Farewell and Take Care

[flatts1]

I offer the following message to those who read and post in the Reel-Time.Com Conservation forum.

I do not intend to offer any further comment regarding it unless clarification or correction is needed.

----

Hello All,

For some time now I have been posting what I believe to be useful information on the many fishing forums that are available, including here at Reel-Time.Com. However, a Reel-Time moderator recently claimed that my posts here about the gamefish status of striped bass are based on some "agenda". When I replied that I don't really have an agenda and that my goal is to simply inform folks, I was criticized and again told that I must have an agenda. The moderator then included some examples of what he thought my agenda was.

Ladies and Gentlemen, those who know me well know that I put a lot of time into researching fisheries issues and I try to inform folks as best I can whenever possible. I am all about learning and getting things right. In fact, if someone could point out an inaccuracy in a post of mine then I would welcome and embrace it because it would mean that I learned something.

I try to inform folks whenever I can because there is sooo much misinformation found on the many fishing websites. Some of it is intentional and some is not. However, I have to wonder how it can be said that I have an agenda when I often tell folks that if they want to learn the real deal on fisheries issues, then don't take my word for it, simply attend the public hearings regarding them. It is at public hearings where folks will find most of the real answers to their questions. It is also the place where real agendas put forth by activist groups can be openly scrutinized because there is no moderator with a "delete/lock post" button at such hearings.

Now it seems to me that the only folks who should feel threatened by a message like that are those who actually are trying to push an agenda and who need to rely on uninformed masses.

Recently, it has become abundantly clear to me that those who moderate these forums are not truly interested in allowing all sides of an issue to be heard unless the information provided is consistent an anti-commercial fishing agenda being advanced by both CCA and Stripers Forever. I am referring to the "Stripers being overfished??" thread that was recently locked.

http://www.reel-time.com/forum/showt...threadid=34890

It is for this reason that I will no longer post information here on the Reel-Time.Com Conservation forum.

Consider the following:

- The first post in this thread was an email that originated from Stripers Forever and was posted by one of its members, Finatic.


- CMP replied with a differing view and his post was censored by a moderator citing "<name calling not allowed - mcahill>" Now, I can respect the fact that mcahill wouldn't want there to be any name calling on his website. However, what about the post from Ray which was directly above CMP's and read in part, "I also have a bitter taste in my mouth from deaing with politically appointed idiots."

Is this not a double standard?.

Also I notice, at the time of this writing, that the Reel-Time.Com moderators have continued to allow the same description ("idiot") for Charlie Moore on another thread in the Main Forum. Evidently, it is common practice on Reel-Time to use name calling when it is directed toward folks who are not subscribed members of Reel-Time.Com. Or maybe it is just that the word "idiot" is acceptable here and I simply don't know any better. I'm just curious though, how does rhetoric like this fit in with the "Be nice or be gone" philosophy stated by Dave Churbuck?


- I chimed in on the discussion with an excerpt from Amendment 6 (with source link). I also added some information from another Stripers Forever mailing where they were soliciting their members to "spread the word". Personally, I think this information was very important to the discussion because it helped to demonstrate what motivates someone like Finatic to post a message filled with slanted claims and then never respond to any subsequent posts.

- Later Reel-Time moderator and CCA-MA president, Ray, claimed that I was "bashing" CCA by posting false information about CCA supporting a saltwater fishing license, and a closed season for striped bass. I then replied with a link that cited the real positions of CCA which are a matter of public record. I find this particularly insulting because Ray essentially said I was lying. In fact, I'm still waiting for an apology although I don't expect one since he simply avoided the topic after I corrected him. I'll let folks take from that what they will.

- After making the connection between CCA and Stripers Forever, I was told via private email that several folks were asking "what's my point". My posts were also described as "attacks".

The bottom line here is that it is demonstrable fact that CCA and StripersForever are inseparably attached at the hip (and I dare say Reel-Time.Com as well). If anyone doubts this then check out the article excerpt below (complete with source link). Again, some folks might think that pointing out information like this is an attack or bashing, I simply consider it useful information - especially for folks who may be wondering why discussions in a Conservation forum get locked when they portray commercial fishermen in anything other than a negative light. You be the judge.


- I then clarified Kwakr's false claim that the F rate for 2002 was .39 when it was really .35 (an understandable misreading of a graph). I also posted some more graphs from the EEZ scoping hearing that I thought would help show the whole picture on the issue since so few attended the hearing.

Instead of welcoming this information as useful toward the discussion, moderator Dave Churbuck jumped in and demanded that I include the source for the graphs that I posted. OK, no problem so I added it. If anyone takes a look at any of my other writings, they will find that I always post the link to source documents whenever possible {if it complies with a site's rules of course}. However, I find it very telling that Dave didn't jump into the conversation until there was literally undisputable evidence that truly refuted Stripers Forever's position that commercial fishermen are the single greatest threat to the striped bass fishery. Why do you think that was? Think about it. I got the graphs from the same place that Stripers Forever did but somehow the graphs that I chose to display (which tell the full story) are somehow in question? So much for Reel-Time.Com not taking a position on an issue I guess.

Isn't this yet another double standard

Dave took exception to my post because this information told the complete story about the issue and it summarily invalidated the gamefish agenda that he supports so much. Is this just my opinion? Yes, but I don't think it's a stretch.

Now I can respect the fact that Dave and Reel-Time are entitled to their opinions/positions. However, I would like to think that the point of a "conservation forum" would be to openly discuss the merit of conservation issues for good or ill. In this case, are stripers really being overfished and if so then by whom? I can't help it if folks are uncomfortable (or even mad) when presented with ALL of the facts, but if anyone wants to really tackle issues like this honestly, then it can't be done by locking down threads the when CMP, myself, or anyone else legitimately refutes a misleading message. This is especially true when that message is posted by someone (Finatic) who doesn't have the courtesy to address concerns expressed by those with a differing viewpoint of his post.

As I said, I put a lot of work into fisheries issues and I post what I think is useful information on the various fishing websites in the hope of informing - and learning. That is my agenda, if it could be called that. I have put in way too much time on this website considering that its moderators are not interested in having its members discuss conservation issues in an open and critical fashion, which is my real goal. As a result, I personally believe that the Conservation forum on Reel-Time.Com has amounted to nothing more than The Stripers Forever/CCA News Network where the blind will continue to lead the blind since it is clear that those with differing viewpoints (and facts) are not welcome.


I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it think. At least I can say I gave it my best effort.


Finally, to the folks here who look at themselves as critical thinkers, in the future when you see my posts on other websites where the moderators are truly interested in discussing all sides of fisheries issues, I hope that you will consider my work as a resource and not as a threat. I'd also be happy to hear what you have to say via private email (mikef@basspond.com) since I am finished here.

Farewell and Take Care,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

[flatts1]

Somehow the source link for the article excerpt above did not get included. The full article may be found at...

http://www.cca-ma.org/CCA%20Spring%20Newslttr.pdf

Mike

[Mark Cahill]

You were asked to explain what you were for. Period. We have heard so much about what you are against. What are you for?

We don't need someone copying in more text than any casual reader would bother to wade through. It doesn't make you look smarter and it doesn't do anyone here any good.

I'll lay it out for you. You are the "Freedom to Fish Director" for MSBA. You avoid stating that in this forum. That is an obvious agenda, and you sir, are disengenous about your aims and goals.

[silverado mike]

Originally posted by Mark Cahill


We don't need someone copying in more text than any casual reader would bother to wade through. It doesn't make you look smarter and it doesn't do anyone here any good.

yeah what he said.....

[CMP]

Uh, Mark, I have seen on a number of occasions Flatts1's affiliation with MBSA and the F2F initiative in link-form at the end of his posts. Methinks you doth protest too much and much of what he said is absolutely true. Whenever the facts get in the way of cca and sf's agenda, Dave feels compelled to run to their defense. OK, no problem, since the sf link is here on the site, I will be preparing a point by point rebuttal to their positions with source material link, facts and references, something sorely lacking from the folks who want to co-opt the fishery. Should make for interesting reading. Oh and, for the record, let me state that I am not a member of ANY organization that either promotes or detrats from commercial or recreational fishing. I'm just a guy who is tired of groups using falsehoods to perpetuate unwarranted quota grabs. Toodles...

CMP

[kwakr]

I first want to say to the agendaless one, don't let the door hit you in the (backside) on the way out.
I don't know how so many of us failed to see your total independance and wisdom and didn't allow ourselves to see the selfless truth you were propagating, but, you remember what they did to Ghandi, don't you?
You couldn't possibly be more wrong about any kind of working agreement between Stripers Forever and CCA. Yes Brad Burns was the guy who essentially started CCA in New England. It began in Maine as NECCA (New England Coast Conservation Association), back in 1992. CCA was mostly limited to the Gulf Coast at the time, although there were chapters in Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia. Brad and a few others bootstrapped the organization in New England and helped with the startups of the chapters in Mass, CT, RI and NH. For those not inconsiderable efforts, CCA Mass chose to present Brad Burns with an award in 2000. They thought he deserved it for all he had done. As far as I know, he no longer has any official connection to CCA and spends all his time running a business, raising a family, getting Stripers Forever off the ground and........fishing.
CCA has stated it wants gamefish status for striped bass, but has done next to nothing to accomplish that end. It is for that reason that Stripers Forever was spawned, with only gamefish for stripers as the goal. Doubtless many CCA members along the Atlantic coast have joined SF, but there is no agreement between the two organizations to work together, at least at this time. So Flatts is dead wrong on that point.
He takes me to task for making a "false claim" that the F rate on the "update" graph at the scoping meeting was .39. Well I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either, (although I can't seem to import the bloody graphs onto RT). The graphs are easy enough to read, but it is open to some interpretation as to which year is which on the graph in question. All I can do is provide, again, the link back to the NMFS website.http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_f...iles/frame.htm
Flatts showed you graph # 24, showing how we had fished at or below target mortality for years. He didn't bother with #29, the update, which shows F=.34 in 1998, F=.35 in 1999, F=.38 in 2000, F=.31 in 2001, F=.29 in 2003 and F=.35 in 2003. At least, that's how I read it. The target during this period was F=.30 (under Amendment 5, which was the managment plan in effect at that time.) I encourage everyone interested to go to the link and see for themselves.
So sayonara Mike. There are other forums more to your liking. There's one I can think of that has a couple of redneck commercial fishermen as moderators of the conservation forum. You'll like them!

[kwakr]

CMP wrote:

I will be preparing a point by point rebuttal to their positions with source material link, facts and references, something sorely lacking from the folks who want to co-opt the fishery. Should make for interesting reading. Oh and, for the record, let me state that I am not a member of ANY organization that either promotes or detrats from commercial or recreational fishing. I'm just a guy who is tired of groups using falsehoods to perpetuate unwarranted quota grabs. Toodles...

Does this mean that Flatts is not leaving after all?

And you are saying that you are not a member of any ORGANIZATION....., But you're a commercial fisherman, and you dump on the recs at every possible opportunity, generally calling them names and insulting them at the same time. You are obviously a very bright guy, and more articulate than many of us, but, don't insult our intelligence by pulling out NMFS data that supports only the commercial fisherman's side. NMFS is, and has been for many years, completely anti-recreational. The commissions and state management boards have been stacked with commercial fishermen forever. Why? Because the industry knows how to lobby, knows how to grease the wheels, while the recreationals historically have killed each other off. CCA says they want game fish for stripers, but does zero to accomplish this. The RFA only cares about the Freedom to Fish initiatives and doesn't even give lip service to striper game fish status. Many of the New England bass clubs are run or influenced by fellows who have commercial bass permits.
So c'mon CMP, bring it on! And, while you're at it, please disclose, for the record, exactly what your agenda is. As suggested to Flatts by the moderator, something like: " I am a commercial fisherman who likes to kill more striped bass in a week than most people will ever see in a lifetime". Or whatever. Use your own words.
Cheers.

"Make it a game fish"

[Mark Cahill]

I merely point out that Flatts1 has an agenda. Pure and simple, despite his protestations, he has an agenda.

This is a discussion forum, yet time and time again we see that the only goal of these pathetically pedantic posts is to lecture us.

We have labored long to try to avoid any semblence of an editorial bias on the part of conservation. While columnists may state their opinion, you will find that those opinions vary. In fact my own opinion varies.

Mr. Flatts does not come here to offer anyone assistance in learning to fish, or to offer tips on where the striped fish be...he comes here to post page after page of information in hopes of drowning us out. I will not tolerate that anymore, and in re-reading the posts that go back over a year, I am shocked that I accepted it this long. He has violated forum policy repeatedly, and frankly several users have been banned for less.

I have warned him on several occassions. I have received mile long emails discussing his right to free speech, and the validity of his positions.

Frankly, moderating this stuff takes a lot of energy which could be directed in more profitable areas.

[flatts1]

Mark Cahill wrote:
"I'll lay it out for you. You are the "Freedom to Fish Director" for MSBA. You avoid stating that in this forum. That is an obvious agenda, and you sir, are disengenous about your aims and goals."

Mark, it is no secret that I am the MSBA Political Committee Chairman and contrary to your above quote, I have indicated so here on Reel-Time.Com (and elsewhere) whenever I am speaking on behalf of MSBA.

See:
http://reel-time.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=34324

However unless I specify otherwise, my personal comments are just that - my personal comments and they do not represent the views of MSBA in any way.

As for my agenda(?), it boggles my mind that you or anyone else can't accept the fact that I really don't have one - except to help inform folks.

As you know I also run my own web site. Here is an excerpt of it's mission statement (as of 1999) that I hope you will find helpful to see where I am truly coming from...

BassPond.Com does not accept paid advertising. This site exists for the love of the pastime and not to make a buck. This means that you won't find annoying flashing banners here. It also means that you can feel free to post your comments (good or bad) regarding a boat dealer, another web site, or whatever fishing related experience that you may wish to share.

Source:
http://www.basspond.com/mission.shtml

If you still need more information on where I'm coming from and what motivates me then check out what I consider to be one of the best speeches ever made at a fisheries hearing at the following link...

http://www.basspond.com/articles/gen...he_ocean.shtml

You are right, I don't post tips on how to fish or where to find stripers. That is because I don't think I can offer much information in these areas (and certainly not as a fly fishermen). However I do spend most of my time here in the "Conservation" forum because this is an area where I feel that I can contribute.


As for what I am "for", basically I am for conservation and sustainable uses of our fishery resources (that means eating them). I think that both are compatable with each other, indeed they compliment each other. Conservation for the sake of conservation is a waste. This is what I find groups like CCA are all about (not necessarily true of SF because they just want to shift the allocation of the resource to themselves). Put another way this is preservation and not conservation. The way I look at it is what good are huge stripers if they die in the EEZ of old age before they ever find an angler's hook (even those hooks of catch-and-release fishermen).

As for commercial fishing for striped bass I am for that too so long as recreational fishermen get first crack at the resource (and we clearly are). It may surprise you to learn that I did very little fishing in '02 due to a dislocated knee that occured in late May. I did even less fishing in '03 to help my wife care for our infant son. While I caught very little striped bass, I found it very cool to order it on the menu 4 miles from my house. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy into all this business that commercial fishermen feed the world but I think that coastal communities should always have access to enjoy their indiginous species of fish - even if they don't catch it themselves (assuming they are fished sustainably of course).

That's it. That's my agenda, if you want to call it that. Personally, I call it common sense and it is the result of my upbringing where my dad taught me that fish was food but they were sure fun to catch. I know that you will find this all hard to believe and I expect you to try to define what my agenda really is. But that's it - really.

So unless further clarification is needed, I'll leave you to divert your energies to more "profitable" endeavors.

Afterall, you are not in the information business, you are in the "business business" and your target demographic considers fish more so as toys rather than food. Therefore they are not interested in discussing sustainable uses - only sole uses.

Take Care,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

[Mark Cahill]

Here's the door. I have warned you too many times.

Congratulations. You are now the 4th person banned from this site since 1995. I suggest you think about that long and hard.

[Bob Parsons]

Here we have an excellent example how slight distortions or omissions can take the same data availible to everyone to put a slant on a view.

1. the concept of a double standard
a. Charlie Moore thread it was pointed out that a derogatory reference was made and was undesireable.
b. to make a general reference to a group in a derogatory manner is not the same

Example 1... You can say the moderators of the NE forum are making idiotic moderations.

But you can not respond to a thread by Bob Parsons (me) and say I'm an idiotic moderator.
Example 2...
It's a subtle differences which may escape posters that have an inclination to have adipose tissue of the cranial cavity.

[Conveyor Man]

I am not trying to make you any madder Mark, I just thought it might help to discuss it.

Is he disingenuous about his political involvement in MSBA? I had never seen him mention it in any of his discussions, irregardless of the link to one time he apparently did.

Is he long winded? God help the moderators who have to read all his posts.

Is he lecturing us? Sure…but try posting that you took a couple of fish home and you will sure see some lectures from many reel-timers.

Does he have a right to free speech? Yes, but reel-time does not have an obligation to provide him a podium.

Does he have an agenda? No Doubt. He claims he is just “educating” us but educating with the hopes of attaining a political end is the definition of an agenda. That being said most of us have an agenda though we do not work as hard as he does to “educate” everyone. It would seem that he does not fly fish and does not get involved in forums for sharing fishing info because as he says “I don't think I can offer much information in these areas (and certainly not as a fly fishermen)”. So he is just posting to these forums to “educate” us.

But from the way this thread reads he seems to get banned as much for what he is saying and not what rules he has broken. Though I rarely have the time…or stamina…to read all the way through his posts he does offer a differing view point which leads to some interesting discussions. Don’t get me wrong I have no vested interest in whether he is banned or not. As a matter of fact You shouldn’t have needed to ban him in that at the end of his first post in this thread he said “I am finished here”. Obviously he has a tough time walking away. I just thought it might be helpful to let us know what rules he has broken that has gotten him banned.

[Mark Cahill]

Over a year of warnings in the forum and via email. You're right. This thread isn't enough to get banned for. But do a search and see what I have seen. A littany of closed threads, deleted attacks and outright baiting of other users. Throw in the fact that he is the Political Committee Chairman of MSBA and should behave better, and you've got more than probable cause.

It's over. See my post on Gentlemanly Discussion...