SB 1032 Gill net ban amendments, entire bill rewritten

[DirtyFrank]

Here is the bills web page. You will see all amendments have been adopted.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/sb1032.htm

All mention of a gill net ban is gone. Here is the bills new text

http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/sb/sb1032t.pdf

A technical committee will look into gill net regulations and report back. Perhaps this was the original intent of the bills sponsors.

TIGHT LINES!!!

[h2oboss]

[QUOTE= Perhaps this was the original intent of the bills sponsors.

TIGHT LINES!!![/QUOTE]

Perhaps that's the reason there have been questions about violations/nets and lack of press this year? It'll be intresting to see who is on the commitee....OR.... I also think there may be a serious financial implication to this bill.....I'm not a lawyer but I would assume those holding licenses would/could file a civil suit against the state for taking/highly regulating or aboloshing a significant source of income/livelyhood? So maybe a decision was made to back off for fear of lawsuits, getting tied up in courts and possible eventual civil judgments? Just playing devils advocate.

[Thunnus Amongus]

They are forming a committee to answer questions that are already very well known to all. No action is short for "more of the same". It's a joke IMO.

[B-Faithful]

I hope an economic evaluation with independent economist of the gear is overseen by the committee if it goes through. (in other words: is the economic benefit of the use of the gear worth the expense of management and enforement to the state?)

[Gerald]

Waste of money and resources. Foolish in my opinion. Your gonna have to have someone on that committee that's got teeth like a pitbull. We need to clone some Ken Hastings! LOL

[Capt.Nick]

There is also an econimic loss of income for buisnesses from overexploitation to the marine industry,travel,motel,fishing licenses,tackle shops,etc.Studies that have been done in other states that have bnned this type of fishing claim that the loss of income may be 6 times greater than the commercial value.

[rla69]

They are punting on second down ,politics suck.

[Hookin-Up]

What BS! Study it for a year...PA LEEEZE. What do you expect from a one party state and a good old boys network? Too bad DNR isn't all over this ( that will cost the state MILLIONS in lost rec fishing revenue) as they were for banning groups of 50 or more boats. They don't care about natural resources!

[J.F.L.]

Looks like a punt to me. The technical advisory board is to convene on or before 9/1/2013. Add a year for board deliberations and another for the crafting of legislation and getting it through committee and another year for passage and it will be 2016 or 2017 before any law takes affect.

If on the other hand the DNR were to contract out the harvesting of illegal nets to licensed commercial fishing companies, with the nets and half of the proceeds from the harvest going to the DNR and the remainder to the authorized provider of the service, both the commercial and sport fishing industries would see an immediate and significant decline in the illegal harvest of a valued resource upon which both are dependant; the incentive being that neither the DNR nor the service provider need invest so much as a single dime to assure success and profit.

[Capt Brady Bounds]

I assert that along with the decision to fight against nets comes responsibility for choosing to do so. . In the most recent fracas,"Ban The Gill Nets", none of the proponents have taken responsibility for getting out-maneuvered by the members of the Environmental Matters committee. I have not seen any discussion about what needs to be corrected for another run at it next year, what can be done within the summer-study/advisory committee format. As MSSA now owns the "Ban Gill Nets" issue because they initiated this proposed legislation, it is upon them to advance the fight or not. But because they chose to spear-head the cause ,without gathering the support of other like-minded organizations IMO, it is the MSSA that is responsible for the consequences. Not just MSSA but also all of the proponents.

MSSA can see this as a defeat or as an opportunity. An advisory initiative does not have to be the death sentence of this bill. It could be the mechanism for more public discussions about the appropriateness of this particular commercial gear type. (1) keep the committee focused on the gill nets, (2) Do not allow the discussion to parlay into us vs them. (3) open the hearings up for more public input via public hearings, and other interested parties not specifically mentioned by the legislation.

In other words, ...make lemonade. Then when the next gill net bill is brought next year, the Committee cannot use the Advisory Study as a way to dispose of the bill, and will have to use other means to keep it off the floor of the House of Delegates, which they do not want. Additionally some effort should be put into getting the Governor's aid in banning gill nets if that practice is, in fact, costing the State of Maryland money to regulate and enforce gill netting.

I am of the opinion that proposing legislation, or starting political actions,without proper preparations is more detrimental to a groups mission than having not done anything at all, and worst of all, it may impede other groups from being able to get fair hearings before that legislative committee on other issues. Consequently MSSA is behooved to get into the lemonade business, or take a creditability hit. Why should I join and follow an organization that is going to give up ?