Below is Rep. Gallisons recent editorial on the front page of the RISAA newsletter. I recently left RISAA after years as a member because of this ill-conceived bill. I hadnt seen it until today, but this editorial was brought to my attention via a colleague and friend at one of the two agencies named as "Scientists" . This to me shows the continued ignorance of Gallison on the issue. How many people who supprt the bill actually know that H. Bruce Franklin is a Professor of English and American Studies at Rutgers, NOT A FISHERIES SCIENTIST. He is also one of TWO faculty with Tenure to ever get FIRED from Stanford.

Yet the people with the background in fisheries, fisheries management or environmental science (DEM, RIMFC, ASMFC and SEAGRANT) Have it all wrong??? WTF. why bother having DEM do anything other than right enforcement issues if people choose not to believe them.

This "picking and choosing" of what science they like from certain managers and what science they dont like based on whether it helps their own cause is bull%$%$%$%$ and goes up my ass sideways. Science is science, Franklin's piece is psuedo-science at absolute best, and is actually more opinion than fact.

I sincerely hope Gallison LOSES his next election, because what ever he says, how ever much he smiles, he is a POLITICO, and I bet a beer if an issue came up that was anti- access or anything else bad for Rec. fishing, if it didn't benefit his constituency he''ll be expecting us to bend over and take it. I've said all along, when it comes to take a kid fishing etc RISAA is a good group, but this was a terrible idea from the get go, and if they ultimately win, they will set a bad precedent by forcing a closure of a fishery (comm or rec) WITHOUT SCIENCE to back it up.

I know that some of the people involved are going to have some sort of open forum on this topic in the next few months (before Thanksgiving I was told). I can not wait until the supporters of this bill can plead their weak, unsubstantiated arguments against people who have made their living studying ecology, fisheries, biology, etc.. and be exposed that menhaden are not overfished locally or coastwide.

Rant over
have a good weekend everyone.
Bryan


From the July 2007 RISAA Newsletter
"I deeply appreciate everything you have done to get the
menhaden issue on the table and open to the public. Maybe we
didn't get legislation this year, but the bill and issue is far from dead.
RISAA's efforts have brought a greater public awareness of
what author H. Bruce Franklin said is "the most important fish in the
ocean." No one ever realized how important this species is to our waters, and that is thanks to the efforts of the membership. Together, we will protect this most valuable resource for our Bay.
We overcame some really difficult odds to even get the bill
the attention it received from the General Assembly along with
the public at large. We had the Rhode Island's "scientific"
community against us, saying there was no credible evidence
that the stocks were declining. As you are well aware, this was
done to placate the commercial lobster fishing industry.
What these "scientists" and opponents to the bill didn't
realize, is that this legislation put the lobster industry and Ark
Bait under scrutiny. The number of commercial lobster licenses
is now being questioned, in that how many lobstermen are
actually working, along with other things like what they use
for bait, and pricing.

Also exposed was Sea Grant and how their priority is the
commercial fishing industry while totally discounting the
tremendous economic impact, and environmentally friendly and
sound practices made by the recreational fishing industry.
We also learned that the marine fisheries council and other
governmental agencies (DEM) need to be educated that
recreational fishing is just as important as commercial fishing.
I am convinced more than ever that the menhaden issue was
never properly addressed by them before now
Some other things happened behind the scenes, like Ark Bait
being urged to stay out of the Providence River and Mt. Hope
Bay, as well as areas close to shore, in order to not draw attention
to itself.

Some other things happened behind the scenes, like Ark Bait
being urged to stay out of the Providence River and Mt. Hope
Bay, as well as areas close to shore, in order to not draw attention
to itself.
The status of the bill is that it remains active in the committee.
It is very much alive, since we are in "recess" and did not adjourn.
It would be appropriate to recognize the efforts of the other
co-sponsors of the bill, as they helped behind the scenes,
especially Rep. Peter Kilmartin and Rep. Peter Palumbo.
Whether RISAA members realize it, The R.I. Saltwater Anglers
Association is a very strong voice for the recreational fishing
industry in Rhode Island. Every person that picks up a rod and
reel to fish from shore or on a boat is indebted to RISAA. You
hare helping to keep access to the water open (by the way the
Carter bill to kill the Plum Point Fishing Pier went no where) and
have brought attention and solutions for environmental issues.
You have finally made the public aware that recreational fishing
has a tremendous economic impact upon our economy.
Personally, I have to catch up on some things and will be
teaching a 3 week class from July 9 to July 27, but after that it's
back to work on the menhaden issue.
Thanks,
Ray Gallison
Editor's Note: RISAA says THANKS to Ray Gallison for all
his hard work.

So your opinion is let them net the pogies.They make no difference to how the fishing in the bay is and it will be too bad if Ark bait cuts a loss from losing access to our waters?Not sure bout how it effects the lobsterman myself .I'd hate to see any local Rhode Islanders(lobsterman) some how lose on the deal.I'm not a scientist or biologist.Just a Surf Fisherman so the way I look at it is if the large schools of menhaden are hanging in the bay then the fish that eat the menhaden will be in the bay also.So in return the fishing will be better.Schools will be bigger.Surf Fisherman will actually see more bait and more action.Rhode Island will retain it's great reputation as an awesome state to fish.I'd like to learn alot more about menhaden and the effect they have on lobsterman,the health of the bay,the foodchain,and the economy of our state.I follow the RISAA reports and read up on alot of the opinions on the menhaden.If you could shed some more light on this subject for myself and anyone else who may have been mislead by the hype I would appreciate it.I'm not Calling you out or second guessing your opinion I just want to know the same information you know regarding this issue.

I'll second the Skunk!!!!




What did I just say????

Skunk:
This has been heavily rehashed on this site. so a search for me under menhaden/pogies it should come up.

My opinion is that a lot of the 'science' and claims by risaa et al are unfounded. IF Ark is doing so much damage, and they have been fishing at the same levels, WHY do we have more pogies now than 5 years ago? Doesnt make any logical sense to me. I think there is a compromise, and I think the July cap limit set my DEM is a great start.

The other problem is Franklin's book gets taken as science... Sebastian Junger is a great writer, but I wouldnt take his word as gold if we were fighting about Swordfish!

Skunk:
This has been heavily rehashed on this site. so a search for me under menhaden/pogies it should come up.

My opinion is that a lot of the 'science' and claims by risaa et al are unfounded. IF Ark is doing so much damage, and they have been fishing at the same levels, WHY do we have more pogies now than 5 years ago? Doesnt make any logical sense to me. I think there is a compromise, and I think the July cap limit set my DEM is a great start.

The other problem is Franklin's book gets taken as science... Sebastian Junger is a great writer, but I wouldnt take his word as gold if we were fighting about Swordfish!

The real issue right now is the fact that boats that otherwise would be chasing squid or herring have taken a big interest in the pogies which is why the DEM regulation suddenly came to life.

Very efficient and thorough boats, capable of doing things on a scale much more dramatic then anything Ark does.

To be honest I don't trust science from anyone at this point. I do trust, that when a friend of mine in the dead fish biz who knows the owners of said boats tells me they can wipe the Bay clean, I have little reason to doubt it. He told me about a month before the additional boats came that they would come, who was coming, and that DEM would probably have to take action. It all came to pass.

Sure, pogies swim coast wide. Why they go, where they go, and when they go is surely open to debate but once they're in the Bay I just assume we keep them there as best we can.

Some regulation was/is needed. The science (who ever's science), hopefully, won't slow it down. To me the local regulation should be to protect the local fishery, and it shouldn't necessarily be related to the overall menhaden fishery which is supposedly fine.

To me the local regulation should be to protect the local fishery, and it shouldn't necessarily be related to the overall menhaden fishery which is supposedly fine.

Pete,
If this is the case, how do you feel about eels?? the findings were that the overall fishery is substantial, yet, as many people have stated, the numbers of eels are way down in the north east.
Should we have strict regulation on the use of eels as bait in the northeast? Or there commercial viability??
I do not know all of the facts related to the pogies in the bay, I have read very little pertaining to them, I should read more but haven't had the time. Many of my friends work for the fisheries in woods hole and I know they do their best to keep fisheries open or propose regulations when they should be implemented.
They are all fishermen and care about the work they do, as it is not only their professional life, but it is their hobby as well.
I agree with rockhound; I tend to favor the folks who work full time at a profession whether it is a scientist or a carpenter. Thats their job and livelihood and almost every one of the scientist I know are very passionate about their work.
(as an aside, I think anything that can be done to preserve any fishery or form of wildlife is a step in the right direction, from endangered birds to menhaden.)

I like the RFA position on this issue.

It goes somehting like this.

An outright Ban on commercial or recreational menhaden harvest is clearly in opposition to the Freedom to Fish Act (passe in RI so that junk science could not be used against Recreational fishermen) which sets up strict scientific parameters that must be met before a science based closure may occur.

Tha being said, The RFA recognizes that there is a vaild concern about members of any fishery wiping out or reducing the number of menhaden to a limit that would effect the quality of fishing in the bay.

A simple compromise would be to not ban commercial Menhaden Fishing but rather to "slow" it down by passing a bill akin to the very successful bill passed in NJ where gear type restrictions (requires the seine to be emptied via scoop or basket rather than by pump)were placed on the commercial fleet that allowed them to continue to make a living but slows them down enough to ensure any nsever depletion would be recognized and probably never happen).

Compromise is usually the best solution.

Just my 2cents but I am from MA and it is really none of my business.

Sure, pogies swim coast wide. Why they go, where they go, and when they go is surely open to debate but once they're in the Bay I just assume we keep them there as best we can.



That is what I am saying and I'm sure most of the other RI fisherman.It's not about the health of the menhaden population it's when they are in RI they can't be touched by these bait boats.Thats what I wish could happen.Like safe seas for them in RI.Personally I would not care that if they were migrating out of the bay there was a ship that netted them all in Mass waters.That would in turn be Mass fisherman problems.Thats what I thought the whole bill was about.Keeping our waters clear of the nets not the health of the menhaden population which I read that low numbers like 1-2% is taken by commercial fisherman.It's all about our turf.

That is what I am saying and I'm sure most of the other RI fisherman.It's not about the health of the menhaden population it's when they are in RI they can't be touched by these bait boats.Thats what I wish could happen.Like safe seas for them in RI.Personally I would not care that if they were migrating out of the bay there was a ship that netted them all in Mass waters.That would in turn be Mass fisherman problems.Thats what I thought the whole bill was about.Keeping our waters clear of the nets not the health of the menhaden population which I read that low numbers like 1-2% is taken by commercial fisherman.It's all about our turf.


Agreed. Of course I have to take a look at all this from a tackle shop's perspective, and I can tell you, nothing spurs business like a Bay full of bunker.

You can put the SWE solidly in the list of businesses enjoying a Bay full of bunker. There was a simply amazing number of happy anglers out there this year. Happy people, catching fish, equals good business.

Pete,
If this is the case, how do you feel about eels?? the findings were that the overall fishery is substantial, yet, as many people have stated, the numbers of eels are way down in the north east.
Should we have strict regulation on the use of eels as bait in the northeast? Or there commercial viability??
I do not know all of the facts related to the pogies in the bay, I have read very little pertaining to them, I should read more but haven't had the time. Many of my friends work for the fisheries in woods hole and I know they do their best to keep fisheries open or propose regulations when they should be implemented.
They are all fishermen and care about the work they do, as it is not only their professional life, but it is their hobby as well.
I agree with rockhound; I tend to favor the folks who work full time at a profession whether it is a scientist or a carpenter. Thats their job and livelihood and almost every one of the scientist I know are very passionate about their work.
(as an aside, I think anything that can be done to preserve any fishery or form of wildlife is a step in the right direction, from endangered birds to menhaden.)

I'd kind of consider eels and pogies to be apples and oranges. Eels just don't drive a fishery like menhaden do. Each species "value" is very different.

To me it's an RI inclusive issue and not fishery wide issue, the Skunk is right on in that this is a matter of protecting the home turf so it's very hard to compare to eels. RI obviously has/had a bumper crop of bunker and the goal should be to keep it that way with proper regulation. The menhaden population was probably healthy 5 years ago too and how was the bunker population in Narragansett Bay then? It was pretty pathetic, to be honest. Interestingly enough no one really seemed to care. Another big question is would regulation even do anything? The bunker may just decide to skip our little proposed safe haven next year.

Keeping (encouraging?) pogies in the Bay is about fueling a world class striped bass fishery. Call me greedy, but I love it. Tackle business is good, our charter trips are even easier and better, and I caught a lot of quality fish in the Bay this year. It was simply incredible out there and I'd like to see it continue for many reasons.

I think a serious issue is a lack of science, other then that the menhaden population overall is healthy. Why are there so many bunker this year in Narragansett Bay? Natural cycle? Water conditions? What will keep it this way? Who knows...

Basic Patrick is right on though. A pretty basic principle called compromise is probably the right answer.