Lastnight I recieved many e-mails from people that witnessed a terrible act in NC waters. It seems that the trawl boats have recentley been granted a 100 fish by-catch allowance for Striped Bass as they often catch them while trawling for other species and hate to throw them back dead. Well, it appears that a few of these trawlers are abusing this by-catch allowance and actually targeting Striped Bass as their main catch. The reports that I'm hearing is that these trawlers are fishng very close to the beach and doing some major culling of the fish they catch. I'm hearing horror stories of them not keeping any fish less than 30 lbs. and throwing back dead fish that are smaller than 30 lbs. One report told of 200+ dead Striped Bass in the 15-20 lb. range floating dead in the water in the wake of these trawlers!!!

This is unacceptable and should be illegal!!!

I'm sure it's not all commercial fishermen, but there's an awful large group of commercial fishermen out there that just never disappoint those of us who don't trust 'em!

Take photographs, call the local paper, call your game wardens. Then you need to remember what this harmless little 100 fish bycatch really costs in the way of actual fish deaths and next time the commercials want to keep "just a little measly bycatch" make sure you remind every single soul in your entire state that what they are really planning to do!

And, for the record, who's the email in your post going to so anyone inclined to send an email to that address might have an idea who they are speaking to?

I'm sorry for not elaborating more in my original post. I was on my way out the door when I wrote the post up and have just now returned on-line to give more info about this.

First, Mr. David L. Taylor is the head of Fisheries Management for the North Carolina Division of marine fisheries.

Second, here's a partial copy of the NC regulation that has allowed this fishery to open: (The full regulation can be found at http://www.ncfisheries.net/procs2k/FF-58-2000.htm )

FF-58-2000

PROCLAMATION
RE: STRIPED BASS SEASON - OCEAN TRAWL: ATLANTIC OCEAN

Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director, Division of Marine Fisheries, hereby announces that effective at 12:01 A.M., Thursday, February 1, 2001, the season for the harvest of striped bass with ocean trawls in the Atlantic Ocean waters of North Carolina WILL OPEN. The following restrictions will apply:

I. SIZE LIMIT
No person may possess, transport, buy, sell or offer for sale striped bass less than 28 inches total length taken with ocean trawls from the Atlantic Ocean.

II. HARVEST RESTRICTIONS
No ocean trawl operation, regardless of the number of persons or vessels involved, may take, possess, or sell more than 100 striped bass per day or fishing trip regardless of the number of days that the vessel is underway.

SEASON CLOSURE
The Atlantic Ocean trawl season for striped bass WILL CLOSE by proclamation when the harvest from this fishery reaches 100,000 pounds or at midnight on March 31, 2001, whichever occurs first.

Third, One of the people that witnessed this occuring has informed me that he did capture this event on video the first day he saw it occuring, on the second day he witnessed this he took pictures. He has turned the video over to a friend that will be taking appropriate action. The pictures he took are on regular film, he'll be sending me copies as soon as he gets them developed and scanned.

I've worked pretty closely with CCA over the past few years, and I can assure you that they're looking into the matter--I've already exchanged E-mails with CCA staff in North Carolina.

However--

The big myth is that CCA--or any other organization--has the inherent power to affect change. It doesn't. CCA's strength is its members, and their efforts. CCA is purely volunteer organization; it's our great strength and our greatest weakness. If the people are truly motivated to work for a cause, nothing can stop them, and they are far more effective than a couple of hired hands; however, if the people don't step up to the plate, we have to forfeit the game.

What any organization does is marshall assets needed to organize anglers into a coherent whole, educate them as to the issues, and inform them of problems/hearings/legislation/etc. It's then up to the members of the public to do something with that information.

The organization can create an "institutional memory," whereby it learns from its mistakes and successes, creates a pool of people who understand each species' biology, and how to effect change in the system, and then passes that down in efforts to train the next generation of volunteers(e.g., CCA NY's Sustainable Fisheries Seminar on March 3). It can earn a reputation for integrity, fair dealing, etc. that will help gain access to regulators and legislators, and hold its leaders to strict standards to make sure that the reputaion isn't tarnished. It can raise sufficient funds for a lobbyist, or hire counsel to bring/intervene in legal actions that will have a significant effect on our fisheries.

However, it can't act in a vacuum.

When I get up before a hearing to present the position of CCA NY, it's not my words that matter. It's those of the people who get up behind me and endorse what I've said, or give their own views in their own words, but support the same ends, that make a difference. Anybody can get up and say "I represent a whole great big bunch of people." But then the regulator looks at the sparse crowd and asks "So where are they?"

I've spent enough time in near-empty halls to ask myself the same question.

In May, 2000, CCA NY sent out a few thousand notices, asking anglers to attend the public meeting on Amendment 6 of the striped bass plan. Maybe 50 people showed up. While we dominated the meeting--a number of unaffiliated individuals also endorsed our position--the static thrown up by the commercials, the party/charter boats, etc certainly cut into our message of restoring the age/size structure of the bass, and gave the state delegation to ASMFC enough justification to continue the harvest of legions of small bass, if they want to go that way. They would have had a lot tougher time if people had gotten up off their collective butts and helped fill the room.

Reading some of the above posts, it seems to me that the only thing that eliminates trawler bycatch in state waters is the elimination of trawlers in state waters. As people point out, there is little difference between a "bycatch" fishery and a de facto directed fishery.

Florida--led by CCA Florida (then the FCA)--managed to get all entanglement nets and trawls (outside of a few very small ones) out of state waters. To do it, it took legions of anglers--the largest ever assembled in the state--and millions of dollars. CCA Louisiana got rid of gill nets legislatively--but it took a huge effort and another 7-figure budget.

There's a lot of institutional inertia in our regulatory/legislative system. To overcome that inertia requires a lot of force, expended over an extended period of time.

We've all tried whining, that didn't work. We've all tried tossing $25/year at various organizations....that works as long as that organization's desires are in line with yours...not just the desires they publicize, but the desires they put your money behind. There's often a difference. So, all sorts of whining and all sorts of $$....how many fewer nets do you think the stripers have to dodge today than they did 5 years ago? Hell, it's not fewer at all, from what I see on my beaches, it's 10 times the number of inshore gill netters and trawlers! Time to change tactics.

Welcome Stan (and Jim) So, what's the prognosis of these meetings? Anything in the works that even rings the slightest bit positive for the fishes? Good new is needed!

quote:

---

Originally posted by saltyh2ofly:
...Look at the NRA as an example. Gun clubs, shooting organizations and hunting clubs all function but they ban together under one "flag" to get things done in government. ....I don't want to rant but I feel we need organization on a grand scale. Again I would like to thank the individuals that take time to fight the good fight.

---

Hi Fishers and saltyh2ofly,

We already have the NRA of Sportfishing! The RFA was founded back in 1995 as a 501 (c) 4 non profit organization. The RFA is the ONLY national 501 (c) 4 non profit representing salt water anglers in the United States! It gives the RFA the privilege and right to legally lobby full time on issues and support or oppose political candidates.

As you all know, the problems in fisheries today are political in nature. It’s “Political science”, not biology, that is going to win the day for conservation. The end result means we have to level the playing field and take control of federal fisheries management out of the commercial industries influence and the quasi environmental organizations who want to shut off access to all recreational fishermen to public areas.

I generally don’t do this… but in this case, I feel it is important that everyone knows we have an organization to fight for what we believe in.

I strongly believe in RFA and urge you to support the conservation groups of your choice… But if you are looking for a power house political organization with full time lobbyist. Working Capitol Hill and that gives you as a member tangible materials to send to legislators on a regular basis - then join the RFA. 1-888- JOIN RFA.

“Crazy” Alberto

1) 501(c)4s are not the only organizations permitted to lobby. 501(c)3s, although tax-exempt, can lobby provided that they do not spend a "substantial" amount of their money (roughly, more than 15%) on such efforts. So large, well funded 501(c)(3)s--Audubon, CCA, Ducks Unlimited, for example--can spend as much on lobbying as a smaller (c)(4).

2) Despite the myth we sometimes try to perpetuate, all organizations do not seek the same goals. Some are conservation oriented, some are more concerned with allocation. To use CCA and RFA as examples of the difference, CCA is now involved in a highly migratories lawsuit, having sued NMFS because its recent time and area closures will increase the bycatch of blue and, more particularly, white marlin--we spend our funds to protect the fish, not to kill more. RFA is involved in a lawsuit seeking to allow anglers to kill more than three yellowfin tuna per person per trip, and to kill sharks smaller than 4 1/2 feet in length. They use economic impact of the regulations as justification. That's fine if they believe killing more and smaller fish is the right thing to do (which may be the case, since, for a brief time, RFA was also party to a suit in Texas seeking to kill more and smaller red snapper), but it isn't conservation--its allocation, and industry advocacy.

3) All lobbyists aren't created equal. The value of a lobbyist is in his contacts, knowledge and effectiveness. CCA also has a lobbyist who lives in the Washington area, is a senior partner in a major national law firm, was counsel to a number of regional fishery management councils, wrote most of the enabling regulations for the Magnuson Act and was a trade negotiator in a recent administration. That makes him real familiar with legislators and regulators of all persuasions from all over the nation. I know that RFA also has a lobbyist, but I don't know his history. Since lobbying involves legal drafting, interpretation, etc., I assume he went to law school. Could anybody tell me which one? What firm did he practice with? What is his political experience? did he hold a job as legislative staff? For who? What regulatory agencies did he work in? Such things are important to a lobbyist's success, and in evaluating an organization's effectiveness.

4) RFA did work to keep the EEZ closed to bass fishing in '95. But in '97, Jim Donofrio approached me at the Nassau show and asked for my support to open it, and in '98, RFA, in conjunction with Raytheon and some Mass boat captains, actively solicited the ASMFC requesting they support an opening. What is their position today? If they want it opened to rec only, what realistic way do they have of not opening it to commercials--like draggers out of SC, unaffected by ASMFC regs, fishing on wintering bass bunched up in the EEZ off the Outer Banks?

5) What is the RFA position on Amendment 6 to the bass plan? Do they support reducing harvest and restoring the population of big fish, or do they support managing for maximum sustained yield, so there's a lot of fish to take home? Did they endorse the 24" limit in NJ?

Yes, CCA has a wider membership base and a much savvier marketing spiel that is effective at membership recruitment (spiffy decals, nice prize-filled BBQ's and outings). But these "social club" attributes don't necessarily make for effective political advocacy.

I believe Jim Donofrio of RFA has proven himself to be a principled, hard-core, no-nonsense, no-compromise indiviudal. He has the guts to say, "Screw this, this isn't right."

My (harsh) 10 cents worth. If you ask me, your membership dollars are better spent joining RFA.

-giant kakuka

**My apologies for letting this vile and childish rant sit unedited for so long. Fishweewee is one rant away from no longer being with us, it's vulgar, childish name calling like this that brings entire boards down to the level of 10 year olds and I won't stand for it, regardless of which group you prefer.

Sincerely,

Tim Surgent