Bunker bill info

[animal]

All of you have contacted me in support of my legislation to ban purse seining of menhaden in Narragansett Bay.
I appreciate your emails.
I am attaching a copy of the DEM report released on Friday, March 30th, and need your help.
As you will read, Mark Gibson, from DEM, believes that we do not need to prohibit the use of purse seining to protect menhaden. I believe he is absolutely WRONG! I have personally witnessed Ark Bait surrounding a menhaden school and after they are done, there is not ONE menhaden left!
PLEASE write to your Reps and Senators and urge them now more than ever to support the banning of purse seining for the taking of menhaden in Narragansett Bay.
Thank you.
Raymond E. Gallison, Jr.
Representative - District 69 (Bristol and Portsmouth)

I received this email last night from rep Gallison,he attached a pdf file that I'm not smart enough to attach.Basically it says that they are going to use the freedom to fish act,against us,in favor of Ark bait.I don't know how(or even if) we can do anything about it,but I'd say it's crunch time,and now is the time to resubmit e-mails,letters and calls to our reps and senators,telling them how we feel about it.

[Nebe]

here ya go animal

[animal]

Thenx Eben,but that's only a portion of the report.(and small and fuzzy,like you!)

[RIROCKHOUND]

Lets read the WHOLE document guys... there is more to it than just the Freedom to Fish Act conflicts... Gibson used a little thing called science to back up his arguments!

Having been involved with fisheries management for a while as part of the Tautog AP and just going to meetings and reading reports, Gibson is someone I have a lot of respect for as a scientist.

[NIB]

Ok,What is the best way to address this..
Gibson is probably right on most counts.I think the best avenue would be to show how the economic impact from striper fishing on the region could be possibly much greater with a menhaden loaded bay..An the negative impact that one bait company Ark will endure is over rated as they will still get there baits in MA..
RI spends a good amount on raising tourism.This is a summer fishery.Hotels restaurants,DD's,an convienence stores they will all benefit from a better striper fishery.Ur not just talking about a one state's increase in fisherman..
U'll have the public hearings.It's time for the fisherman to show up.U must speak on record.If u go an just sit there u basically go unnoticed...We went thru yrs of this till we finally got it thru.

[animal]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Lets read the WHOLE document guys... there is more to it than just the Freedom to Fish Act conflicts... Gibson used a little thing called science to back up his arguments!

Having been involved with fisheries management for a while as part of the Tautog AP and just going to meetings and reading reports, Gibson is someone I have a lot of respect for as a scientist.

Um,yeah.Let's read the WHOLE document.Not the one little paragraph ya posted.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Animal I replied on the other site. I DID read the whole thing and responded multiple times to your responses. I told you i couldn't figure out how to post the whole article for everyone to read. I outlined it over there but it seems your goal has been to get me to say I am Anti-ban.

OK.
"Hi, my name is Bryan, and I am against the RISAA sponsored bill the proposes to ban the taking of Pogies in the bay using purse seines."

whew, feel better now.

[CaptDom]

Here you go Bryan. I too am against the RISAA sponsored bills.....The science in this 11 page document is pretty spot on.

The reduction boats got kicked outta jersey what, 4 years back?, and thats why the huge influx the past few years. The weiwantic was loaded with them last year, and the Merrimack saw a good push for the first time in many years, as they extend their range north, the numbers will continue to increase.......Besides which, the Freedom to Fish Act was a RISAA supported move if I'm not mistaken?

[CaptDom]

next 2

[CaptDom]

pages 5-6

[CaptDom]

next

[CaptDom]

9-10

[CaptDom]

last page

[RIROCKHOUND]

Thanks DOM.
glad I'm not the only one.

[animal]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Animal I replied on the other site. I DID read the whole thing and responded multiple times to your responses. I told you i couldn't figure out how to post the whole article for everyone to read. I outlined it over there but it seems your goal has been to get me to say I am Anti-ban.

OK.
"Hi, my name is Bryan, and I am against the RISAA sponsored bill the proposes to ban the taking of Pogies in the bay using purse seines."

whew, feel better now.

Uh,actually Bryan.Takke a look at who posted these threads on both forums.You(on both sites)tried to post a single paragraph,and called it "the whole document".So seeing as how it's MY thread,you are posting MISLEADING info in,I see it as my RESPONSIBILITY,to correct you.Have a nice evening.

[RIROCKHOUND]

no no no no..
my intention was for everyone to read the whole article.
I know I didnt post the whole thing, but since you and I posted different parts of the same article it was pretty obvious that it wasnt the whole thing.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by animal

Uh,actually Bryan.Takke a look at who posted these threads on both forums.You(on both sites)tried to post a single paragraph,and called it "the whole document".So seeing as how it's MY thread,you are posting MISLEADING info in,I see it as my RESPONSIBILITY,to correct you.Have a nice evening.

Animal-

You are dead-wrong and way out of line making statements such as "misleading" about Bryan's comments. Why don't you try to read everything and then comment so you don't sound so foolish.

One of the first comments Bryan made on the other site was:

"Lets make sure we read the whole report people."

That's been his take the entire time - READ the whole thing. The simple fact that he wasn't able to "technologically" attach the entire article means nothing. He was not trying to insinutate that the paragraph he posted was the entire article. Even a 3rd-grader could figure that out.

His comments are what counts. And I agree with his premise. I do think that some sort of limitation needs to be placed upon the taking of pogies, but it needs to be scientifically supported with ample evidence in order to be successful. RISAA apparently didn't do enough homework and may now have lost this battle even if its heart was in the right place.

So next time you want to cast aspersions at another member of this Board why don't you read his posts twice and make an educated comment.

And yeah - he's a friend of mine - but that did not change my opinion of your out-of-line comments.

Joe

[RIROCKHOUND]

OK.
I posted this somewhere else where the topic was being debated a bit more. This is my tome on the subject. summarizes my thoughts and feelings as best I can. it was originally directed at Animal, but since I out and out said I am anti-ban I felt I should clarify here.

Probably my last post on this topic. I got sucked in to an argument that has
drained way more time that it should have, no ones fault more than my own.

to address your post:

No lobstering for me. Friends that do. Mainly offshore guys who don't use
Pogies for bait.
No one works on the boat that I know.

Am I somewhat pro-commercial? Yup. We have no more right to the fish then
they do. Commercial fishing done right is necessary maybe you don't see it
for menhaden, but farmed/aquaculture fisheries will not feed the masses.

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.
I appreciate the debate going on here, and enjoyed it.

[tautog]

Very well said Rockhound I applaud you for reading all the info on both sides of the issues

[animal]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Animal-

You are dead-wrong and way out of line making statements such as "misleading" about Bryan's comments. Why don't you try to read everything and then comment so you don't sound so foolish.

One of the first comments Bryan made on the other site was:

"Lets make sure we read the whole report people."

That's been his take the entire time - READ the whole thing. The simple fact that he wasn't able to "technologically" attach the entire article means nothing. He was not trying to insinutate that the paragraph he posted was the entire article. Even a 3rd-grader could figure that out.

His comments are what counts. And I agree with his premise. I do think that some sort of limitation needs to be placed upon the taking of pogies, but it needs to be scientifically supported with ample evidence in order to be successful. RISAA apparently didn't do enough homework and may now have lost this battle even if its heart was in the right place.

So next time you want to cast aspersions at another member of this Board why don't you read his posts twice and make an educated comment.

And yeah - he's a friend of mine - but that did not change my opinion of your out-of-line comments.

Joe

Uhhh,ok.I have read "everything"twice.I'm the one who e-mailed the report to Bryan.This thread was posted to keep people in touch with what's going on,not for two or three guys(myself included)to have a pissing contest.Bryan's against the bill.Great.Big deal.I am not.I'm in contact with Rep Ray Gallison,and Jim Donofrio of the RFA.Ray has already sent his reply to Director Sullivan,in it is enclosed the section of our state constitution,which outlines the legislatures ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY over the goings on in our states fisheries management.We'll have to see how it turns out.I will continue to do my part for the bills passage.You can do as you wish.Anyhow,I will continue to count you among my friends.