117.8 lb Tuna Wins 21st Annual Tuna-ment
Lady Luck Wins $10,033

The 21st Annual Tuna-ment took place this June as anglers from Ocean City to Wachapreague, VA competed for top prize and bragging rights among MSSA’s offshore anglers.
Pete Gahles of Brookeville, MD brought in the largest tuna, weighing in at 117.8 pounds. Gahles said he caught it just south of Hambone early morning the last day of the tournament. Gahles and crew took home $2,248 for their efforts, a reduced amount because the team unfortunately did not enter all of the skill levels.
However, Captain Tommy Baldwin and Steve Ramsey aboard Lady Luck were the big winners as they elected to enter all skill levels. Captain Baldwin and crew weighed in four magnificent tuna (75.8 BFT, 68.3 BFT, 46.2 YFT, 42.6 YFT), securing them second place in the main tournament and first place in all skill levels earning them $10,033.
Third place went to Charlie Reichert of Interlude Charters with his 50.3 lb BFT. Reichert fished out of Wachapreague, VA all three days and will take home $302 for his efforts.
Tom Dickerson of the Stress Reel-ief also weighed in four fish securing him $1,056 (43.6 BFT, 40.9 YFT, 39 YFT, 36.4 YFT).
Rob Hartman took the dolphin category with his combined weight of three (25.5, 13.9, 9) taking home $765.
All anglers competing in the 21st annual Tuna-ment have been awarded points in MSSA’s annual Captain of the Year contest. This year’s contest is sponsored by Maryland’s premier boat builder, Judge Yachts. As always this contest is very competitive and even more as Judge Yachts has put money down for the winner. Captain of the Year standing can be found online at www.mssa.net.
For a complete listing of fish weights and prize break down visit www.mssa.net/tunament.html or call the MSSA headquarters at 410-255-5535.

Visit MSSA on Facebook for more photos click here

Commercial Rockfish Quota Increase by 20-50%
Public Meeting: July 19, Annapolis, MD

MSSA Needs Your Help!

ASMFC will be conducting a public hearing on Draft Addendum II to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass on July 19, 2010 @ 5:30 PM at Tawes State Office Building, Conference Room C-1, Annapolis, MD 21401 - MAP

The hearing is to gather public comment on increasing the coastal commercial quota of rockfish by an estimated 20-50%. MSSA strongly opposes this draft addendum citing several reasons including; (1) out of control commercial poaching of striped bass in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina; (2) poor management plan based on equity and fairness; (3) an already depressed rockfish market value will only get worse by increasing the quota; and (4) the value of striped bass to Atlantic coast states both economically and socially as a game-fish.

By increasing the commercial quota the ASMFC either have to; (1)increase total allocation; or (2) take away from recreational anglers. By taking fish away from recreational anglers it will negatively impact an already struggling fishing industry (tackle shops, marinas, boat sales, etc) and further limit angler opportunity. Increased commercial quota could result in shortened seasons, more restrictive size limits, and smaller creel limits. If any of these are implemented to provide for a larger commercial take, it would deter anglers from fishing thus weakening the benefits of recreational fishing to our society.
An increase in total allocation threatens the sustainability of the fishery given the problems with illegal poaching.

We must encourage our Maryland delegation, as well as the other ASMFC board members to vote for option number one (1), STATUS QUO, and end this potentially dangerous discussion.

The MSSA encourages ALL recreational anglers to attend and express your opposition to this addendum. Even if you do not want to speak you are encouraged to show up and show your opposition.

Show up and be heard!
Wear MSSA gear if you have it!
Menhaden: MSSA's Battle to End Overfishing
Charlie Hutchinson's Menhaden Muddle Series #11

Generally the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) does not get involved in allocation issues. While they direct overall policy, such as setting harvest limits, it is left up to the individual states to develop and implement regulations that conform to the ASMFC rules. That may not be so easy with respect to menhaden.
The acknowledged need for new management methods, described as revised reference points, comes about by the recognition that the stock is at an unacceptably low level To rebuild the stock to an acceptable level will require a reduction, probably severe, in the harvest. There are two components to the removals. First, the directed fisheries for bait and reduction, for which data exists which defines the volumes they represent. Second is mortality (generally classified as natural mortality) generated by all the predators. Here data is sketchy at best so this components volume is largely unknown.

All fifteen states share in the bait fishery and in natural mortality, but only one state (Virginia) participates in the reduction industry. Of this directed or measured mortality roughly 80% is thru harvest for reduction. This leads to the possibility that 80% of the reduction in harvest would come from the industrial fishery. The balance could be shared equally (percentage wise) among the states participating in the bait fishery .Obviously the heaviest burden would fall on Virginia due to the location of the industrial fishery. Depending on the size of the cut in the overall harvest the continuation of the reduction operation may be in jeopardy. That in turn may mean some loss in employment in a period of economic instability. The severity in the reduction in employment is dependent on the severity of the cut in harvest and the point at which the reduction operations are no longer profitable. This situation makes for a very difficult decision by the Management Board. It is not likely that a decision will be made at the meeting scheduled for August 3 because the ramifications of the choices to be made will not have been evaluated by then.

What will be necessary to be considered in the decision process? For the most part the biological information normally used to determine fishery regulations will not be the determining factor: economics will, coupled with the values associated with menhaden. There are a substantial number of people who believe that the predators should be given first priority for the consumption of menhaden. There are those directly or indirectly involved in the commercial side of menhaden consumption whose livelihoods will be adversely impacted by a reduction in harvest. Finally, and what is no doubt the largest group, those who just don’t care. A study of those factors was initiated three years ago by the state of Virginia and is underway. It appears that the results will be available this fall but not in time for the August meeting .The Board for the first time is going to have to step out of the comfort zone of a biological basis for management into the real world of economic factors which is new ground for them. It is way overdue.