BOMBSHELL: Attorney General Finds ASMFC Menhaden Action Illegal

[junebug007]

FYI, the Virginia Attorney General has determined that the ASMFC Menhaden Addendum II is illegal. Here is the summary followed by the full opinion:

"It is my opinion that the Commission’s Menhaden Management Board ("Board") exceeded its adaptive management authority when it adopted the menhaden cap in Addendum II. Addendum II uses abbreviated rulemaking processes to initiate a new quota on the harvest of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. In my opinion, such an exercise of regulatory authority by the Board exceeds the lawful reach of its authority for three reasons: (a) the cap is a wholly new management measure, which cannot be implemented by an addendum; (b) when Atlantic menhaden stocks have been declared "healthy," a cap or quota cannot be imposed unless menhaden are found to be overfished; and (c) the Plan does not include a prerequisite management measure that can be varied by imposition of a cap through an addendum. It is further my opinion that because adoption of the cap exceeded the Board’s authority, the Commonwealth would not be out of compliance with the Plan should the General Assembly decline to adopt the Plan. Finally, it is my opinion that the Commission failed to follow required procedures in adopting the cap as an addendum."

http://www.oag.state.va.us/media%20center/Opinions/2006opns/06-002w.htm

OP. NO. 06-002

FISHERIES AND HABITAT OF THE TIDAL WATERS: COMPACTS AND JOINT LAWS WITH OTHER STATES – ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMPACT.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Menhaden Management Board exceeded adaptive management authority when adopting menhaden cap in Addendum II because (1) cap is wholly new management measure, which cannot be implemented by addendum; (2) when Atlantic menhaden stocks have been declared "healthy," cap or quota cannot be imposed unless menhaden are found to be overfished; and (3) Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan does not include prerequisite management measure that can be varied by imposition of cap through addendum. Should General Assembly decline to adopt menhaden cap, Commonwealth would not be out of compliance with Plan because Commission failed to follow required procedures.

The Honorable John H. Chichester
Member, Senate of Virginia
January 31, 2006

Issues Presented

You ask several questions relating to Addendum II1 ("Addendum II") to Amendment 1 of the Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan2 ("Plan") adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ("Commission"). First, you ask whether, based on a review of the adaptive management provisions of the Plan and the measures Addendum II seeks to implement, the menhaden landings cap instituted by the Commission exceeded its regulatory authority. You next ask whether the Commonwealth of Virginia would not be out of compliance with the Plan should the General Assembly decline to adopt the management provisions contained in Addendum II. Finally, you ask whether the Commission has adopted the cap without following the required procedures.

Response

It is my opinion that the Commission’s Menhaden Management Board ("Board") exceeded its adaptive management authority when it adopted the menhaden cap in Addendum II. Addendum II uses abbreviated rulemaking processes to initiate a new quota on the harvest of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. In my opinion, such an exercise of regulatory authority by the Board exceeds the lawful reach of its authority for three reasons: (a) the cap is a wholly new management measure, which cannot be implemented by an addendum; (b) when Atlantic menhaden stocks have been declared "healthy," a cap or quota cannot be imposed unless menhaden are found to be overfished; and (c) the Plan does not include a prerequisite management measure that can be varied by imposition of a cap through an addendum. It is further my opinion that because adoption of the cap exceeded the Board’s authority, the Commonwealth would not be out of compliance with the Plan should the General Assembly decline to adopt the Plan. Finally, it is my opinion that the Commission failed to follow required procedures in adopting the cap as an addendum.

Background

In October 2005, the Commission, through the Board, issued a final version of a rulemaking titled Addendum II, which imposes the following regulatory requirement:

The annual total allowable landings by the reduction fishery in Chesapeake Bay shall be no more than the average landings from 1999-2004. Harvest for reduction purposes shall be prohibited when 100% of the cap is landed. This cap will be in place for the fishing seasons starting in 2006 and going through 2010 [hereinafter "menhaden cap"].[3]

Addendum II provides that states with reduction processing capabilities must submit implementing programs for approval by the Board by January 11, 2006, and implement the cap by July 1, 2006.4 The primary impact of Addendum II is on the menhaden reduction fishery conducted in Virginia waters in the Chesapeake Bay.

In Virginia, the taking of menhaden by the use of purse nets or seine is regulated, as a matter of state law, primarily by statute.5

Applicable Law

The Commission, an interstate compact organization comprised of fifteen Atlantic Coast States formed to recommend joint management measures for shared marine fish stocks, was formed as a voluntary consortium via the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact ("Compact").6 In 1942, Congress approved the Compact for a fifteen-year period.7 In 1950, Congress approved Amendment Number 1 to the Compact repealing the fifteen-year limitation.8 Amendment Number 1 authorized two or more signatory states to designate the Commission as a joint regulatory agency with such powers as they may jointly confer from time to time for the regulation of the fishing operations of the respective designating states. The Commonwealth has never designated the Commission as a regulatory agency.

In 1993, Congress enacted the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act9 ("Act"). The stated purpose of the Act "is to support and encourage the development, implementation, and enforcement of effective interstate conservation and management of Atlantic coastal fishery resources."10 The Act provides for state implementation of coastal fishery management plans ("FMP") of the Commission.11 Noncompliance with an FMP may result in the imposition of a federal sanction, a complete moratorium on the fishery in question within the waters of the noncomplying state, imposed by the United States Secretary of Commerce ("Secretary").12

In accordance with Article V of the Compact,13 the Commission has adopted Rules and Regulations for the conduct of its business.14 Article VI of the Rules and Regulations pertains to the Interstate Fishery Management Program and provides for a written Interstate Fishery Management Program ("ISFMP") Charter ("Charter").15 The Compact and the Rules and Regulations provide the Commission only the authority to make recommendations to member states.16 The Act provides the mandatory element to require compliance with FMPs.

The Charter addresses the Interstate Fishery Management roles and responsibilities of the Commission, the ISFMP Policy Board, fishery management boards, staff officials, and committees and subcommittees for management, technical, and advisory support.17 The Charter provides standards for interstate fishery management plans and compliance18 as well as specific requirements applicable to the adaptive management process.19

The current Plan was adopted by the full Commission in July 2001 and is referred to as "Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden."20 Addendum II, the subject of your inquiry, was adopted in October 2005,21 by the Board pursuant to the "adaptive management"22 process, as opposed to being approved by the full Commission pursuant to the more comprehensive process applicable to adoption of FMPs and their Amendments.23

Discussion

1. Board’s Adoption of Menhaden Cap Through Adaptive Management

Process Exceeds Board’s Authority.

There are two interrelated sources of authority governing the adoption of management requirements by an addendum through what is referred to as "adaptive management" processes.24 The first is the Commission’s general authority to adopt a plan-specific adaptive management process, described within the Charter. The second is the Plan itself, which details how and when the adaptive management process can be used to manage the menhaden fishery.

When the conditions for use of this adaptive management authority are met, a management board, such as the Board, may alter an existing management measure in a fishery management plan without a vote or action by the full Commission. Also, formal rulemaking processes that would otherwise be required for FMPs and amendments to FMPs are avoided. For these reasons, this regulatory tool is one of limited application.

The Charter states: "FMPs which provide for adaptive management shall identify specifically the circumstances under which adaptive management changes may be made, the types of measures that may be changed, the schedule for state implementation of changes, and the procedural steps necessary to effect a change."25 The FMP must thus specify the "types of measures" that can be adopted or changed and the "circumstances" triggering use of the adaptive management process.26 The Plan contains the specific circumstances, management measures, steps, and conditions required to be met or taken to use this abbreviated process.27

I do not interpret the Charter to provide for use of the adaptive management process to implement new management measures. The repeated use of the word "change" in the Charter to describe management measures that may be adopted by the adaptive management process argues against authorization to implement new measures. This conclusion is supported by the fact that this abbreviated rulemaking power is exercised without full adherence to procedures applicable to FMPs or amendments to FMPs and without adoption by the full Commission. It is my opinion that adaptive management is restricted to policies which vary existing management measures.28 The Menhaden FMP, however, contains no such management measures subject to variation by addendum, other than a general requirement that states institute a system for reporting landings of menhaden that are not the subject of Addendum II.

The Plan contains specific language detailing when adaptive management can be employed to institute "catch controls" such as proposed by Addendum II. Although the Plan identifies "catch controls" as potentially subject to adaptive management,29 it also requires a finding that menhaden are subject to "overfishing or an overfished/depleted condition" before a catch quota can be implemented under adaptive management.30 Addendum II does not state that this finding has been made. Rather, Addendum II describes the "problem" as a "relative increase (11%) in the proportion of menhaden reduction removals from Chesapeake Bay over … two time periods"31 and a "potential for localized depletion … in Chesapeake Bay."32 With respect to the "potential" for localized depletion, Addendum II specifically acknowledges that "[s]ufficient scientific data are not available to satisfactorily address the potential for localized depletion in the Bay."33

The Plan defines "overfishing" in § 2.5 as relating to fishing mortality rate and stock biomass.34 Addendum II does not find that the menhaden stock in the Chesapeake Bay is "overfished" consistent with the Plan requirement. To the contrary, Addendum II specifically states that "the Atlantic menhaden stock is considered to be healthy coastwide, based on the recommended benchmarks developed during the latest peer-reviewed assessment."35 Additionally, the Commission’s agent charged with recommending initiation of adaptive management, the Plan Review Team36 ("PRT"), has not recommended that adaptive management be initiated. In its latest report, the PRT made no recommendations for new or changed management measures for adoption, and confirmed the health of the resource.37

The Act requires that FMPs must be "based on the best scientific information available."38 This requirement is also contained in the Commission’s Charter39 and in its Rules and Regulations.40 Although it is a matter ultimately for factual determination,41 it is not apparent that the menhaden cap is based on "the best scientific information available" when Addendum II does not address whether the fishery is "overfished." The phrase "best scientific information" presupposes the accumulation of "scientific" information.

The Board must follow the requirements of the Act, the Compact, the Charter, and the Plan. Failure to comply with its own rules, regulations, standards, and procedures renders its action invalid.42

Ordinarily, courts afford considerable deference to decisions of agencies in administrative decisions.43 In this case, however, it is reasonable to expect that the Board’s compliance with its own rules would be subject to heightened scrutiny due to the existence of unsettled Constitutional questions underlying the coercive aspects of the Act. Questions under the Constitution of the United States to challenge Addendum II may include federalism issues, the Tenth Amendment; the Joinder Clause, Article IV, § 3, cl. 1; the Compact Clause, Article I, § 10, cl. 3; the Appointments Clause, Article II, § 2, cl. 2; and the doctrine limiting Congressional delegation of authority to nonfederal entities. When a case may be decided on other grounds, a court will avoid inquiring into the constitutionality of an action.44 Accordingly, there may be less deference to the Board’s action with respect to Addendum II.

2. Commonwealth Will Not Be Out of Compliance with Plan

if General Assembly Does Not Act.

It is my opinion that the Board exceeded its adaptive management authority by adopting the menhaden cap in Addendum II. Therefore, if the General Assembly declines to enact legislation ratifying the menhaden cap, the Commonwealth would not be out of compliance with the Plan.

The Plan provides that "[a] state will … be out of compliance" when "it fails to meet … any addendum prepared under adaptive management."45 An addendum adopted beyond existing authority and without complying with required procedures, however, should be deemed void as a regulatory requirement.46 Because it is my opinion that the Board exceeded its rulemaking authority and failed to follow required procedures in adopting Addendum II, it would more properly be viewed as a recommendation, as provided by the Compact and the Commission’s Rules and Regulations,47 rather than a regulatory requirement.48

3. Menhaden Cap Adopted Without Following Required Procedures.

The discussion in response to your first question is equally applicable to this one. The menhaden cap that Addendum II seeks to implement is flawed because it was not adopted in accordance with the procedure required of an amendment to an interstate FMP, and it was not adopted by the full Commission. The touchstone of legally enforceable management measures under the Commission’s governing authorities, including the Act, is that conservation recommendations to states must meet certain standards, must be subject to levels of analysis and public comment, and must be adopted and approved by the full Commission.49 These processes were short-circuited by employment of the adaptive management process used to implement Addendum II.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Commission’s Menhaden Management Board ("Board") exceeded its adaptive management authority when it adopted the menhaden cap in Addendum II. Addendum II uses abbreviated rulemaking processes to initiate a new quota on the harvest of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. In my opinion, such an exercise of regulatory authority by the Board exceeds the lawful reach of its authority for three reasons: (a) the cap is a wholly new management measure, which cannot be implemented by an addendum; (b) when Atlantic menhaden stocks have been declared "healthy," a cap or quota cannot be imposed unless menhaden are found to be overfished; and (c) the Plan does not include a prerequisite management measure that can be varied by imposition of a cap through an addendum. It is further my opinion that because adoption of the cap exceeded the Board’s authority, the Commonwealth would not be out of compliance with the Plan should the General Assembly decline to adopt the Plan. Finally, it is my opinion that the Commission failed to follow required procedures in adopting the cap as an addendum.



1See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, "Addendum II to Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden," available at http://www.asmfc.org/ [follow "Managed Species" hyperlink; then follow "Atlantic Menhaden" hyperlink; then follow "Addendum II (October 2005)" hyperlink] [hereinafter Addendum II].

2See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, "Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden," [follow "Managed Species" hyperlink; then follow "Atlantic Menhaden" hyperlink; then follow "Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden" hyperlink] [hereinafter Plan].

3Addendum II, supra note 1, § 5.1.1.1, at *12.

4Id. § 5.1.2 at *12-13.

5See Va. Code Ann. §§ 28.2-400 to 28.2-411 (2004).

6The Compact is codified at § 28.2-1000.

7See Pub. L. No. 77-539, 56 Stat. 267 (1942).

8See Pub. L. No. 81-721 (1950).

9See Pub. L. No. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2447 (1993) (codified at 16 U.S.C.S. §§ 5101 to 5108).

1016 U.S.C.S. § 5101(b) (LexisNexis 1999).

1116 U.S.C.S. § 5104(b) (LexisNexis 1999).

1216 U.S.C.S. § 5106(a), (c)(1) (LexisNexis 1999).

13See § 28.2-1000 (art. V) (2004).

14See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, "Compact & Rules and Regulations," available at http://www.asmfc.org/ [follow "About Us" hyperlink; then follow "ASMFC Compact: Rules & Regulations" hyperlink] [hereinafter Rules & Regulations]

15See id., art VI, §§ 1-2, at *11.

16See § 28.2-1000 (arts. IV, VI); Rules & Regulations, supra note 14, art. 1, § 2, at *7.

17See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, "Interstate Fisheries Management Program Charter," available at http://www.asmfc.org/ [follow "About Us" hyperlink; then follow "ISFMP Charter" hyperlink] [hereinafter Charter].

18See id., § 6, at 14-21.

19See id., § 6(b)(3) at *17.

20See supra note 2.

21See supra note 1.

22See infra note 28.

23See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, "Proceedings of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Atlantic Menhaden Management Board," available at http://www.asmfc.org/ [follow "Managed Species" hyperlink; then follow "Atlantic Menhaden" hyperlink; then follow "Meeting & Minutes Summaries" hyperlink; then follow "2005 Feb" hyperlink].

24See infra note 28.

25Charter, supra note 17, § 6(b)(3), at *17 (emphasis added).

26Id.

27See Plan, supra note 2, § 4.6, at *77-79.

28The Commission’s charter defines adaptive management as "[a]n iterative process which includes evaluation of the response of the managed fishery and stock to specific management measures and adjusting such measures based on that evaluation." Charter, supra note 17, § 8(c), at *23 (emphasis added).

29Plan, supra note 2, § 4.6.2(6), at *78.

30Id., § 4.2.7, at *74.

31Addendum II, supra note 1, § 2.1, at *6.

32Id., § 2.2, at *6.

33Addendum II, supra note 1, § 2.2, at *7.

34Plan, supra note 2, at *60.

35Addendum II, supra note 1, § 1.2, at *5.

36See Plan, supra note 2, § 4.6.1, § 4.8.3, at *78, *79-80, respectively.

37See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, "2005 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden," available at http://www.asmfc.org/ [follow "Managed Species" hyperlink; then follow "Atlantic Menhaden" hyperlink; then follow "FMP Reviews 2005" hyperlink], at *3, *9 (Aug. 17, 2005).

3816 U.S.C.S. § 5104(a)(2)(A) (LexisNexis 1999).

39Charter, supra note 17, § 6(a)(2), at *14.

40Rules & Regulations, supra note 14, art. VI, § 3, at *11.

41The Office of the Attorney General historically has declined to render official opinions when the request involves a question of fact rather than one of law. See, e.g., Op. Va. Att’y Gen.: 2002 at 64, 66; 1997 at 1, 3; and opinions cited therein.

42"[I]t is elementary that an agency must adhere to its own rules and regulations. Ad hoc departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, cannot be sanctioned for therein lie the seeds of destruction of the orderliness and predictability which are the hallmarks of lawful administrative action. Simply stated, rules are rules, and fidelity to the rules which have been properly promulgated … is required of those to whom Congress has entrusted the regulatory missions of modern life." Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 950-51 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

43Great deference should be given to the administrative interpretation of statutes by the agency charged with the responsibility for carrying out legislation. See, e.g., County of Henrico v. Mgt. Rec., Inc., 221 Va. 1004, 1010, 227 S.E.2d 163, 166-67 (1981); 2002 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. 186, 187.

44See, e.g., Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

45Plan, supra note 1, § 5.1, at *81-82.

46See supra note 42 and accompanying text.

47See supra note 16 and accompanying text.

48The only other compliance measure in the Plan requires a menhaden catch reporting system. I am unaware that there is any question concerning the Commonwealth’s compliance with the menhaden catch reporting system.

49See generally, Charter, supra note 17, § 6, at *14-21; see also 16 U.S.C.S. § 5102(1) (LexisNexis 1999); id. § 5104 (LexisNexis 1999).

[boneman]

Not much of a bombshell - frankly, not even a surprise.

And it's not a decision - it's just an opinion. You know what they say about opinions, don't you? [wink]

[stanleybros]

I concur with the most Honorable. Have from jump street.

[BigJim]

I agree. There is no surprise here.

I don't agree that this opinion is "just an opinion" however. Especially considering how the individual offering the opinion can exercise that opinion.

[capt. jakeg]

Gee whiz... what a shocker. So I guess if this thing gets overturned they are going to be able to harvest as much as they want? With their production capabilities with the new plant they could severely damage menhaden populations before the scientists could even get in there to tell them that they are beginning to overfish. It sure would have been nice to know our attorney general's platform on this issue at voting time, but then again I'm sure Omega has the big money that can buy off most of whatever politicans are thrown at them. Seems to me that omega might have known this was coming. I remember a few weeks back they started looking for 8 (I think) positions to be filled. This is TOTAL b.s.
Does this mean that the ASMFC is powerless to Omega? And If the ASMFC doesn't have that power, who does- VMRC or NMFS?

[stanleybros]

Jake, the "people" should have the "power." I am not sure what you do for a living, but put yourself in the place of an Omega employee. Think about it. 4 get about fishing, and think of the principal.

[captaingeorge]

As stated, this is an opinion. The decision that matters will be a Federal one.

[buxboatboy]

If every Tidalfish member that wanted a cap voted against this A@$%&le he would be unemployed..........wake up politics matters.

[stanleybros]

George, are you in favor of the federal government over riding a states decision?

[boneman]

...are you in favor of the federal government over riding a states decision? I think the precedent was first established in 1865 and has been reaffirmed countless times since then.

Time to break out your shootin' irons, SB! [grin]

[stanleybros]

NEVER Bone!

[BigJim]

Yes, he is. He and I had that discussion on the bs board a long time ago.

[captaingeorge]

BigJim originally wrote:
Yes, he is. He and I had that discussion on the bs board a long time ago.
You are mistaken, BigJim. You and I have never discussed the menhaden issue.

[captaingeorge]

stanleybros originally wrote:
George, are you in favor of the federal government over riding a states decision?
You are missing my point. The state hasn't MADE any decision. The Feds have and they say the state isn't in compliance.

[stanleybros]

George, the great state of VA thus far, has decided to not comply. Next question.

[captaingeorge]

It's my understanding that the state has tabled it...meaning no decision.

[BigJim]

You are mistaken, BigJim. You and I have never discussed the menhaden issue.

George, I never said that we discussed menhaden. I said that we discussed state vs federal rights.

By the original posting it would appear that it is the fisheries management people who are out of compliance. They are out of compliance with federal law. (please don't even try to get me to defend federal law. Personally, I feel that most federal laws are indefensible.)

[captaingeorge]

Our previous discussions were about 19th century history. Please don't presume you know my feelings based on that.

[BigJim]

Who's talking about feelings? I don't care how you feel. Tell that to your wife or a shrink.[grin]

[captaingeorge]

Oh, I get it now. You're not a shrink, but a mind-reader. As it happens, BigJim, all our discussions have paid off for you. I am now firmly a "states-rights" advocate. The Atty. Gen. of VA is right.[smile]

[BigJim]

Glory!

I wish I was in the land of cotton...[excited]

[wag23455]

The AG is a Commie, probably a good friend of Jack Abramoff. I wonder when the last time his Honor watched a group of purse seiners in action? I'm sure he takes his fish oil suppository every day prior to mounting the bench and believes it helps him make better decisions up there on his soapbox. Political affiliation aside, he looks like a goofball. [tongue]

Let's not mention that he was a member of the Governor's Commission on Environmental Stewardship - whatever...

[Rob Holtz]

This isn't unexpected. It's no different than the legislature tabling all the Menhaden bills. The state wants to allow Omega to have unfettered access to Menhaden. Thankfully the decision isn't up to VA, this is a federal decision that will be decided in a Federal court. Normally I'm a states rights person. If Menhaden stayed only in VA waters I would agree that the decison over this issue should be a VA decison. However in fisheries management it's well known that fish know no boundries and move freely where ever they wish. Because of this what VA does with menhaden effects all the other states where menhaden travel to, therefore it's a Federal matter. Exactly the reason the ASMFC was formed in the first place.

I still feel the heart of this issue is that Mehaden are managed on a coastwide basis which leaves out any consideration of localized depletion. I believe this to be the wrong way to manage this species. This pending legal battle may slow the management process down some but I'm confident that in the long run proper management will prevail.

Much more to come.....

[Purdue1]

Rob, good point in your last paragraph. Regarding the Cap, from what I understand the Commerce Dept will have to actually shut down the industry if out of compliance. I really doubt that will happen for two reasons. 1. There was no real science used by ASMFC to establish the cap, and it actually goes against most of the science they have used (which is a good reason to manage the bay stocks as opposed to the coastwide stocks). 2. Reedville is the second largest commercial fishery. THe Commerce Dept won't shut down such a huge commercial fishery without a little more evidence then they currently have.

[Bob Allen]

MIT Scientists Use New Sonar Technique to Track, Estimate Fish Populations
02-03-2006 7:48 AM

BOSTON -- A group of Boston-area scientists has come up with what they say is a better way of tracking and estimating fish populations, which in turn could change the way fishery regulators manage the resource.

The new sonar technique is able to scan for fish over an area a million times larger than what could previously be studied, the report's lead author said.

"I've had these dreams where you are floating in the water in the darkness and look down and suddenly see everything; that's what this is like," said Nicholas Makris, an associate professor of mechanical and ocean engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and lead author of the report in the journal Science.

The current methods for estimating fish populations _ used by regulators to limit days at sea and catch sizes in an effort to rebuild populations of some species _ have been sharply criticized by the fishing industry as inaccurate.

The new method can track large schools of fish under an ocean surface as large as 6,000 square miles _ roughly the area of Connecticut. The drawback is that the technique cannot identify species of fish and does not work well tracking bottom dwelling fish because it can be hard to distinguish them from the ocean floor.

The new method is scheduled to be tried out this year on Georges Bank, the fertile fishing ground about 60 miles off the coast of Massachusetts.

Fishermen are often distrustful of scientific methods of counting fish. What regulators count often does not jibe with what fishermen are experiencing on the ocean.

Still, any new technology that may help would be welcome.

"This sounds interesting. We need to explore new technologies to count fish," said David Bergeron, executive director of the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership. He had not seen the study.

Current methods of counting fish include casting nets in hundreds of randomly selected locations; sending out sound waves directly below a ship's hull that can only count fish in a narrow column; and studying catches. All the information is fed into a computer to calculate fish populations.

At a meeting earlier this week in Portland, Maine, the New England Fishery Management Council approved new regulations calling for a reduction in days at sea and other measures to help rebuild cod and flounder populations in New England waters.

The new method uses low frequency sound waves that travel greater distances, Makris said. A second ship receives the echoes that bounce off schools of fish.

The method could be used in conjunction with current fish counting methods, a federal regulator said.

"It gives us a different perspective," said Steve Murawski, chief scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, who had seen the study. "Our mission covers 4 million square miles and 900 species, and anything that gives us new information is helpful."

The original goal of the study was not to track fish, but to locate ancient riverbeds under then ocean floor, Makris said. But he soon realized that he was seeing enormous schools of fish, perhaps millions strong.

___

Information from: The Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/globe

[captaingeorge]

Interesting article, but what if the technology shows a healthy and thriving bunker population? Then, what?

[shooter48]

Capt George, I think that is all everyone wants. An honest assessment not slanted by politics or capitalists. If all the observations by the rec fishermen are prpoved to be wrong I am sure they will be the first to admit it. However; We feel we will be vindicated in the end. It is just going to take longer than we had anticipated.

[captaingeorge]

I disagree that everyone is as reasonable as you.[smile]

[Fishman]

HHmmm [angel]

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

This, and all of the other "legal" wranglings are moot. The end of Omega Proteins will not be brought about by lawyers and judges, or politically by the CCA or menhadenmatters.org. The end of Omega WILL be brought about by market forces and the inevitable introduction of synthetic Omega 3 oils, which is imminent. In the 2005 3rd quarter alone, Omega lost a whopping $6.1 million (25 cents a share). Omega has signalled to the NYSE market that it's 2005 4th quarter losses will be even greater. Omega's main investors are looking to get out.

Once Omega 3 synthetic oils are introduced to the market in mid 2006 OME stock will be completely worthless and the company will have an insufficient market for their products. That will be the end of the problems with the Menhaden and the VA legislature will be "off the hook" with ASMFC and the federal government.

The Attorney General is surely aware of these economic matters and with this "Opinion" he can appear a states rights advocate while still appeasing the deep pockets of the Omega lobbyists. Win-Win for him. No surprises with this "Opinion" at all.

[Purdue1]

Their products are too highly valued in many other applications. I don't think the synthetic Omega 3 will kill them off. In fact they just recently started making it. Although I could see a stock dip due to "perception". What is killing them now is the shutdown of their gulf operations. Fishmeal prices are double their historic levels due to lack of global supply, and greatly increased global demand (aquaculture).

[Topfish]

Not unexpected and not a bomb shell. That is why God made Lawyers and Courts. I believe the Feds will prevail.

[captaingeorge]

Capt. Jim Brincefield originally wrote:
The end of Omega WILL be brought about by market forces
Agreed, Jim. If, and when, OMEGA goes away, it should be for that reason, not because of the efforts of some "fish-huggers".[smile]

[n2striper]

Show you care.Hug a fish today.[grin] In MR.EDS voice,"I'm dead!!Stop beating me Wilbur!!"[grin]

[uncljohn]

I'm suprised that Junebug, otherwise known as "Mr. Scientific Evidence", would so loudly back something that is purely an "opinion" of a politician/lawyer.

I guess it pays to pick and choose your references as they suit your needs.

FYI, this came out in a recent thread Junebug placed on the Chesapeake board, in case anyone didn't know:

quote:
If I am correct Junebug is none other than the infamous:

Mr. Neils Moore
Chief of Propaganda
National Fisheries Institite
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
703-524-8884

[Catch This]

This belongs on the Conservation board

1. Virginia thumbed its nose at ASMFC. The Chesapeake subcommittee had a chance move legislation putting the cap in place and they tabled the bill. By tabling the bill, they put Va on a collision course with ASMFC.
2. The AG opinion sounds like the Omega argument before the Ches subcommittee.
3. ASMFC will do nothing about this in the Feb meeting.
4. ASMFC will ask for Status of Va implementing CAP in their May Meeting. ASMFC may issue a warning to Va.
5. The cap goes into effect on 7/1/06. On 7/2/06 Virginia will be out of compliance. The other states in ASMFC will not allow this to continue and hence the process of going to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior will be started.

Now in reality, this will probably end up in the court system or there will be some compromise reached. The Secretary of Commerce will look for a compromise before declaring Va out of compliance. It aint over yet.

This thread really should be moved to the conservation board

[stanleybros]

I find it easier to read this thread here. Thanks.

Hats off to the author as well.

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

stanleybros, maybe I missed it over the years, but could you please share with us your name and occupation? Just curious as many of your positions have a clear agenda.

If you're not comfortable with sharing it in an open forum, perhaps by b-mail or e-mail?

[stanleybros]

Give me a reason why the information that you have requested is relevant to ANY post or thread I start here. If I agree with that reason, I will post what you requested.

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

Well, for example junebug (if it is, in fact Niles) has an agenda. His posts have a clear intention of inflaming many of the people here. We've been "doing that dance" for about 10 years now on this Board and it's predecessors.

At times, I feel you do the same. Why not just clear the air? What are you hiding? Niles used to be proud of who he was/is on these Boards. Maybe stanleybros, Niles, and junebug are all one and the same?

How about showing some testicular fortitude to the members of this community and stop hiding behind a screen name?

[stanleybros]

Ohhhhhh I see now. Stupid me. One cannot post an opinion on here unless their credentials are known. Gotcha [wink]

I drive a truck and like to fish when I can.

That okay?

[cobiaman]

Stanleybros, I do not believe you need to give your name or occupation to anyone. This board is open forum and I guess some do not like to think after some of your posts. Another example of someone that cannot stand for someone that has a different view than theirs. Just ask them what difference it would be if they knew.

[stanleybros]

Thank you Sir.

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

Just curious. I did not think you would share your information. You certainly do have the right to stay anonomous. I just will continue to dismiss your comments as agenda driven, just like Niles/the rest. It's a double edged sword being unknown. You want to persuade people of your way of viewing fisheries policies, but you don't disclose your agenda.

Maybe you are paid to stir the pot, just like Niles. It will be easier for me to understand your personae knowing that you will continue to hide behind a screen name.

[stanleybros]

I drive a truck and like to fish. What ya need? My SSN?

[Rob Holtz]

C'mon SB. If you want to remain unknown to the board that's fine but don't lie and make something up. We both know your not a truck driver unless you've changed jobs. SB told me where he's from, his job and why he likes to read this board a few years back. He asked me to keep the info to myself and I have/will.

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

No, don't need your SSN. Thanks anyway. I give you credit, though, you're a lot smarter than those past 2 responses. Like a chameleon, whatever it takes.

Me too. I drive a truck. I like to fish.

You completely understand the point I'm making here and your "dodge" speaks volumes.

Thanks for your time.

[capt. jakeg]

I'm with you on this one sb. You shouldnt have to explain anything to anyone. I will say though, that your anonymity leads people to automatically think the worst, and in this case would lead me to believe that your constant defense of Omega gives you some sort of financial ties or other reason to be sooo defensive to Omega, which in turn may lead people to dismiss the relevancy of what you have to say. I also would truly be interested to know what the real connection is there, but its your thing, and if you don't want to tell, then you are more than welcome. It isn't a courtroom here. It's a recreational fishing board.
My reasons for feeling as I do, I will admit are truly personal. I feel that this company has no care for what they are doing and would honestly drain the chesapeake bay of every menhaden if they had the chance, then move on elsewhere. They don't care about the benefits that a healthy menhaden population has upon not only the fish and life living in the bay, but the general cleanliness of the bay that a striving menhaden population promotes. I also feel that if menhaden fishing among populations migrating to and from the bay were removed from the equation all together, the bay would have a much brighter future. Giving me that story about people losing their jobs, yeah it sucks. It is a bad thing, but it happens sometimes. And if I were a worker for omega in the end when it came time to lay me off for good because omega lost its quota, I would not blame "fish huggers" for trying to protect what they love. I would blame Omega for not protecting their resource. By protecting their resource, I don't mean paying lawyers and politicians to get more and more. For the millions upon millions of dollars they spend each year in legal and lobbying, each dollar spent on that beaurocracy comes directly from millions and millions more pounds of menhaden. Each dollar spent on trying to get more of the resource is actually playing against itslef by removing more of the resource. By protecting their resource, I mean at least even giving research on the matter the benefit of the doubt, and stepping up to encourage the life of everyone's resource for years and years to come. Maybe selfish, but in my mind it doesn't sound so crazy.

[Purdue1]

Another ananymous poster jumping in. I will try and explain.

I have spent most of my years on a farm and the other half in various positons within the industry (I suspect the same from SB). Now with that being said, we have a natural understanding and some sympathy for anybody in the food production system. In addition we have also been heavily attacked by a plethora of activists groups. Sometimes justified sometimes not. So it goes against every bone in my body to join an activist group.

On top of what I have just stated, I come on this fishing board (because I am an avid fisherman and love to fish). After seeing the attacks on Omega I really started emersing myself into learning everything I can learn about the situation. However, the first red flag that popped up was that people were behaving in the same manner as some of the nefarious orgs like PETA. The name calling, and villainizing of the opposition etc. One example is whoever it was a few pages back calling the AG a commie or whatever it was because he didn't agree with the AG's LEGAL OPINION.

Folks, there is not a bone in my body that doesn't think the folks at Omega believe in their cause any less then you believe in yours. They are not any more evil then you are in their eyes. The truth is somewhere in the middle not on the fringes.

Now getting back to why I am ananymous and I suspect SB might be too (although I have no affiliation with SB and am in no way speaking for him). I have personally seen and witnessed property destruction and livelihoods attacked by activists groups. I have a house full of little ones and I do not want to come home to a house on fire because some crazy off of a website, who uses his/her emotions to think takes offense to me not agreeing with their position. If conversations on here were less emotional and had a more rational basis then I might be different. I also cannot, at this time, associate my name towards what I many times see on this board.

I have been very disappointed that the name callers and those who make stuff up are not self policed by their own or even by some leaders within the fishing groups. However, some of those leaders are the guilty ones of what I just stated. Whenever anyone does jump in to correct an outright lie, mistatement of truth, or just plain name calling, they are automatically labelled "Omega supporters"...or my favorite that I was told "don't you care about the bay?".

In regards to Niels, he is not an agitator. In fact I very much enjoy his threads. I wish more people would debate him head-on versus getting emotional. I am not saying I agree with everything he says, and he definitely won't answer a question that he doesn't want too. However, it is very interesting to here where Omega is going.

In regards to SB being an Omega supporter. I cannot recall any time that SB said he supports what Omega is doing.

[stanleybros]

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!

You have more patience than I Perdue and (seemingly) more respect for some of the posters here than I do.

I learned soon after I came onboard if your opinion was on the opposite side of the isle of those that regulary post opinions here, your will be "labeled;" "commie" (meaning pro commercial fishing in my reference), "Omega supporter,"commercial waterman," etc. etc.

I have shared some personal information with a few here as Rob stated earlier.

I did that with those few that I felt 1) were not a threat to me, my family or my employment (trucking business wink wink) 2) would not disclose my identity and 3) those that would not label me except in a "fun way."

I met one tf member to deliver clothes, toys etc. for distribution in Poquoson after Isabel slammed that town. I met another that CAME TO MY HOUSE and we enjoyed a day of freshwater fishing.

I, like Perdue, grew up on a farm. Perdue, like I, persued the agriculture business after getting an education. I have often compared farmers to commercial waterman: each being dependant upon the state and federal governments and God.

I will set the record straight here on one item that seems to be of concern. I AM NOT A COMMERCIAL WATERMAN. I am not as well, affiliated with any commercial waterman asscoiation, seafood business etc.

Perdue but into words pretty much the way I feel as well concerning Omega and those orgs. that "hug trees."

So in closing, those that want to label me, continue to do just that. This ole boy has pretty tough skin.

"Giddie Up Go"

[Isabelle]

some body's pocket just got fatter, to bad for the poeple who like the outdoors and want to see it managed properly.

[Purdue1]

Isabelle originally wrote:
some body's pocket just got fatter

[n2striper]

Wilbur!!!! Wilbur!!!!! Stop beating me!!! I'm dying!!!!

[Mike Avery]

I got to go with Capt. Jim Brincefield on this one. Anyone who wants to remain anonymous and hide behind screen names I simply dismiss their opinions just like we all did with Delbert. I'm sure some of them have some good opinions, I just don't pay any attention to them and yes, automatically dismiss them. I respect anyone's right to remain anonymous, that is their right but I'm with Capt. Jim, anything they say is dismissed in my book (which is my right too).

[wag23455]

Perdue,
I think I've made my position clear over the past several months on how I feel about Omega as it relates to caps, fishery mgt, etc. I'm a liberal tree-hugging, pro-resource, anti-political lobbying fisherman. Have past memberships w/ CCA, CBF, etc.

As for my reference to the VA AG being a "Commie," it referred to affiliation w/ the Communist Party, not commercial fishermen. However, he might be a "Commie" for all I know (in the way Stanley Bros. took it as). Any personal beliefs on his behalf should not cloud professional legal opinions/judgements.

I find it ironic how the VA AG can be a past member of the Commonwealth's Environmental Stewardship Committee and offer a convaluted legal opinion that is most assuredly pro-Omega.

It's obvious the Commonwealth doesn't particular care about the environment considering it ranks at the bottom of the list when it comes to budgeted $$$.

NEED I SAY MORE?

[grin]

[Sanity]

SB got his "moniker" from pickin'.....whether it's a banjo or on YOU.....and grinnin'. I do believe that the explanation that he gave you boys about himself is the best one that you'll ever see in public.

Offering an alternative view is what life is all about and at least on the Board, doesn't change the world one bit. We spout our views. We rarely change ingrained beliefs. Anybody who thinks so has surely not been paying attention when the EEZ comes up annually, Omega products, fishing licensure....here or "abroad", gaffing vs netting, catching vs. "bragging", and a few other issues that escape me but that will be sure to show up at sometime this winter.

On the board we all assume personas, even if we think we aren't. Our behavior in print is not necessarily our behavior when in the company of others. There are exceptions but my experience with the Pizza Conspiracy meetings has been that when folks show up in person they turn out to be a fellow/lady that was worth meeting.

I will admit that I've met SB........and he ain't got big teeth, a long pointed tail .....but he does have a red butt.....'cuz I hooked him there![grin]

In our case it wasn't a matter of "burying the hatchet".......it was a matter of "setting the hook"![wink]

-----

When you want to bring people together, you talk about your similar views on life. When you want to create division, then you amplify your differences.

Currently the Muslim world is upset by blasphemous behavior by political cartoonists depicting ALLAH as having run out of virgins to offer suicide bombers. I find suicide bombers to be blasphemers rather than "blast teamers".

[Ted]

If any of our opinions(votes?) counted, as in those that were expressed to our political representatives, this wouldn't be much of an issue... HOWEVER, what we think or want doesn't count when it's up against the kind of political clout and money Omega has. Of course they'll fight or challenge any ruling, cause they know a few loses now would mean the beginning of the end.

It's sorta like Custards's last stand, except this time he's got a battalion. It's the last stronghold and it won't be given up easy. Years ago when other states were doing their part to get the Commercial Menhaden fishery out, is when Virginia shoulda joined forces in the effort with our northern neighbors. Now by no means will it be an easy road ever again. Not to say it was easy back then mind you, but we had a helluva better chance. And yeah, I did say get 'em out. I'm not baby stepping it, though I'm sure that's probably the best course of action, I'm saying go all the way... I guess I must be PC(politically correct) challenged, but I'll say what some really mean.

If you haven't figured out by now, yes it is all about politics & money. And yeah, I do hope Federal gets involved and makes a ruling to spite the Virginian Political Sons-a- *#@&%$!



Just my humble opinion though, maybe some day I'll say what I really mean... [grin] [wink]

[junebug007]

Capt. Jim Brincefield:

What is your beef with your fellow commercial fishermen who harvest menhaden? Don't they have the same right to harvest a healthy menhaden resource as you do to harvest a healthy striped bass resource? How exactly are you and your fellow commercial fishermen, as well as recreational fishermen, going to benefit should commercial menhaden fishing dissappear tomorrow?

[junebug007]

wag23455 originally wrote:
Perdue,
I think I've made my position clear over the past several months on how I feel about Omega as it relates to caps, fishery mgt, etc. I'm a liberal tree-hugging, pro-resource, anti-political lobbying fisherman. Have past memberships w/ CCA, CBF, etc.

As for my reference to the VA AG being a "Commie," it referred to affiliation w/ the Communist Party, not commercial fishermen. However, he might be a "Commie" for all I know (in the way Stanley Bros. took it as). Any personal beliefs on his behalf should not cloud professional legal opinions/judgements.

I find it ironic how the VA AG can be a past member of the Commonwealth's Environmental Stewardship Committee and offer a convaluted legal opinion that is most assuredly pro-Omega.

It's obvious the Commonwealth doesn't particular care about the environment considering it ranks at the bottom of the list when it comes to budgeted $$$.

NEED I SAY MORE?

[grin]

Yes, please do expound further. For starters, tell us more about your basis for declaring that the Virginia AG is a member of the communist party.

Irregardless, here's the simple fact that escapes you: What the ASMFC attempted to shove down the throat of Virginia was not only wrong in principle, it was also wrong as a matter of the law. You're welcome to ignore this simple truth.

BTW, your statement that your an "anti-political lobbying fisherman" is certainly confusing....[grin] Does that mean you are, indeed, anti-political and avoid the political scene OR that you are, indeed, one who lobbys on behalf of fishermen and is involved in the political scene.

[Marcus]

If they dont want to comply shut them down totally......

[Purdue1]

Wag, I don't recall any of your stances but if you say your a tree hugger, then I'll beleive you. I know what you meant by commie, I remember the cold war.........and I don't think the AG put personal feelings into his legal opinion. It appears it was a legal opinion, not personal. Maybe, you should tell him to state his personal opinion and it actually might match yours.

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

Niles, either you are either very forgetful or you choose to ignore the many years and many times we have discussed this issue.

But, just because I'm bored today, I'll humour you:

You asked:

Q: What is your beef with your fellow commercial fishermen who harvest menhaden?

A: I feel they are one of the sources of the localized depletion of Menhaden in The Bay. I feel they are overharvesting Menhaden in The Bay. I feel they are unwilling to cap their catches with a limit like every other commercial fisherman, including me. I feel that the resource is limited and I feel they are catching more than their share. I feel they are hurting the future of The Bay.

Q: Don't they have the same right to harvest a healthy menhaden resource as you do to harvest a healthy striped bass resource?

A: My rights are strictly limited to harvest fish by state and federal regulations. So, no, they don't have the same "rights", they are given "unlimited" rights to their targeted species.

Q: How exactly are you and your fellow commercial fishermen, as well as recreational fishermen, going to benefit should commercial menhaden fishing dissappear tomorrow?

A: Niles, you know the answer to this and the other questions but choose to act (like SB) like you don't. Of course, a healthy Menahden population is critical in The Bay for dozens of reasons, and in my opinion, the Menhaden population in The Bay is not healthy. There is a reason our Maryland Waterman's Association SUPPORTED THE MENHADEN CAP. Because it IS severely hurting your fellow watermen to the North. But, of course, that's not an issue for Omega or you Niles.

All of this doesn't matter one bit. Omega will be out of business within one year due to market forces. Where's you 4th quarter Omega Report Niles? Is Omega going to delay their 10-Q filing again to hold back the bad news of a 13 million dollar loss in the 4th quarter 2005? When the stock craters below $4.00 a share you can kiss it all goodbye.

Why is the largest Omega investor looking to get out? It's called synthetic Omega 3 which costs about one third of Omegas product, and that, my old friend Niles, will be the end of Omega Proteins.

[junebug007]

Capt. Jim Brincefield originally wrote:
Niles, either you are either very forgetful or you choose to ignore the many years and many times we have discussed this issue.

But, just because I'm bored today, I'll humour you:

You asked:

Q: What is your beef with your fellow commercial fishermen who harvest menhaden?

A: I feel they are one of the sources of the localized depletion of Menhaden in The Bay. I feel they are overharvesting Menhaden in The Bay. I feel they are unwilling to cap their catches with a limit like every other commercial fisherman, including me. I feel that the resource is limited and I feel they are catching more than their share. I feel they are hurting the future of The Bay.

You're wrong on several counts: First, Omega Protein has already adopt a bay harvest cap. Second, fishery management cannot be based upon "feelings", rather, it must be based on fact. Lastly, a question: What is "localized depletion" and why do you "feel" it's occurring?

Q: Don't they have the same right to harvest a healthy menhaden resource as you do to harvest a healthy striped bass resource?

A: My rights are strictly limited to harvest fish by state and federal regulations. So, no, they don't have the same "rights", they are given "unlimited" rights to their targeted species.

Wrong. Omega Protein has already adopt a bay harvest cap.

Q: How exactly are you and your fellow commercial fishermen, as well as recreational fishermen, going to benefit should commercial menhaden fishing dissappear tomorrow?

A: Niles, you know the answer to this and the other questions but choose to act (like SB) like you don't. Of course, a healthy Menahden population is critical in The Bay for dozens of reasons, and in my opinion, the Menhaden population in The Bay is not healthy. There is a reason our Maryland Waterman's Association SUPPORTED THE MENHADEN CAP. Because it IS severely hurting your fellow watermen to the North. But, of course, that's not an issue for Omega or you Niles.

Wrong. Omega's fishing operations are not stressing menhaden populations. BTW, your MWA premise is also wrong.

All of this doesn't matter one bit. Omega will be out of business within one year due to market forces. Where's you 4th quarter Omega Report Niles? Is Omega going to delay their 10-Q filing again to hold back the bad news of a 13 million dollar loss in the 4th quarter 2005? When the stock craters below $4.00 a share you can kiss it all goodbye.

[b]Funny stuff. Keep it coming! [grin]

[capt. jakeg]

Perdue, I understand what you are saying and understand your concern. I will clear up that I am by no means a name caller. Calling names is what people do when they don't have anything smarter to say. I am by no means affiliated with any activist group, be it CCA or even any of those crazies like PETA or Greenpeace. Though my opinions are not always the general public's view of how things are or should be, I wouldn't say that makes me any sort of activist or anything and I would hope that no one on any of these message boards would ever use them as a method to be hurtful, but I get your point about you never know whos reading.
I can completely disagree with any given person on here and it doesn't mean I dislike the person for having their opinion. That's ridiculous, shallow, and ignorant to act that way. So what. Its an opinion. It doesn't matter. I try to treat everyone withwhom I deal with respect unless they blatantly give me a reason not to, and it would have to get pretty nasty on this message board for me to feel disrespected. I always try to develop my own opinion, and it doesn't matter to me what other people think about it. It's mine. I must say that I do enjoy hearing other people's opinions. I think its interesting to learn what people think and why they think that way, and if they have anything they can tell me to change my opinions, I'm open to that as well. Me, SB, and others have gotten into it a more than a couple times on the board because of varying opinions, but that doesn't mean we couldn't chit chat over a cold one or go spend an afternoon on the water together and have a good time. I feel that way and I have come to expect that from anyone on this board.

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

Oh no, no, no Niles. I played your game enough. I answered your questions, you dodged mine. You and I both know the answers to this stuff Niles, it's completely worthless to rehash it all here. You find it humourous because you get paid whether we catch fish or not.

But I do give you credit, you're consistent.

[Sanity]

Ted, I must say this about "Custard's Last Stand". It seems the General Custer just couldn't take the heat of the day. It was a Dairy Queen moment.

Thanks, Ted.......that was one of the lighter moments of my week![grin]

[junebug007]

Capt. Jim Brincefield originally wrote:
Oh no, no, no Niles. I played your game enough. I answered your questions, you dodged mine. You and I both know the answers to this stuff Niles, it's completely worthless to rehash it all here. You find it humourous because you get paid whether we catch fish or not.

But I do give you credit, you're consistent.

A thousand apologies. I thought your 'questions' were rhetorical in nature, and corporate-related. I read exactly three questions in your original post:

Where's you 4th quarter Omega Report Niles?

I am not Omega. I don't know anything about any "4th Quarter Omega Report" whatever that is. What does this have to do with Addendum II?

Is Omega going to delay their 10-Q filing again to hold back the bad news of a 13 million dollar loss in the 4th quarter 2005?

I am not Omega. I don't know anything about any "bad news". What does this have to do with Addendum II?

Why is the largest Omega investor looking to get out?

I am not Omega. I have no idea why "the largest Omega investor looking to get out". What does this have to do with Addendum II?

So, Jim, quid pro quo. Looking forward to your answers to my question.

[Capt. Jim Brincefield]

Niles, you seem to know everything about Omega when it fits your agenda and nothing about Omega when it doesn't. You play "dumb" when it suits you, but are "smart enough" to tell me about what the Maryland Waterman's Association's position is on the Menhaden?

Niles, you are a riot. Others may fall for your stuff but I don't. You are very aware of all of these issues, you don't need an education from me.

End of discussion.

[junebug007]

Capt. Jim Brincefield originally wrote:
Niles, you seem to know everything about Omega when it fits your agenda and nothing about Omega when it doesn't. You play "dumb" when it suits you, but are "smart enough" to tell me about what the Maryland Waterman's Association's position is on the Menhaden?

Niles, you are a riot. Others may fall for your stuff but I don't. You are very aware of all of these issues, you don't need an education from me.

End of discussion.

Super! Then we agree upon the following facts:

(1) Menhaden fishing does not stress menhaden populations; and
(2) Addendum II is scientifically- and legally- unjustified.

Cheers!

[junebug007]

junebug007 originally wrote:
Capt. Jim Brincefield originally wrote:
Niles, you seem to know everything about Omega when it fits your agenda and nothing about Omega when it doesn't. You play "dumb" when it suits you, but are "smart enough" to tell me about what the Maryland Waterman's Association's position is on the Menhaden?

Niles, you are a riot. Others may fall for your stuff but I don't. You are very aware of all of these issues, you don't need an education from me.

End of discussion.

Super! Then we agree upon the following facts:

(1) Menhaden fishing does not stress menhaden populations; and
(2) Addendum II is scientifically- and legally- untenable.

Cheers!

[rocksandblues]

General business observation:

Lets says for arguments sake that Omega does want to "suck all the Menhadden out of the bay". Wouldn't they run out of fish to process and have to close their new 5 million dollar plant at some point?

It the same with loggers (often seen as evil destroyers). If they cut down all the trees with out replanting, wouldn't they be out of business too. They do infact replant.

[dd26reg]

QUESTION?
Has there been any indication of shorting OMEGA stock by institutional players as of yet? CAPT JIM,I think your economic argument is valid. Let's hope so.Economic forces most always trump political powers. ENRON is a prime example.This a limited state issue in my opinion.

[boneman]

rocksandblues wrote: Lets says for arguments sake that Omega does want to "suck all the Menhadden out of the bay". Wouldn't they run out of fish to process and have to close their new 5 million dollar plant at some point?Let's examine the last 16 years of menhaden landings at Reedville - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to spot the trend, does it?
http://www.myfishingpictures.com/img/089094.JPG

[Purdue1]

capt. jakeg originally wrote:
Perdue, I understand what you are saying and understand your concern. I will clear up that I am by no means a name caller. Calling names is what people do when they don't have anything smarter to say. I am by no means affiliated with any activist group, be it CCA or even any of those crazies like PETA or Greenpeace. Though my opinions are not always the general public's view of how things are or should be, I wouldn't say that makes me any sort of activist or anything and I would hope that no one on any of these message boards would ever use them as a method to be hurtful, but I get your point about you never know whos reading.
I can completely disagree with any given person on here and it doesn't mean I dislike the person for having their opinion. That's ridiculous, shallow, and ignorant to act that way. So what. Its an opinion. It doesn't matter. I try to treat everyone withwhom I deal with respect unless they blatantly give me a reason not to, and it would have to get pretty nasty on this message board for me to feel disrespected. I always try to develop my own opinion, and it doesn't matter to me what other people think about it. It's mine. I must say that I do enjoy hearing other people's opinions. I think its interesting to learn what people think and why they think that way, and if they have anything they can tell me to change my opinions, I'm open to that as well. Me, SB, and others have gotten into it a more than a couple times on the board because of varying opinions, but that doesn't mean we couldn't chit chat over a cold one or go spend an afternoon on the water together and have a good time. I feel that way and I have come to expect that from anyone on this board.


Thanks for the comments Capt Jakeg.

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

boneman originally wrote:
- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to spot the trend, does it?
http://www.myfishingpictures.com/img/088967.JPG


No it doesn't

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps/thumbnails/percentpop.gif

[Brandon]

Just so people are aware because it's gotten pretty old with people posting under screen names and not identifying themselves, the Junebug guy is none other then:

Mr. Neils Moore
Chief of Propaganda
National Fisheries Institute
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
703-524-8884

He is the public, and well paid, face of commercial fisheries interests.

View anything he says with this in mind since he is essentially getting paid to post on these boards and try to influence public opinion.

Brandon

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

Brandon originally wrote:
Just so people are aware because it's gotten pretty old with people posting under screen names and not identifying themselves, the Junebug guy is none other then:

Mr. Neils Moore
Chief of Propaganda
National Fisheries Institute
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
703-524-8884

He is the public, and well paid, face of commercial fisheries interests.

View anything he says with this in mind since he is essentially getting paid to post on these boards and try to influence public opinion.

Brandon



How about you identify all posters that use screen names? Of course that would be leaning to the fair side would it not.

False Advertising?... Here is what it says when asking you to register

Registering:

* Is Completely FREE
* Allows Viewing of Individual Threads
* Allows You To Customize Your TidalFish.com Experience.
* Allows Post Classifieds Advertisements
* Allows You To See Who's Currently Online
* Allows Access to Browse The Member Directory
* Does NOT Require You to Disclose Your Identity
* Does NOT Require That Your Email Address Be Visible To Other Tidal Fish Users.

[Larry]

Thanks Brandon!

[Brandon]

Mike,

Thanks for pointing that out, I will make sure we make and edit. That statement was never meant for people to be able to hide behind screen names when it comes to engaging in debates.

I am not sure why you are so sensitive to having Junebug's identity revealed, if there were more menhaden in the bay there would be more stripers in the bay and your charter busines would be better[wink]

Brandon

[captaingeorge]

Is it your intent to turn this into an activist website, Brandon?

[Brandon]

Not at all and in that regard I guess I will have to start cracking down on these sorts of posts on these boards and make sure all the debate is kept to the Conservation and Policy board.

Thus the thread is being closed.

Brandon

[Purdue1]

Brandon originally wrote:
Not at all and in that regard I guess I will have to start cracking down on these sorts of posts on these boards and make sure all the debate is kept to the Conservation and Policy board.

Thus the thread is being closed.

Brandon



Do you know what the fish said when he ran straight into a cement wall?????? Dam!

[Purdue1]

Purdue1 originally wrote:
Brandon originally wrote:
Not at all and in that regard I guess I will have to start cracking down on these sorts of posts on these boards and make sure all the debate is kept to the Conservation and Policy board.

Thus the thread is being closed.

Brandon



Do you know what the fish said when he ran straight into a cement wall?????? Dam!


Sorry, just screwing around, now I see how everyone keeps your locked threads open....it is that quote button if you haven't figured it out..

[boneman]

Brandon,

It's fine to move the thread to the C&P Board, but why close it? I don't see any name calling or unfounded accusations.

[Purdue1]

boneman originally wrote:
Brandon,

It's fine to move the thread to the C&P Board, but why close it? I don't see any name calling or unfounded accusations.



Agreed, and everyone knew who Junebugger was anyhow so it was no big surprise to anyone.....but I guess you gotta support your advertisers.

[boneman]

Capt. Mike,

Regarding the decline of menhaden in the Bay, yes - there may be other factors at work, like your example of human population growth in the watershed - but I've yet to read a study that conclusively identifies any specific relationship in this regard. On the other hand, we've got a pretty good understanding on the relationship between the reduction industry and menhaden mortality - in fact we can physically quantify the number of dead menhaden passing through Reedville each year, and it's a very big number - no uncertainty there...

Permitting Omega to increase their landings above the ASMFC mandated cap isn't somehow gonna magically increase the number of menhaden in the Bay. Sometimes imperiled fish stocks are best restored by controlling fishing mortality. A good example of the effectiveness of this simple concept was the rockfish moratorium of 1985-89 when, despite increasing human populations during the same period, striped bass populations rebounded wildly.

[junebug007]

Brandon originally wrote:
Just so people are aware because it's gotten pretty old with people posting under screen names and not identifying themselves, the Junebug guy is none other then:

Mr. Neils Moore
Chief of Propaganda
National Fisheries Institute
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
703-524-8884

He is the public, and well paid, face of commercial fisheries interests.

View anything he says with this in mind since he is essentially getting paid to post on these boards and try to influence public opinion.

Brandon


Brandon-

As the old saying goes, a wise attorney never asks a question to which he doesn't know the answer. While it's certainly amusing to watch you and a few of the other TF folks stab in the dark regarding my identity, I will tell you this much: Guess again!

And, yes, I will take you up on your offer to post a menhaden cover article on TF without the guise of my screen name, IF "Matt" and the other folks in this debate (including all those posting on the menhaden-related Conservation threads) do the same.

Agreed?

P.S. You a big George Orwell fan?

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

Brandon originally wrote:

Mike,

Thanks for pointing that out, I will make sure we make and edit. That statement was never meant for people to be able to hide behind screen names when it comes to engaging in debates.

I am not sure why you are so sensitive to having Junebug's identity revealed, if there were more menhaden in the bay there would be more stripers in the bay and your charter busines would be better[wink]

Brandon

Junebug's identity has nothing to do with the menhaden issue,but just for the record, I attended the big meeting in Annapolis and sent my letter condeming what Omega is doing. Didn't see you there. [wink]

I just think,That if you are going to identify him then you should identify all who post to a controversial subject. But then after all you’re not neutral as a moderator are you?[wink]

You suggest Junebug should have a commercial subscription because he supposedly receives money from a group. Doesn't the executive director of CCA receive money from an opposing group? I haven't seen any mention of making him purchase a commercial subscription.

I'm wondering, if you, as moderator, reveal someone's identity on this website without their permission and a thug uses that info to locate his residence and carry out a threat against him, is Tidal Fish somehow responsible?

[captaingeorge]

Capt. Mike Anderson originally wrote:
I'm wondering, if you, as moderator, reveal someone's identity on this website without their permission and a thug uses that info to locate his residence and carry out a threat against him, is Tidal Fish somehow responsible?
A ladyfriend lawyer says...possibly. And if the moderator happens to be an owner...probably.
(I've got no dog in this, just providing information).[smile]

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

captaingeorge originally wrote:
Capt. Mike Anderson originally wrote:
I'm wondering, if you, as moderator, reveal someone's identity on this website without their permission and a thug uses that info to locate his residence and carry out a threat against him, is Tidal Fish somehow responsible?
A ladyfriend lawyer says...possibly. And if the moderator happens to be an owner...probably.
(I've got no dog in this, just providing information).[smile]


What I can't wait to see is Brandon changing the site contract and trying to get 30000 people to agree to let their names be revealed on his whim.

[junebug007]

Brandon originally wrote:
Mike,

Thanks for pointing that out, I will make sure we make and edit. That statement was never meant for people to be able to hide behind screen names when it comes to engaging in debates.

Are you going to force the anonymous "debators" composing 90%+ of the posts on TF reveal their true identities, Brandon? How exactly would such action improve these debates?

I am not sure why you are so sensitive to having Junebug's identity revealed, if there were more menhaden in the bay there would be more stripers in the bay and your charter busines would be better[wink]
Brandon

Menhaden fishermen annually harvest about 2 out of every 1,000 fish in the population. Any idea where the rest go, Brandon? Eliminate all menhaden fishing tomorrow, and what exactly does that get you?

- "By his nature, man fears that which he does not understand."

[Rob Holtz]

junebug007 originally wrote:
Eliminate all menhaden fishing tomorrow, and what exactly does that get you?

About a 100,000 metric tons more Menhaden the first year, many more after all those saved fish spawn the next year. Certainly couldn't be a bad thing for the Bay.

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:

What the ASMFC attempted to shove down the throat of Virginia was not only wrong in principle, it was also wrong as a matter of the law. You're welcome to ignore this simple truth.



Or he's welcome to his opinion. Nobody is MAKING Virginia b a part of the ASFMC, correct? VA agrees, by it voluntary decision to join the ASFMC, with the principle on which is was founded, yes? The whole point of this action is the ASFMC is now considering the issue of localized depletion, in this case, of menhaden. They are doing so, not because of the menhaden themselves, but because of its role as forage to the other migratory coastal species, specifically striped bass. And they are very serious about striped bass. If there is reason to do a scientific study in the first place, there's reason to cap the harvest until we know for sure. What's the harm? It's the same amount they've been taking. Nobody loses their job in the meantime.

I haven't even gotten to the end of this thread yet. Sorry if I am redunadant.

[wag23455]

junebug007 originally wrote:
Brandon originally wrote:
Mike,

Thanks for pointing that out, I will make sure we make and edit. That statement was never meant for people to be able to hide behind screen names when it comes to engaging in debates.

Are you going to force the anonymous "debators" composing 90%+ of the posts on TF reveal their true identities, Brandon? How exactly would such action improve these debates?

I am not sure why you are so sensitive to having Junebug's identity revealed, if there were more menhaden in the bay there would be more stripers in the bay and your charter busines would be better[wink]
Brandon

Menhaden fishermen annually harvest about 2 out of every 1,000 fish in the population. Any idea where the rest go, Brandon? Eliminate all menhaden fishing tomorrow, and what exactly does that get you?

- "By his nature, man fears that which he does not understand."


http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf/menhaden_boats.jpg

Junebug, your figures seem WAY LOW, well into the zone of ERRONEOUS. You're saying reduction harvesting sucks out less than 1/2% of the CB's overall menhaden population annually. From what I gathered through various sources, I'd conservatively say appx 20% of the population is harvested (estimated) annually - with 60-70% of that targeted w/in a narrow territory bandwidth.

It's obvious that Omega will pay its lawyers and lobbyists w/ the last investor's cent to keep a squeeky clean image and push for higher catch limits in the face of declining populations. Let em' have their 130k+ mt limit.

It's obvious that any caps less than that lobbied by Omega will be ignored, filabustered, etc. Instead, let's regulate everything but caps - prohibit use of aircraft in tracking/identifying schools, shorten daily hours of operation, shorten the season, prohibit operations w/in 3nm of the shore, shorten the nets, require all processing plant and shipboard workers to be properly and legitimately documented (i.e. no illegals, who otherwise would work for peanuts), require 1 for 1 replacement of filter feeders (harvest 1 menhaden, replace w/ 1 oyster). There are tons of way to skin a cat - and somebody, somewhere - likes to eat cat. [grin]
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=eating+cat/v=2/SID=e/l=IVI/SIG=12ngto101/EXP=1139455951/*-http%3A//www.albertelli.com/photoarchive/Pets/Eating_Abram_medium.jpg

[mdc]

[smile]

[Sea Gristle]

Capt. Mike Anderson originally wrote:
I'm wondering, if you, as moderator, reveal someone's identity on this website without their permission and a thug uses that info to locate his residence and carry out a threat against him, is Tidal Fish somehow responsible?


Man, this has taken a nasty turn. We didn't need to know Junebug's name to know his game. The debate is not about who's making the argument, their motivations or agenda be it paid or voluntary. Let's get back to the topic, wherever it ends up.

[goose70]

The point about checking crew documentation is a good one. Is OMEGA's fleet made up of Jones Act vessels? If so, it might be worth looking into OMEGA's compliance. We wouldn't want federal offenses taking place on the penninsula, would we?

[BluesFan]

junebug007 originally wrote:

[b] Menhaden fishermen annually harvest about 2 out of every 1,000 fish in the population. Any idea where the rest go, Brandon? Eliminate all menhaden fishing tomorrow, and what exactly does that get you?


Menhaden fishermen may indeed harvest only 2 out of every 1,000 fish in the population. That may actually be a decently accurate number.

BUT, what Omega does is to take their 2 out of 1,000 from a much smaller population of fish. ie: Those that are close to Reedville.

Looking at local populations 2 out of 1,000 suddenly seems ridiculously low.

See, I don't think it is fair to count every fish between New Jersewy and Mexico when all of the pones you take are within sight of Reedville.

So, how about an estimate based on the local population?

Robert Cox

[Sea Gristle]

BluesFan originally wrote:
So, how about an estimate based on the local population?


Cause nobody knows what that local population IN THE BAY is, including Junebug. We only know how much is being taken out (or how much Omega reports is being taken). Obviously it is the crux of the argument for everybody but Omega and the VAGA. It's why we want harvest capped IN THE BAY and bunkers counted IN THE BAY. Then we'll know what we're dealing with. Then we can determine how many are needed to support predators, clean the water and support industry IN THE BAY.

[Capt Frank]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
BluesFan originally wrote:
So, how about an estimate based on the local population?


Cause nobody knows what that local population IN THE BAY is, including Junebug. We only know how much is being taken out (or how much Omega reports is being taken). Obviously it is the crux of the argument for everybody but Omega and the VAGA. It's why we want harvest capped IN THE BAY and bunkers counted IN THE BAY. Then we'll know what we're dealing with. Then we can determine how many are needed to support predators, clean the water and support industry IN THE BAY.



Im in Florida for a month guiding and I can tell you that Junebug would have a hard time making a living in the Sunshine State. I attended a Flyfishers Meeting last night in Charlotte Co. and the folks there get very personal when their fishery and environ. is attacked. Many of the fly guys were from the NE originally and they are familiar with the menhadden situation in the Bay.

[goose70]

I still haven't received an answer to a very basic question I posted on the other board. I'm hoping Junebug responds, but I'd welcome a response from anyone else who thinks they know. The issue is: If the Menhaden population in the Bay has never been measured, then against what data do we compare a population study to determine whether the Menhaden population in the Bay has declined?

Currently, OMEGA is in a position to state (1) regardless of what the Bay population numbers turn out to be, ASMFC cannot prove that those numbers are lower than in the past; and (2) even if the numbers are shown to be lower, ASMFC cannot prove that the cause is OMEGA, as opposed increased predation and/or decreased water quality.

The only way to know for certain is to control the experiment by measuring the population now, then shutting down purse seining in the Bay for a year (or more) and measuring again. This requires a cost-benefit decision on whether the benefit (possibility of a better rec fishing industry) outweighs the cost to OMEGA (extra time/fuel for fishing only a certain distance away from the Chesapeake during phase II of the experiment).

Does anyone know how ASMFC plans to deal with this issue?

[Barefoot]

goose70 originally wrote:
then against what data do we compare a population study to determine whether the Menhaden population in the Bay has declined?
Catch per unit effort data

[Sea Gristle]

goose70 originally wrote:

Currently, OMEGA is in a position to state (1) regardless of what the Bay population numbers turn out to be, ASMFC cannot prove that those numbers are lower than in the past; and

(2) even if the numbers are shown to be lower, ASMFC cannot prove that the cause is OMEGA, as opposed increased predation and/or decreased water quality.

The only way to know for certain is to control the experiment by measuring the population now, then shutting down purse seining in the Bay for a year (or more) and measuring again.



I'm no scientist or Statistician but I'm sure OMEGA would agree with 1 & 2. However there is harvest data going back a long way that indicates continued decline. If an acceptable ASFMC measurement tool is devised, then as long as harvest levels remained consistent (say, 105K metric tons) and the measurement showed a continued reduction of stocks, then the purse seine industry could be regulated accordingly until a proper balance is acheived.

[Matt]

junebug007 originally wrote:

As the old saying goes, a wise attorney never asks a question to which he doesn't know the answer. While it's certainly amusing to watch you and a few of the other TF folks stab in the dark regarding my identity, I will tell you this much: Guess again!

And, yes, I will take you up on your offer to post a menhaden cover article on TF without the guise of my screen name, IF "Matt" and the other folks in this debate (including all those posting on the menhaden-related Conservation threads) do the same.

Agreed?



Niels, I'm not interested in debating a person who won't take responsibility for his words. When you grow a pair, let me know.