|
Part of an earlier post that got buried:
My take on it.
A cleaned up version was sent to the Environmental committee members of the house.
I am against it for some of the reasons below. I have said ALL ALONG I think
that it is a warm-fuzzy feeling for most people, and on the surface it is.
Yeah more forage fish, cleaner bay yippee!!! IF I thought that ANY of the
goals mentioned by RISAA were realistic I may be the first to sign, but..
I also think the way the ban is being sought is unjust/unfair/unfounded
Am I anti-ban? Yup. Propose it to ASMFC or RIMFC and see what happens. RISAA
probably knew it wouldn't make it through this process so they tried to jump
that step.
It completely circumvents the fisheries management process that utilizes the
people who are trained and background to help make decisions
(scientists/fisheries managers) and the councils set-up to manage our
fisheries. This would be completely opposed if they went after any other
species in this manner. Look at what happened with peoples opinion of the eel
situation last year. If you don't like the process get involved, but it's
the one we have right now.
What if Save The bay or Peta came in and said no more striped bass fishing?
Or cod, or fluke, or sea-bass or whatever. What if they claimed it would
help the water quality in the bay, no more fish kills etc. What if PETA or
STB or anyone else didn't have the science to back up these claims? We would
be so in an uproar that it wouldn't be comprehendable.
This is not that different than the menhaden bill. Save the Bay, while a
great educational group doesn't do a lot of science, yet when they partner
with RISAA and put themselves in the paper/press it lends a unfounded
credibility of science to it. Then, when a trained fisheries scientist who
has been doing this a long time publishes a report with numerous good
sources published in scientific literature that opposes this view, people
who have been so one sided on the RISAA/STB side that they immediately
assume it was wrong doing or bad science.
That is my main problem with it. People assume good science is behind it yet
it is based on hearsay and conjecture and warm fuzzy memories. The Bay HAS
CHANGED in the last two decades. It is cleaner, with less nutrients that
feed these schools, and I have it straight from one of the most respected
Ecologists in the country who is at URI that the impacts of large schools of
Menhaden may actually impede some of our other species, and the same
conclusions reached by a separate biologist at DEM.
Last, one of the biggest issues I have is that when you have large schools
of pogies in the bay you will have lots of big dead healthy bass. It is a
LOT easier to catch bass on these schools, which is why I think RISAA is
such a big supporter. People who cant catch their ass with both hands can
snag and drop. Then they boat the 2 bass they probably wouldn't have caught
now have dead bass in their boat/truck repeat the next day/week whatever.
Not everyone keeps fish of course, but you hopefully see my point. The last
time we had larger stocks of pogies was just before the moratorium,
coincidence? probably, maybe, maybe not. Obviously management and commercial
practices have changed since then, but the number of people fishing has
probably increased. This would probably increase the pressure on our beloved
bass. Look at what happens on the winter grounds. We get all upset that they
are killing all these huge bass that are tightly schooled on bait fattening
up before they spawn. Do you think narragansett bay will be different. All
the increased economic benefit being touted from added angler pressure in
rhode island adds up to more dead bass! Do you think all the 'tourists' will
be C&R fisherman
Pogies is one of the many issues on our bay/waters. If you really think that
fixing it fixes the bay and all the scientists will be out of work, then you
need to look hard at the issues. Winter flounder, herring, etc and yes fish
kills.
I am a geologist by training, but I took the time to find out as much about
these issues, not in the Slo-jo or in press releases. I read both sides
points and grasped as much of the science behind it as I had the time/brain
cells I could spare to it. I have made my opinion and you have yours. I
sleep well knowing I did everything that I could to understand all sides of
the issues before I made my decisions. I'm sure you did the same. I don't
disrespect anyone who supports the bill.
I don't respect the way the issue has started w/ this Bill and the sides
involved and the motives involved with RISAA. This has been an ongoing issue
for 35 years, and we won a HUGE battle getting reduction out of our waters.
|