massachusetts hates suckers?

I was browsing the mass fishing rules at http://www.mass.gov/...cmr/cmr_400.htm and came across an oddity.

under section 4.02: Taking of Carp and Suckers for Purposes of Sale.

with sucker definable as white sucker (Catostomus commersoni).

section six says "All fish other than carp or suckers taken through seining or trapping shall be returned to the water immediately. No carp or suckers of any size shall be returned."

Carp I understand, but suckers are a NATIVE species. Why can't they be returned to the water? What does massachusetts have against suckers.

I imagine it's because they are not game fish, and therefore useless "trash" fish. It's sad to see that sort of ignorance, even more so in our government agencies. They should know better.

That is A VERY ODD rule however; it is probably just to prevent confusion between carp and other sucker-type fish.

hmmm interesting...i can tell you that our waters are infested with them. i prob catch about 3,000 a day when im out. they make good feeders though


but seeing on how we have longnose suckers that are of special concern or endangered (cant remember) its weird they would risk that

Edited by bumpylemon, 27 June 2010 - 07:33 AM.

Before everyone continues to bring on the resource agency bashing theme that has been present the last month lets try and find the context for this rule. I would imagine it was written at least 20 years ago, but it could have its roots potentially 100 years ago. Fisheries management has changed drastically, even within the past 10 years. So when this was written, its intention may have been short sighted, but also uninformed. It can be a pain in the but and legally tedious to remove annotated code (typically addressed with a "non-withstanding") and because the originators of this rule are likely long since retired or dead. Consequently, todays managers may be completely unaware this rule even exists, or may know it does, but realize people aren't readily practicing.

Before everyone continues to bring on the resource agency bashing theme that has been present the last month lets try and find the context for this rule. I would imagine it was written at least 20 years ago, but it could have its roots potentially 100 years ago. Fisheries management has changed drastically, even within the past 10 years. So when this was written, its intention may have been short sighted, but also uninformed. It can be a pain in the but and legally tedious to remove annotated code (typically addressed with a "non-withstanding") and because the originators of this rule are likely long since retired or dead. Consequently, todays managers may be completely unaware this rule even exists, or may know it does, but realize people aren't readily practicing.

Must have missed the bashing. I've only seen legitimate and serious concerns raised about very poor laws passed recently.

It's a horribly poor excuse to have lame laws on the books because it's too much like work to keep them up to date. Even worse is the suggestion that "...todays managers may be completely unaware this rule even exists"

I guess it's OK for them. Just don't try and tell a Game Warden you were "unaware this rule even exists" or that it would be too much a tedious pain in the butt to follow.

What say someone contacts them and inquires. I'm curious.

Edited by donkeyman876, 27 June 2010 - 05:10 PM.

I'm pretty sure if Josh from NH knows that's on the books people who run that dept know its on the books

Matt's right but doesn't put it in full context. Recent laws we see as stupid are often conceived as cost-savings measures. A blanket ban on collecting fishes is much cheaper and easier to enforce than allowing most people to collect most fish most of the time. If we were really slick and wanted to change this we'd be able to lobby state governments to increase their Natural Resources agencies' budgets by something like 50%. But that won't happen because most state budgets are in free fall, large numbers of teachers are being laid off (I just met one today) so that NR employees look even more expendable, and the economy is still gutted from the implosion of 2008. I hope we can push back against this but it's stacked against us for the moment.

Since I'm in an absolutely terrific mood this weekend I'll make some additional points and give you some examples.

The typical "game warden" makes less than a police office, even though they not only are responsible for natural resource protection, but criminal activity on public lands and homeland security responsibilities. Many are required to do personal upkeep on their vehicles and their equipment is usually decades older than regular LEO. Most also have a minimal background in fish and wildlife management. So when it comes to the legislative table that certain species of game fish, or crayfish, or bait, must be distinguished between one another what do you think their gut reaction will be? When the first thing usually on their mind is what yahoos are doing drugs in a state park, poaching commercial fisheries, baiting and spot lighting deer? That is why Bruce is exactly right in saying the "easier" solution is a broader regulation.

Example # 1. The Maryland Natural Resources Police has been reduced by at least 1/4 in the past four years. When a ban on crayfish was proposed what alternative do you think was chosen; the specific species, specific watershed ban or the broad ban across taxa?

Example # 2. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has less than 3 full time employees dedicated to fisheries legislation. We were one of the last Atlantic states that have met the requirements for a coastal fishing registry, our trout stamp does not support the fishery, we are annually over quota for most managed fisheries, oysters are at 1% of their historic level, we have reactive invasive species regulations, etc., etc., etc.

The department overall has had its budget reduced 40% in a few years and I've lost track about the number of people. Guess what, the work hasn't reduced 40% Bitch at the right people, your legislative representatives, because you may find you have allies in the resource agencies and with your support and even assistance you'd be surprised what you could accomplish. I have been advocating a proactive policy of responsible collection of native non-game fishes for years before many of the current moaning people were aware this organizaiton existed and been warning, along with others, this was on the horizon. More specifically, paying for a permit that is essentially a grade below a scientific collection permit, but not a fishing license. Money goes places. Face it, we are small in numbers, yet apathy is rediculously high. I applaud the very few people who in recent years have stepped up to the plate and taken on responsibility in a volunteer capacity. However, complaining on a website about how your access to a resource in a responsible manor goes no where and frankly it along with the general trend in content has me tired of the forum and organization. If trout fisherman were denied similarly in even a smaller manor pitchforks and torches come out. Even carp fisherman are more vociferous than this group to legislators and resource managers. The organization lacks a voice because a very narrow thing unites it and the wide differences between the various user groups that make up the group are apparently too much to overcome.

Signing off...for quite a while.

However, complaining on a website about how your access to a resource in a responsible manor goes no where and frankly it along with the general trend in content has me tired of the forum and organization.

Signing off...for quite a while.

just because someone brings it up on a forum to have a discussion with like minded people doesn't mean they aren't doing anything local about it. so people cant come on a forum to talk about it? The forum moderators should delete the ethics part or an discussion part of this forum. many people in our real lives don't care about native fish as the people on this forum so this is a place to come in and discuss things. maybe you need to just calm down and relax a little. you always seem to be looking down a people like you are on a pedestal. that comes off as very unfriendly. Josh found something that was interesting and posted it....WHO CARES that he posted it and people comment on it. thats what a forum is....i feel members on this site get mad about discussions....if we cant have discussions then how do people learn. some people on here have a god complex. people need to relax and enjoy life. this site and organization is about fish. something that is fun and bring joy to us....people act like we are on here discussing abortion, religion and other complex issues that bring arguments and feuds. its fish. not dying people or curing cancer.

"An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site."

Edited by bumpylemon, 27 June 2010 - 07:43 PM.

Example # 2. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has less than 3 full time employees dedicated to fisheries legislation.

Is there so much fisheries legislation being done in Maryland that it requires 3 full-time employees? That seems like a lot of new laws every year.

i guess i would like to know more on how it actually happens....like how things can be changed. i think of how much i do at my job in 40 hours a week. i write plenty of reports and do a lot of things...so why is it so hard for one employee to do the same in regards to fishing? how hard can it be to setup a collecting permit or change an outdated law? THATS THEIR JOB. Most of us would gladly pay more money...so do it! i don't wanna hear "theres no time" or to much work. the DEC officer that stopped us in NY chatted with us for close to 3 hours. so whoever runs the show politically I'm sure has enough time...if you were writing him a 3 million dollar endorsement check to his campaign you would get yourself a collectors permit in your state! how many states have "collector permits" aimed at exactly what we do? seems like all we do is get by with bait fish loop holes. i want a specific license for doing what people do specifically.

Is there so much fisheries legislation being done in Maryland that it requires 3 full-time employees? That seems like a lot of new laws every year.

In Maryland this would involve observing fisheries like oysters, clams, striped bass and menhaden, and adapting annual takes, gear regulations and bed closings as conditions change, as well as the more stable freshwater fisheries like LMB, and regulating bait fisheries, and crawfish as part of bait and other categories, and trout stocking, takes and seasons, and more, as well as working with law enforcement. So I'd guess it could easily be three full-time jobs and still not be entirely well done. Most citizens don't know and don't care is the ugly truth, if nothing else they don't know what to care about.

i guess i would like to know more on how it actually happens....like how things can be changed. i think of how much i do at my job in 40 hours a week. i write plenty of reports and do a lot of things...so why is it so hard for one employee to do the same in regards to fishing? how hard can it be to setup a collecting permit or change an outdated law? THATS THEIR JOB. Most of us would gladly pay more money...so do it! i don't wanna hear "theres no time" or to much work. the DEC officer that stopped us in NY chatted with us for close to 3 hours. so whoever runs the show politically I'm sure has enough time...if you were writing him a 3 million dollar endorsement check to his campaign you would get yourself a collectors permit in your state! how many states have "collector permits" aimed at exactly what we do? seems like all we do is get by with bait fish loop holes. i want a specific license for doing what people do specifically.

Kind of off topic, but were you collecting in NY when you were stopped by the DEC? Did you get a ticket? If so, how much?

The only way these laws are going to change is if we all work together and could we then petition as a group to all the various states to be allowed to buy a collecting license. It certainly wouldn't hurt.
That being said, I don't really have a clue about how to make that happen,but I bet other folks here do.

Oh, and wasn't this post originally about killing suckers and carp? That's messed up unless they are invasive ones!

Edited by Elijah, 28 June 2010 - 12:21 AM.

The law in question, as it's written, makes no sense. Many of the new laws are unenforceble.
Senseless and unenforceble laws weaken the whole system and promote general disregard for all law.

Crying poverty and overwork in today's world as an excuse is very unseemly and adds to lack of faith on the part of the gp. I will gladly trade my takehome pay and all my stress with any F$G employee anywhere. I WISH I had the leisure to let forum banter send me off in a pout.

What would happen with the EPO if I claim ignorence first, then fall back on overworked and underpaid? He'd write me a ticket and my income level would not be considered.

The law in question, as it's written, makes no sense. Many of the new laws are unenforceble.
Senseless and unenforceble laws weaken the whole system and promote general disregard for all law.

Crying poverty and overwork in today's world as an excuse is very unseemly and adds to lack of faith on the part of the gp. I will gladly trade my takehome pay and all my stress with any F$G employee anywhere. I WISH I had the leisure to let forum banter send me off in a pout.

What would happen with the EPO if I claim ignorence first, then fall back on overworked and underpaid? He'd write me a ticket and my income level would not be considered.

exactly.

i can see it coming now....people are still going to collect. and if they get caught and get a ticket 1 out of 40x (over a few seasons) that 1 time would prob be price of a collectors permit so therefore reward outweighs the risk. while if there was a legal way to set something up everyone could live happily ever after.


I just don't see how "its hard" to do or employees are "overworked", what employee in any field isnt over worked? setting up a collector license would bring in more money for the agencies. As it stands now collecting is very unenforceable so saying "they cant enforce having a new license blah blah" isnt going to cut it. either they make licenses available or expect it to continue to happen behind their backs.

OK, as you wish.

I think this horse is dead.

I think this horse is dead.

On that note, I can only say these laws infringe upon an activity which is a perfectly safe and a reasonable use of our natural resources when the NANFA code of ethics are applied. I say "infringe" since natural resources are intended for public use and the activity is not harmful.