This is fantastic, thank you Fischadler...now I know what my perspective is. I was wondering what it was, I should have just asked you first, then I wouldn't have to do anything.
So what is my perspective on.....let's see.....pound nets in the rivers during the spawn?
The real issue is how the dnr can just pass a law on a whim when they are under pressure from some source unbeknow to us and then turn around and find 100 excuses not to pass or even acknowledge the need for another one that's for the good of the whole bay or the same fishery when they have the science right in front of them and it could'nt be clearer.
I think political pressure comes in many forms, some more subtle than others. Both charter-boating and commercial fishing have one element in common. Both provide incomes for people and both drive a recognizable economic engine that is readily apparent to legislators in Annapolis and both have been historically influential in the DNR management of the fisheries.
My suggestion for Dave Smith,of the MSSA , as well as other like-minded groups is to break-down this distinction that legislators hold in preferring to kowtow to the commercial engine, while dismissing the recreational impacts. I know they are working on this daily. Simply put, under the current political climate, it is political suicide to support conservation at the cost of jobs. From another perspective a legislator once asked me as follows: "Why should I vote for your proposal when you guys (recreational) are just playing around at fishing during your leisure time while the commercial man is out there making his living, and supporting his family ?"
The subtlety of his question demonstrated to me the political power that commercials have over other user groups. It's their trump card, and we saw it in the last legislative session.
We have to figure out how to negate that perception. Once that hurtle is overcome, the whole balance between user groups changes and that in turn changes Md DNR.
I'm quite sure Mr Smith is very aware of that which I write. But to answer Gerald's question, that's where the "pressure" comes from in my view.
I first need to know all the facts surrounding where the money comes from that pays your salary. We can proceed from there.
Originally Posted by DaveSmithMSSA
Getting back to the original idea, I like the idea of a special "certification" needed to fish in currently closed areas. If and only if data shows that people practicing good C&R techniques has a very minor impact on the mortality of spawning fish I believe that people should be able to practice this type of fishing. Take a page out of the hunting license book. I recently had to attend a safety class to get my hunters license, why can't fishing to something similar? I'm not talking for the run of the mill fishing license but something like a special area license during the spring season? Recreational groups such as the MSSA and CCA and others could offer these classes to the public and donate their time. And if an angler wants to participate he/she must take the class before they are able to receive that particular stamp on their license. I also encourage the cost of the stamp to cover the additional costs of the DNR efforts to enforce these regulations. Charge commercial guides one price (because presumably they will be out on the water more often) and recreational anglers another. It's not about the money but lets get the sector that uses a resource to pay for it themselves.
We all want to fish, that's why we are here. As long as we can ensure we are safely using the resource why not let us do so?
Good point Skip,Many fishers don't see any harm in C&R 100 12-16in. stripers in the name of fun during summer.That was why after the moretorium the season opened Oct.1st. the first few years.
Originally Posted by 27 sailfish
Actually dink fishermen have become a pretty big group on the bay. They see nothing wrong with it. To question the practice brings dink fishermen out of the woodwork to defend the practice or at least put down those who question it.
Originally Posted by Capt.Nick
G-Man: You are right on target and I have pondered this issue for years. DNR’s reaction to the C&R issue has convinced me that “what’s good for the Bay” isn’t the top priority. When DNR “proudly” reacted to the alleged mass slaughter of fish during the C&R season, they publicly praised the MD Charterboat Association for bringing the “problem” to their attention. The contradiction was obvious – why would an organization making money from killing fish object to the accidental killing of fish?
Looking back at the evidence, it seems clear that someone representing the Charter Boat Association sold the idea to DNR in the first place. Maybe their “representative” realized that every dead fish during C&R was one more he couldn’t get a client to pay him for during the trophy season. It wouldn’t be the first time that some organization was blind-sided by their leadership. Anyway, regardless of the underlying motives, DNR swallowed the hook and knowingly sponsored regulations to restrict public resource access to benefit one stakeholder group over another.
Originally Posted by Gerald
I would suggest that we are fast approaching a point where there will soon be so few fish to catch, or release and that this subject may indeed be rendered moot?
A very interesting thread with the DNR again in the headlights. Given the absolute and utter failure to live up to the core responsibility for which it was created would anyone in private enterprise still have a job with a similar track recored.
"The Department of Natural Resources leads Maryland in securing a sustainable future for our environment, society, and economy by preserving, protecting, restoring, and enhancing the State’s natural resources."
Once again, as we rapidly head to another "Moratorium" the DNR brass continues to collect paychecks and proclaim that all is well.
Parker 23 SE
"GOING WHERE THE STRIPERS GO"
Tags for this Thread