[Bob Allen]

I have apparently touched a nerve with some of my caustic comments on Tidalfsh. I made the comment (on one posting) that we got rid of Pruitt..and things are better now. This man took issue with that pooly worded phrase. Admittedly, Mr. Pruitt retired, we did not GET RID of him. He stated his opinions that pollution were the cause for the demise of crabs. the same line all crabbers now take. I agree with him that pollution could be the entire cause of the decline, but that the Legislature is not enclined to do anything about pollution and the best thing to protect the crabbers from themselves has been to curtail their effort and harvests...

WE now communicate directly on by e-mail .

Now we better understand one another and seem to agree on much more than we disagree on...is it not ironic?

If recrational and commercial users of the BAy, could overcome some of our prejudices, a lot of good could come from a coolition of commercials and recrationals all concerned about truly protecting the resources.

By the way this guy is a "Pruitt"...guess that is how I got his attentionl

Bob Allen
Recrational angler
PSWSFA & VCAC
Hampton, VA

 

[Tom Powers]

Bob,

I would take exception to the concept that ANYONE . . . GOT RID OF. . . . Bill Pruitt. . . Mr. Pruitt retired after a very long successful career of public service. One might choose to agree or disagree with some of the things that he did during that career but it is presumptuous to suggest that any person or organization "got rid" of him when he choose to retire.

Much of the transition of the Commission to more balanced organization happened towards the end of Bill Pruitt's watch.

Tom

 

[Getaway]

Okay, he retired vs. had been gotten rid of. You corrected your posted statement which speaks well of you Bob.

Now, we all remember that for decades the commercial interests in the bay managed to have every decision made by VMRC and the General Assembly be in their favor. When questioned about this lopsided affair, we were told that they had the votes so we should just learn to live with it. It took many years to get that position changed. Now our legislators want to go back to the old ways----most likely at the request of the commercial interests.

Yes, the bay needs cleaning up, which would help the crab and fish industries as well as recreational fishing. But, neither of them can realistically claim that they have not a very substantial impact on the bay by overfishing and taking crabs year round. One cannot deplete the stocks (by some 90% in the case of crabs) and not adversily affect their livelyhood.

Work together? I would hope so but, based on past history, consider it to be not very likely.

 

[Brandon]

This arguement is as old as the day is long. The commerical crabbers in Maryland tried the same thing. This is really very simple:

• Pollution in the Chesaepake has increased. We ALL are to blame for it.
• When pollution increases fish populations decrease. That is simple, they lose habitat etc...
• When fish populations decrease you can NOT continue to harvest at past levels. That is simple 3rd grade math.
• That means ALL of us have to decrease our harvest levels.

Remember, a man is not going to understand the above when his/her job depends on him/her not understanding. The crabbers want to keep crabbing to make money. Who is to blame is really an irrelevant point and regardless who is to blame, WE still can NOT continue to harvest at current levels. If we do we will have NOTHING left. Harvesting our natural resources is a privilege, not a right.

I am not saying it does not suck, I am not saying that losing jobs does not suck, but the reality of it is unless we want to be telling a story like we have with the sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay, we must reduce harvest levels for all of us. End of story.

 

[Tom Powers]

Bob,

Although pollution and more importantly the loss of critical habitat, is a contributing factor towards the decline of blue crabs. In my opinion the major factor is overspecialization of the fishery. That did happen on Mr. Pruitt's watch. That is not to say that he is to blame rather I would say that the Commission at the time was more to blame. Two related factors come into play. The first is increase in the peeler fishery both in the number of pots and the effort on existing pots, with no reduction in any other sector of the fishery. The second, somewhat related factor is the increase in the overall permitted number of pots as shown in the graphic below. This increase in pot numbers was done by the Commission by allowing hardship entry as well as hardship increases in number of pots for a number of individuals. Those increase were made against staff recommendations.