and regulations of what ever trade you ply ,then your business is not viable and you are only fooling yourself when you thump your chest and proclaim "I am a commercial fisherman ,contractor artist, etc. if you cant' make aliving from the profession with out having the govt give a hand out or stopping another citizen from enjoying the god given natural resources then you do not have a profession ,you have a damn mess,i.e the current state of the commercial fisheries.

[C-Hawk18]

If you cannot make an honest living ,obeying the laws and regulations of what ever trade you ply ,then your business is not viable and you are only fooling yourself when you thump your chest and proclaim "I am a commercial fisherman ,contractor artist, etc. if you cant' make aliving from the profession with out having the govt give a hand out or stopping another citizen from enjoying the god given natural resources then you do not have a profession ,you have a damn mess,i.e the current state of the commercial fisheries.


This is your reply to a post about restricting rod and reel fishing in MD, if they are going to restrict commercial net fishing to protect the fishery.......

And you live in a state where they allow RECREATIONAL GILL NETS.

I think you need to talk to my Mayor also....If they weren't taking part of my pay back.....to feed thier welfare programs, I could possibly "make a living" at my profession w/o the need to supplement my income.

J/W - what by chance do you do for a living?

[Big Liar]

If you cannot make an honest living ,obeying the laws and regulations of what ever trade you ply ,then your business is not viable and you are only fooling yourself when you thump your chest and proclaim "I am a commercial fisherman ,contractor artist, etc. if you cant' make aliving from the profession with out having the govt give a hand out or stopping another citizen from enjoying the god given natural resources then you do not have a profession ,you have a damn mess,i.e the current state of the commercial fisheries.

I do obey the laws and regulations. Other than not having to pay tax on some supplies, (the same with any business with a tax exempt number) I take no handouts. As far as recreational restrictions, these would exist with or without commercial fishermen.

[Matt]

I wonder if you feel the same way about people that do general contracting jobs on the weekends?


Market conditions make it virtually impossible to be a "general contractor" on the weekend. A special person could maybe be some kind of limited home improvement contractor for two days a week. Never mind the ability to take on any real project working two days per week...the carrying cost alone of any legit construction business makes two day operations very challenging. In addition to the simple economics, market forces i.e. competition and customer expectations force building contractors to do good work or perish. Construction is truly a competitive market, full of challenges and financial limitations. On the other hand, Maryland's commercial fishermen operate under a limited entry program, hardly subject to normal market forces. The State sells annual licensing to participants for pennies on the dollar compared to the open market value of these licenses. The licensing itself is a subsidy if there ever was one. Little more than an entitlement. In the end commercial fishing stands or falls on how easily and quickly it can capitalize on public resources. The entire concept of commercial marine fisheries relies wholly on availability of public resources. Remving marine life is really no different than removing animals and firewood from a public park. Can anyone imagine what uproar would persist if a special group of people driving forty five thousand dollar trucks were given exclusive privileges to remove anything of value from a public park? Take this comparison another step. Imagine that same privileged group not being satisfied that taxpayers had given them such exclusive rights. While we weren't looking, under the cover of darkness, they expanded their plundering to include the illegal removal of anything worth a buck in your backyard. Under such similar circumstances, I don't think many people would be suggesting something like, there would be plenty of firewood if the rest of us would give up burning wood. Anyway, thanks for the fodder. I love it when some of you guys share your true opinions.

[Big Liar]

So you did not answer the question. I know a guy who did this for years and had 5 guys working for him. They worked evenings and weekends. Do you care to answer the question about them or not?

Public resource topic: You keep mentioning this, but in the same breath you make it sound like no one else has any rights to it besides whatever group you support. Just like land, and other animals, the govt. controls it. If the govt. decides that your land would be better served by doing something else with it. They will force you to take whatever money they feel is fair compensation, and you will be without it. The idea that you own it and have ultimate control over it is an illusion. The same thing here: Each year the govt. decides to take a certain percentage and allocate it to commercial watermen and another percentage is allocated to recreational fishermen. That means that the govt. holds the ownership of it, not you nor any specific group. You can call it a public resourse, but that is just another illusion. You can vote in new politicians, but you’re not likely to get rid of government any time soon. So to hear you claim ownership and rights to something that you don't own is just silly noise to me.

Most every industry profits by consuming some type of raw material. Oil, minerals, plants, animals, whatever. Using your logic, I could argue that any of these things are public resources. Do you have a problem with all of these industries?

[Matt]

Try again. In construction there's no agency allocating free materials so builders can pocket maximum yield. Market demand takes care of almost everything, including bankruptcy for inadequate performance.

[hackeyfly]

In response to the ttitle of this thread, yes, make it illegal to catch striped bass in MD. I don't care. I missed out on them before Agnes in '72, I saw all the pics of my parents and grandparents with cow stripers caught close to home in Harford county, I didn't see a wild striper until I was in college in the 80's. Then the moratorium came. I caught stripers for maybe 4 years before we got where we are today. So the hell with it-make 'em an endangered species for all I care, not like I'll be missing something I was accustomed to. I have absolutely no faith in the govt. of MD or any other state to manage a wild resource for recreational or commercial harvest. Catch 'em til they're gone, then move on.
Pat in Joppa

[C-Hawk18]

JimRockfish:poke1::poke1::poke1:Matt

Here it comes....(in the background....Michael Jackson....)http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47858&d=1305933313

I know he can't resist the urge to respond......

[Matt]

I know the rockfish population is down somewhat right now from past record levels but it's not anywhere near a crash or crisis level. As painful as it is for recs like Matt that would relish putting comms out of business entirely, might as well get that out of your head - it's not going to happen, not now, not ever.

You're arguing against a much weaker point than any I was making. Matt would relish putting comms out of business entirely? Ha. I didn't say that or suggest it, so the rest of your post is not relevant. What I would like to see is a more professional commercial fishery, comprised of fulltime competent watermen who have a vested stake in helping to manage cleaner commercial fisheries. The way it is now, its like the wild west, with all kinds of part timers and weekend warriors doing combat for every inch of productive water. Our current system fosters bad behavior. We also fail to punish criminal behavior appropriately. There's no incentive for honest fishermen to rat out the crooks. All of this could almost be fixed if we just got rid of every commercial fisherman that didn't report landings and/or income.

[crabby and son]

:popcorn::popcorn: :yawn:................Gary

[C-Hawk18]

Told ya so!


The way it is now, its like the wild west, with all kinds of part timers and weekend warriors doing combat for every inch of productive water.

Why are you bringing the 150K planer board pullers into this all the sudden? You finally getting back on subject?

No here you are bringing up "Part Timers" AGAIN(You know I heard that they just also found out that the LCC Holders are also responsible for all those Wrestlers dying from the 1991 Wrestlemania)

http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47858&d=1305933313

[Matt]

"Matt: We also fail to punish criminal behavior appropriately. There's no incentive for honest fishermen to rat out the crooks. "

Amen to the first point

Second one puzzles me whenever I see this many times on TF. Comms actually do rat out comms, I know that for a fact. They do it through the poacher hotline and it happened a lot this Winter but unfortunately did not translate into arrests. Like I said in a previous post in different words... catching seasoned poachers is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.

If punishment for intentional violations would simply result in expulsion from any future commercial fishing, I think enforcement would not be as much of an issue. There's a lot of "I think" in here. What I know is that many many comms have been caught flagrantly cheating, in ways that show intent, and the rules failed to put them off the water. Rap sheets a mile long, still fishing. Thats only the visible component of illegal activity. There's still a fleet of part time commercial fishermen who have absolutely nothing to lose, catching and selling, all cash all under the table. No reporting, no income tax. We subsidize their commercial fishing entitlement then we turn our heads while they give nothing back. Its truly a dysfunctional plundering machine. We all see them. One or two guys in a commercially marked boat on the weekend, or in the evenings. Running small amounts of gear. Many of whom are chiseling away at the resource irresponsibly, funneling their catch through illegit buyers who find ways to convert under the table cash purchase into enviable margins of profit. This is a fairly accurate description, I think, of the scheme that got busted and national attention last year. This component of Maryland's commercial fisheries concerns me the most. This kind of activity is why a black market for seafood persists in our State today. Lets face it, no legitimate buyers were going to process all that out-of-season striped bass. Only a black market buyer would have been involved. Why? Because the harvesters would have accepted pennies on the dollar for all that meat. This kind of nonsense would cease to exist if Maryland promoted a more professional breed of commercial fisherman. Instead, Maryland sells commercial fishing licenses to anyone, whether they are running a credible seafood business or not.

[C-Hawk18]

.......... There's still a fleet of part time commercial fishermen who have absolutely nothing to lose, catching and selling, all cash all under the table. No reporting, no income tax..........

Anybody know where we can get another DEAD HORSE? This one has pretty much been beaten to a pulp!

[Big Liar]

So it is the illegal hacks that you have a problem with and not the legal hacks who do report their income and follow all the rules? There for a while we thought you hated all law abiding watermen as well. That would just make you look like an a$$. I'm glad your not that.

[Matt]

So it is the illegal hacks that you have a problem with and not the legal hacks who do report their income and follow all the rules? There for a while we thought you hated all law abiding watermen as well. That would just make you look like an a$$. I'm glad your not that.

Take the universe of licensed watermen, draw a circle around all the ones willing to harvest and sell illegally. Now draw a circle around all the ones who don't rely on fishing as their primary source of income. I suspect you will be covering much of the same ground.

[Big Liar]

I don't sell illegally and it's not my primary source of income, so I personally don't feel your theory holds water.

By your response, would it be fair to say that you have a problem with all part time watermen? You also think that all watermen are taking advantage of your public resource? This would also have to include charter boat captains like Walleye Pete, Jim Brinsfield, and others on here. Whether your selling fish or selling the oportunity to catch fish. Per your definition: These people are taking advantage of your public resource. I just want to clarify exactly how many people out here you think are ahole hacks.

[C-Hawk18]

Take the universe of licensed watermen, draw a circle around all the ones willing to harvest and sell illegally. Now draw a circle around all the ones who don't rely on fishing as their primary source of income. I suspect you will be covering much of the same ground.

2nd of just 2 replies to your "suspicion" that puts holes in it. I also fit inside the 1st Circle...but not the 2nd.....and DO NOT rely on fishing as my primary source of income......

Any other Md Tidal Fishing License holders on here want to comment on where you fit in? LCC, CB3's, Md Guides?

[C-Hawk18]

Take the universe of licensed watermen, draw a circle around all the ones willing to harvest and sell illegally. Now draw a circle around all the ones who don't rely on fishing as their primary source of income. I suspect you will be covering much of the same ground.

Violating TOS - You agree to not use the Service to:
a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;




There's still a fleet of part time commercial fishermen who have absolutely nothing to lose, catching and selling, all cash all under the table. No reporting, no income tax. We subsidize their commercial fishing entitlement then we turn our heads while they give nothing back. Its truly a dysfunctional plundering machine. We all see them. One or two guys in a commercially marked boat on the weekend, or in the evenings. Running small amounts of gear. Many of whom are chiseling away at the resource irresponsibly, funneling their catch through illegit buyers who find ways to convert under the table cash purchase into enviable margins of profit. This is a fairly accurate description, I think, of the scheme that got busted and national attention last year. This component of Maryland's commercial fisheries concerns me the most. This kind of activity is why a black market for seafood persists in our State today. Lets face it, no legitimate buyers were going to process all that out-of-season striped bass. Only a black market buyer would have been involved. Why? Because the harvesters would have accepted pennies on the dollar for all that meat. This kind of nonsense would cease to exist if Maryland promoted a more professional breed of commercial fisherman. Instead, Maryland sells commercial fishing licenses to anyone, whether they are running a credible seafood business or not.

Again - Violating TOS - You agree to not use the Service to:
a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;


If Maryland would conserve our commercial fisheries and put these fisheries into the hands of responsible professional fishermen instead of hack amateur part time aholes who have no skin in the game, the whole deal would be much cleaner and more respectable.

Yet Again Violating TOS -You agree to not use the Service to:
a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;


Brandon - how many times do you get to violate the TOS without getting booted? I seem to remember a few years back when quite a few Commercial License holders were booted on their FIRST violation.

[Matt]

I don't sell illegally and it's not my primary source of income, so I personally don't feel your theory holds water.


I think you're attempting to argue points I didn't make, but if you are plying your part time venture in a legal manner, you are more than entitled to your opinion. As am I. I guess I have to wonder what kind of waterman do YOU think is committing these netting violations. I think it’s the guys who don't have as much to lose, and I think part time comms with other primary sources of income have MUCH less to lose. I'll go one further, of the thousands of licenses issued this year, I believe the majority possibly the vast majority of all commercial license holders routinely do not report landings or income. The question is, why are people spending money on licenses they don't use. That is, of course, a rhetorical question.

[C-Hawk18]

you are more than entitled to your opinion. As am I.

Entitlement to opinion is not the same as entitlement to post that opinion especially since posting such is in direct violation of the TOS

You agree to not use the Service to:
a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

So if I thought you were an a$$, it would be wrong for me to post that....wouldn't it?

[Matt]

When Brandon suggested the crab license reference was like throwing a hand grenade I stopped making crab specific references. He's the moderator. I wonder though, is it so much that I threw a hand grenade or that you exploded?

[Big Liar]

I think there was confusion because you continued to mention the LCC license holders previously in this post. As you know the LCC license by itself does not allow you to set nets for fish. If it’s your theory that it is LCC holders that are setting illegal nets, that is one that I had not heard before or ever thought about. That is truly an interesting theory that would be worth hearing. Beside your theory of not having as much to lose, why else would you think this? I’m not being smart, but rather sincere. Most of the LCC holders I know personally put their boats away by the end of November. Unless these guys are working as a mate on someone else’s boat that holds a TFL, these guys don’t fish.
I’d really like to hear some reasons why you believe this to be the case. Do you have some suspects in mind and have you shared any of this with the DNR?

[C-Hawk18]

He's the moderator.

That's why I asked this...



Brandon - how many times do you get to violate the TOS without getting booted? I seem to remember a few years back when quite a few Commercial License holders were booted on their FIRST violation.


I wonder though, is it so much that I threw a hand grenade or that you exploded?

Exploded?.......um....OK if that's what you want to call it......but the Continuous DEFAMATORY remarks about "Commercial License Holders" sure could give someone reason to huh? I guess that's why such posting are NOT ALLOWED here..........at least by some poster......

[Matt]

I think there was confusion because you continued to mention the LCC license holders previously in this post. As you know the LCC license by itself does not allow you to set nets for fish. If it’s your theory that it is LCC holders that are setting illegal nets, that is one that I had not heard before or ever thought about. That is truly an interesting theory that would be worth hearing. Beside your theory of not having as much to lose, why else would you think this? I’m not being smart, but rather sincere. Most of the LCC holders I know personally put their boats away by the end of November. Unless these guys are working as a mate on someone else’s boat that holds a TFL, these guys don’t fish.
I’d really like to hear some reasons why you believe this to be the case. Do you have some suspects in mind and have you shared any of this with the DNR?

ha ha as if crabbers have the market cornered on part time meatfishing. Try again.

[Big Liar]

Sorry. Now I'm really confused.

[Matt]

DNR sells 2000 TFLs

[C-Hawk18]

DNR sells 2000 TFLs

This is about MAKING ROCK FISHING ILLEGAL.........of course Matt for some reason has to keep on http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47858&d=1305933313

And DNR doesn't SELL TFL's....they issue the Authorizations

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/08/08.02.01.05.htm

Here are the target numbers:


FGR Fishing Guide Resident 480
FGN Fishing Guide Nonresident 56
HLI Finfish—Hook and Line 294
FIN Unlimited Finfish Harvester 269
LCC Limited Crab Harvester 3,125
CB3 Crab Harvester—300 Pots 258
CLM Clam Harvester 15
OYH Oyster Harvester 743
ODB Oyster Dredge Boat 3
CTL Conch, Turtles, and Lobster Harvester 10
TFL Unlimited Tidal Fish 2,135


So I'm just guessing here but I think he might actually be talking about all the Part Time Guides on here who also hold H&L permits maybe? Is that it Matt?

I think Matt is a bit jealous like BI in that he can't get a TFL at the DNR authorized under market price.

Now maybe if Brandon will chime in, and put Matt in Time-Out for his blatant and repeated violations of the TOS, we could possibly get back on subject.

[Matt]

thanks for the spellcheck ... DNR "authorizes" TFLs for $300 with cash, check or credit card

[C-Hawk18]

thanks for the spellcheck ... DNR "authorizes" TFLs for $300 with cash, check or credit card

Go get one then....since they are sooooooo under priced according to their "value". Why don't you?

[Black Irish]

I think Matt is a bit jealous like BI in that he can't get a TFL at the DNR authorized under market price.

In spite of the fact that you have been told on both here and another website many years ago that I quickly lost interest in obtaining any kind of commercial fishing license; because I finally realized that the cozy DNR/WMA relationship has, and in my opinion still is, causing every financially valuable lifeform in the bay to be to be fished to the point of collapse; yet you still continue to taunt me. I will tell you one final time on here that I have zero interest in any kind of commercial fishing license. Are we crystal clear on that point now, Robert?

I do believe that you are in violation of the TOS, i.e. stalking. Maybe Brandon ought to toss you into permanent time out. There's no benefit in the useless banter and spin you bring to this forum.

[C-Hawk18]

I will tell you one final time on here that I have zero interest in any kind of commercial fishing license. Are we crystal clear on that point now, Robert?

I do believe that you are in violation of the TOS, i.e. stalking. Maybe Brandon ought to toss you into permanent time out. There's no benefit in the useless banter and spin you bring to this forum.

Sorry Bud - I didn't realize you "Saw the Light"! No Stalking on this end. If you check I think you're always posting in behind ME! and even calling me by name....what's up with that? talk about "Stalking". TOS - "Privacy"

[Matt]

I finally realized that the cozy DNR/WMA relationship has, and in my opinion still is, causing every financially valuable lifeform in the bay to be to be fished to the point of collapse

Well put.

[Big Liar]

Ok, back to the original point on my post. I was trying to demonstrate how no fishing group wanted to have another fishing group dictate the closure of a season or complete ban of any method of fishing. I think with the number of pages of this post, even though it went off topic, that we can see that this is true.

I think the state is taking the appropriate actions of implementing tools to catch poachers. They are not trying to cripple an industry. I know that you guys think that the nets are crippling all fishing in Maryland, and other states have benefitted from net bans. The fact is that net bans in other states were put in place because by catch was the major problem. Did species rebound in other states? Yes, but other measures besides net bans were also implemented during the same time period which also contributed.

Let's face it. Both groups are trying to catch the same fish. Every time a diehard fishermen see's other fishermen catch and keep large numbers of fish in February (legal or illegal) when his season does not open until mid-April, it has got to irk him. He's got to think that there goes a huge number of fish that will not be in the water when I start fishing.

At the same time, watermen see that the recreational allocation is larger than the commercial allocation. Yet, a recreational group is trying to force the DNR to shut down 2/3's of their fishery.

As in any conflict, the mediator (DNR) tries to find a win/win solution. That is nearly impossible here, but I'm sure the DNR is trying to come up with a solution that will appease each group.

[Matt]

When all of you on here (including Brandon) that are wanting to band all nets because you are so concerned about the species. When you write up the bill proposal, be sure to propose that it be illegal to fish for rockfish in any method. After all, you guys are trying to protect the species. Right? It's not at all possible that you are the pot calling the kettle black and just want to continue to catch the fish you are trying to protect.

You are using an incident of illegal activity to fuel your fight to ban all net. Well every year there are also recreational violation. Why not stop all fishing?

That is what I thought. By the way. I currently only hold an LCC. No TFL or rockfish allocation. Yet.

Who's behind me?

Your original point was based on a premise that recs' wanted to "protect" the fish like endangered species. That's not true. The entire premise of your original point was eroded by the single narrow purpose you attempted to bestow upon recreational fishermen. Most recs desire conservation, a wise use of the resource. Rockfish are a highly desirable gamefish. Good rockfish brings a lot of people to Maryland, providing one of the best kinds of commerce: tourism. Tourism dollars are great for the state, basically infusing outside money into local economy. When netters especially illegal netters are converting a valuable resource like rockfish into some kind of low value protein commodity, it hurts our State and its constituents. As a going-in position I think lots of recs now would like decision makers to consider simply ending wasteful commercial harvest of striped bass. I think we're all prepared to recognize some middle ground. As long as cognizant agencies like DNR are unable to control commercial harvesters, I think many of us, maybe most of us, would be perfectly ok with simply ending all net fishing. Comms could make this much easier by regulating themselves a little better. As long as the burden to control commercial fishing falls on everyone but the commercial fishermen, comms can count on getting deserved negative attention.

[Big Liar]

I respect that it is your opinion that the best use of rockfish to attract tourism. But I also understand that you feel this way because you enjoy fishing, so you tend to think about this activity first as a tourist attractant. Lots of people also come to Maryland to eat seafood. After all, Maryland is for crabs. Not all of these people will spend the time to catch their own catch. Lots of people come here for various other reasons and while they are here, they make sure they go out to eat the local seafood. There are many ways that the state benefits from its seafood. That is why I don't think the DNR will just give in to some specific user group and ban nets.

[Matt]

I share your opinion that DNR won't ban nets. I also think negative perceptions of the agency and commercial fisheries are rightfully growing. Meanwhile comms and the agency only have themselves to blame i.e. this isn't recs' fault. Its not our fault commercial fisheries look like they are run by petty crooks. Its not recs' fault comms are so flippant about crime, and so willing to look the other way and protect their own like some kind of two bit mafia. As far as best use for striped bass, I think facts more than opinions would suggest striped bass are much more valuable to Maryland harvested from recreational fisheries. Converting rockfish into low value protein, or into rotting wasted fish entangled in illegal gear, is bad for everyone.

[Big Liar]

You are entitled to your opinion. I’m just glad that most people don’t have such a harsh opinion as you and to that I am sure. To that, I wish you a peaceful, healthy, and happy life. May your fishing trips be enjoyable and your success rate be great.

[crabby and son]

You all need to agree to disagree. this is going nowhere............Gary

[Matt]

You are entitled to your opinion. I’m just glad that most people don’t have such a harsh opinion as you and to that I am sure.

To this I am sure.

"To: Fishery Regulators of the Chesapeake Bay
Petition to Abolish Nets on the Chesapeake Bay and it’s Tidal Tributaries

We, who use and enjoy Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay’s natural resources and have concern for the long-term viability of the fin fishery of the Chesapeake Bay, request:

1) That the practice of using nets (excluding cast nets, landing nets, dip nets and eel pots) on the Chesapeake Bay, and its tidal tributaries, be abolished as a means to harvest non-crustacean fish.

2) That substantially higher penalties be established, then what exists as of February 14, 2011, against those who violate the law that governs the use of nets, as a means to harvest fish on the Chesapeake Bay

Sincerely,
Almost 6000 people

I guess almost 6000 people share my harsh opinion that comms are out of control and almost one person thinks the appropriate response is for recs to stop fishing for rockfish as a way to deal with illegal netters, which by the way is one of the most backwards illogical pot-stirring unproductive opinions I have ever read.

[gwag]

Can anyone explain what motivates the idiot politicians to allow the netting season in march ? I see 55 gallon drums with huge tails sticking out usually as many drums as will fit in a pick up. it makes no sense to kill these cows as they are spawning.

[Big Liar]

Can anyone explain what motivates the idiot politicians to allow the netting season in march ? I see 55 gallon drums with huge tails sticking out usually as many drums as will fit in a pick up. it makes no sense to kill these cows as they are spawning.

I'm not sure where you live or see these 55 gallon drums full of fish, but in Maryland there is no commercial season open for rockfish in March, April, or May. If you see the same thing next March, you should definitely call the poaching hotline and get it checked out. As far as the politician allowing statement, they do not allow it.

[Big Liar]

I'm not familiar with VA regulations as well.

[Barefoot]

Can anyone explain what motivates the idiot politicians

Votes

[gwag]

You would think that there are more votes on our side ,I think access and money into the politicians pockets are at the root of the problem . I have no problem with commercial fishing ,but rockfish should be hook and line and sold to the restaurant and sea food retailers direct . cut out the wholesaler and make the fish more valuable to the waterman . I always want to take a tape and measure some of the fish I see at the chain grocery.

[Big Liar]

There are more recreational fishermen than commercial, but there are more people that buy fish than recreationally fish. Thus the source of votes for a commercial fishery.

[Matt]

If it were just about votes, the masses would vote to end pollution. When was the last time you voted for or against pollution? Politicians keep these decisions buried under about three layers of bureaucracy. Elected officials prefer to keep these decisions buried When fishing was just about votes, the citizens of Florida voted ban nets. Then comms formed trade groups and hired lawyers. They lobbied and pushed and slowly rewrote state and federal laws. Now you basically have to change a law before the People vote on fishing. What we have now is a complex network of citizen advisory processes. By the time a net rule gets to the legislature, they get to say it was the will of the people. Even if it isn't.