# Board sets Bay quota for striped bass



## Dae (Jun 25, 2002)

Folks, I think you'll want to read this. 

=======================
Board sets Bay quota for striped bass
Panel imposes target of 30,000 fish, about half of total caught last season
By Candus Thomson
Sun Reporter
Originally published January 29, 2007, 4:30 PM EST
ALEXANDRIA, Va. // Chesapeake Bay anglers will be allowed to catch half the number of striped bass this spring than they did in each of the last two seasons, a regional regulatory board decided today.

By a vote of 7-6, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission rejected a proposal by Maryland and backed by Virginia to eliminate the spring cap and allow the two states to fish under regulations similar to other Eastern Seaboard states.




Instead, it approved a target quota of 30,000 fish--about half the total caught in each of the last two years.

"This cripples us," said Rich Novotny, executive director of the Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Association, which represents thousands of recreational anglers. "We imposed a moratorium to save the species . We've done a lot for conservation and now they've penalized us."

Charter boat captains in the audience looked stunned after the vote. Many of them derive almost 50 percent of their annual business during the four-week season that begins in mid-April.

Maryland anglers in the last two seasons exceeded by more than 50 percent the annual quota set by the ASMFC despite efforts by state fisheries managers to set tougher regulations.

Fisheries chief Howard King argued that the rules set for Maryland in the 1990s were no longer needed because the striped bass population has recovered from overfishing and is robust. The state imposed a five-year moratorium in the 1980s after the number of striped bass plummeted to record-low levels. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are the spawning grounds and nursery for more than 70 percent of the East Coast's striper population.

But the commissioners, who represent the federal government and states from Maine to North Carolina, were unmoved.

In an attempt to save the season, King then asked commission members to approve the target quota. The vote was 10-3, with two commissioners abstaining.

Maryland fisheries managers will meet with fishing clubs, charter boat captains and conservation groups to attempt to design regulations to keep the state in compliance when the spring season begins.

[email protected]


----------



## cygnus-x1 (Oct 12, 2005)

My thing is ... how do they count fish towards this quota? Do captains have to call in their catch by law? I know shorebound anglers do not contribute alot towards this number but how they know if we did?


----------



## Singletjeff (Mar 27, 2005)

Spot checks and Ramp Surveys? I know I've been fishing before and had surveys done of what I caught how many, if I released or kept etc. Get a sampling of the anglers out there, then come up with an educated estimate on what was actually caught. My question is, right now its one fish per day, how are they going to reduce that AND enforce that? They could raise the limit making it more difficult to keep a fish, but that would just mean longer fishing hours, I know I cheat during trophy season and fish from a boat, but we were normally in with our limit somewhere around 12-2 which honestly leaves plenty of time to fish longer if needed. Should be pretty interesting to see what happens


----------



## cygnus-x1 (Oct 12, 2005)

I think they will either bump up the minimum size AND/OR keep it as is and just watch the numbers. Once the numbers get near the goal they would shut it down until Mid May.


----------



## fishbait (Nov 11, 2005)

The DNR numbers are more of an estimate than a census, but the real impact will be felt after the regulations have changed. In order to reduce the overall catch, they have to either delay the season, shorten the season, increase the minimum size, or decrease the creel. Because we shorebound anglers account for a much smaller percentage of the overall catch than the boat anglers and it's tougher for us to catch a trophy anyway, the changes will mostly be targeted with boaters in mind. This really sucks because now we will have regulations that apply equally to everyone, but our ability to catch a trophy will be diminished greatly because we do not have access to the numbers and size of fish that boaters do.


----------



## justinfisch01 (Feb 19, 2006)

So is this 30,000 fish quota just for the spring Trophy season? I'm a little lost


----------



## cygnus-x1 (Oct 12, 2005)

I might get a bunch of Boo's on this but ( speaking as a shore-bound angler ) it would not upset me if they would simply make the trophy season catch and release until May 15th. 

I do know the problem with that is the Charter Boats will lose a tremendous amount of revenue as I have heard that up to 50% of their revenue can come from the trophy season. I do not have a remedy for that.


----------



## cygnus-x1 (Oct 12, 2005)

justinfisch01 said:


> So is this 30,000 fish quota just for the spring Trophy season? I'm a little lost


The way the info in the original post was written you would think (as did I) that they were talking about the whole rockfish season. However if you look closely they only mention Spring and if you read other articles they mention Trophy season.

They seem to act as if the Trophy season is "The only" season. Heck for us Shore-bound guys its not really much of a season. Usually I wait for the run at AI anyway.


----------



## Fishbreath (Nov 11, 2004)

What gets me is that while they are so focused on 'quotas' they are ignoring the fact that the Bay itself is dying and quotas won't be needed in the VERY near future. 

They should keep focused on the polutant levels and ways to raise the Federal funding and mandatory state cooperation for controlling the waste and wash entering the Bay from MD, VA, and especially PENNYSYLVANIA.


----------



## SeaSalt (Apr 29, 2002)

Fishbreath said:


> What gets me is that while they are so focused on 'quotas' they are ignoring the fact that the Bay itself is dying and quotas won't be needed in the VERY near future.
> 
> They should keep focused on the polutant levels and ways to raise the Federal funding and mandatory state cooperation for controlling the waste and wash entering the Bay from MD, VA, and especially PENNYSYLVANIA.


I totally agree... and stop the Omega boats as well...


----------



## Orest (Jul 28, 2003)

*Quota's will not clean up the polluted Bay*

They also take the easy route.



> Fisheries chief Howard King argued that the rules set for Maryland in the 1990s were no longer needed because the striped bass population has *recovered from overfishing and is robust.*


They make the above statement now; but, wait until the season start, they will change their tune. Am sure we will be read in the local papers how the Bay water is polluted and the Stripers are unhealthy to eat and touch.


----------



## fishhead (Oct 18, 2004)

> They should keep focused on the polutant levels and ways to raise the Federal funding and mandatory state cooperation for controlling the waste and wash entering the Bay from MD, VA, and especially PENNYSYLVANIA.


Amen to that ... and how about forcing property owners INCLUDING farmers to:
1) fence off creeks and streams where livestock can potentially get into the water and stir up silt and deposit crap ... literally
2) put in retention/storm basins in steep and/or erosion prone areas to reduce the silt in runoff

currently I believe the retention basins only have to be constructed in conjunction of new land/structure improvments, not to existing property that has not been improved since prior to when those laws were passed.


----------



## cygnus-x1 (Oct 12, 2005)

Fishbreath said:


> What gets me is that while they are so focused on 'quotas' they are ignoring the fact that the Bay itself is dying and quotas won't be needed in the VERY near future.
> 
> They should keep focused on the polutant levels and ways to raise the Federal funding and mandatory state cooperation for controlling the waste and wash entering the Bay from MD, VA, and especially PENNYSYLVANIA.


Amen brotha!


----------



## Teddy (May 14, 2006)

The Bay is Marylands greatest resource and over the past 20 yrs ( before I even fished for Stripers ) the environmental groups, politicians ect have all stated we have to clean the Bay up. BLA BLA its getting worse and the fact is there is no end in sight.

What really gets me is while they impose these limitations on OUR fish limits think of how many other States benefit from our States resources. If you shut us down shut them down to! HEADLINES Excellent STRIPER fishing up and down the eastern sea board Except in MARYLAND this yr due to the fact we put restrictions on MARYLANDERS and let every other State catch them!


----------



## fingersandclaws (Oct 17, 2005)

cygnus-x1 said:


> I might get a bunch of Boo's on this but ( speaking as a shore-bound angler ) it would not upset me if they would simply make the trophy season catch and release until May 15th.
> 
> I do know the problem with that is the Charter Boats will lose a tremendous amount of revenue as I have heard that up to 50% of their revenue can come from the trophy season. I do not have a remedy for that.


BOOOOOO!!!! Kinda harsh for the Charter Companies, especially if 50% of their revenue comes from trophy season; heck, even if 20% of their revenue came from that 1 month, hurts bad, especially for the little guy. I have to agree with Teddy, how does "limiting" the number of fish caught in Maryland's Bay:

1. Help the pollution problem?
2. Help keep Striper numbers "up" when they are being caught everywhere else (they _ARE _a migratory fish)?
3. Help the watermen whose livlihoods depend on trophy season and who probably do more to promote and help the environment?

Funny how people in suits in some hearing room can dictate how/when/where we can fish. I can
picture a bunch of people who have never been fishing getting the low down from some "environmentally friendly" scientist who believes that by limiting the numbers we are "Saving the Bay". 

I hope I understood the original post because if I didn't, then this rant would be pretty funny


----------



## cygnus-x1 (Oct 12, 2005)

fingersandclaws said:


> I have to agree with Teddy, how does "limiting" the number of fish caught in Maryland's Bay:
> 
> 1. Help the pollution problem?


It does nothing


fingersandclaws said:


> 2. Help keep Striper numbers "up" when they are being caught everywhere else (they _ARE _a migratory fish)?


nothing


fingersandclaws said:


> 3. Help the watermen whose livlihoods depend on trophy season and who probably do more to promote and help the environment?


 Nothing


fingersandclaws said:


> Funny how people in suits in some hearing room can dictate how/when/where we can fish. I can
> picture a bunch of people who have never been fishing getting the low down from some "environmentally friendly" scientist who believes that by limiting the numbers we are "Saving the Bay".
> )


True ... I agree with you ... I was just trying stay within the bounds original discussion about the quota limits. I was not an active fisherman when they imposed the first moratorium so I do not know what the political environment was at that time but I am sure many people would have been reacting the same way. "It appears" as the moratorium worked (or they got lucky with timing) or both. I merely stated that a season shutdown would at least make things more clear as to what can't and can happen AND as how I am shore-bound it would not affect me that much (I know it sounds a little selfish .. its not intended to be) I am sure many captains had a hard time during the first moratorium. However you can't legislate nature to accommodate business either. If the charter captains have to adjust then thats what they have to do. However I do not feel that this quota is the longterm answer but it is whats before us.

*HOWEVER*
We would not be having this discussion IF the pollution and the health of the bay and its tributaries had recovered like the Rockfish did. Fortunately that is one thing they CAN legislate but they do not enforce it enough ( I am sure campaign contributions come into play here). It really needs to be raised to a federal level as it is not a MD issue its the whole east coast. 

But then we get to another level of useless buerocracy.


----------



## Dae (Jun 25, 2002)

Guys, how did this thread go from MD Trophy Season Quota to Pollution?

Here's another article:
================
BALTIMORE (AP)- The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted Monday to set a target of no less than 30,000 for Maryland's spring harvest of migratory striped bass, rejecting a proposal by state fisheries managers to let Maryland regulate its own harvest, according to commission and state officials.


However, because the commission set a target instead of a cap on the number of rockfish to be taken during the trophy season, Maryland will not be penalized for exceeding the total, which it did the previous two years when caps were in place.

Howard King, director of fisheries services for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, said he was pleased that the cap was eliminated. He characterized the caps as "arbitrary" because they depend upon inaccurate reports of the rockfish taken by recreational fishermen.

"We think that harvest is greatly overestimated," King said. Setting a cap based on that estimate "doesn't work very well, it's not very credible, and it doesn't benefit anyone," he said.

King's initial proposal, which would have eliminated caps or targets and allowed Maryland to regulate its own fishery, was rejected by a 7-6 vote, with two states abstaining, at an ASMFC meeting in Arlington, Va. His alternate proposal, which set the target, was approved 10-3.

"It's not often that you get everything you ask for the first time around," he said.

Striped bass are born in the Chesapeake Bay, then migrate to the ocean when they mature. They return to the bay every spring to spawn, giving Maryland anglers their only realistic chance to catch significant numbers of larger fish.

Charter boat captains depend on the spring season for their livelihood, and they had fought strenuously for the removal of the caps. Studies have indicated that the rockfish population, which was severely depleted in the 1980s, continues to rebound.

Fishermen hauled in 67,771 migratory rockfish in Maryland's 2006 spring trophy season _ 63.3 percent more than the cap of 41,488 set by the ASFMC. The cap was also exceeded in 2005.

The final target for 2007 will be established based on population estimates. Maryland will be penalized for the number of fish by which it exceeded last year's cap, but only if that would not make the target less than 30,000.

The DNR will work with charter boat captains to help them meet the target and will encourage anglers to release the largest rockfish voluntarily, King said.

"As long as we don't have any cap, they've achieved the main goal they went down there for," said Buddy Harrison Jr., a past president of the Maryland Charter Boat Association Inc. "We're entitled to our share of those fish, and we should catch 'em."

A quirk in the calendar should help keep this year's harvest down. The trophy season always starts on the third Saturday in April, which doesn't fall until April 21 this year.

Harrison stressed if charter boat captains want to protect their livelihoods, they also need to work with regulators to ensure the long-term viability of the rockfish population.

"The ultimate goal is to protect the fishery," he said. "We've got to keep them coming back and spawning."
=================

- Dae


----------



## Donald (Oct 25, 2006)

*our poor planet!*

Money is the single most foremost factor in this whole equation. Years of greased palms, neglect,ignorance and greed. We are harvesting the seeds we have sewn. Not "We" the true sporting gent but the WE as a people in general masses. The waterman will see NO compensation! The sporting gent will bring home LESS! The local and state government will still fight the WRONG causes! We all will still pay federal, state taxes along with hunting/fishing licenses. But we will still INSIST on putting raw sewage into the bay. Man, can anyone count how many times our Maryland river and bay beaches have been shut down due to off the chart bacteria counts? The Elk & North East rivers are always suffering. Just so happens there is a unhealthy sewage plant that pumps in right around the corner from Turkey Point ! HMMMM,, if My memory serves me right this is prime stiped bass spawning ground! This is just one example of many. This is enough to make ya ashamed to be human. IF a differance is going to be made these type of things need to stop and stop before its too late.


----------



## Donald (Oct 25, 2006)

*Dae*

Yea, I guess we did get off the subject but I think what has happend is the guys that have spent the time on and around the water know that a few fish taken off the shoreline is not creating the "problems" of the fishery.


----------



## Dae (Jun 25, 2002)

cygnus-x1 said:


> My thing is ... how do they count fish towards this quota? Do captains have to call in their catch by law? I know shorebound anglers do not contribute alot towards this number but how they know if we did?


Charters have to keep a log book. Recs are all done by a big guess (Surveys at the dock/shore). I've never been surveyed.

If you want to try and help MD with getting a more accurate count of our striper catch, please go to the DNR site and fill out the survey after you've been fishing.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/survey/sbsurveyintro.shtml


- Dae


----------



## Teddy (May 14, 2006)

The name Harrison rings a bell, is it the same guy whos been busted more than once for undersized and over the limit stripers?


----------



## BubbaBlue (May 11, 2004)

That's Cpt Buddy's son, Jr. 
.


----------



## Surf Fish (Dec 16, 2005)

I don't know how long most of you guys been fishing in the bay, but back in the late 60's, when I was a kid, my friends dad had a boat. He'd take us fishing for rock fish, and they were so thick you could walk on them; find the birds, a ton of fish under them. 

I think I read someplace where the bay used to be the richest seafood producing water anywhere in the world. From what I read now it's a toilet. 

Obviously there's a problem that needs to be fixed; or should have been fixed years ago. What did all the poor starving charter Capn's do for a living all the years that you couldn't catch any rockfish in the bay?

"We're entitled to our share of those fish, and we should catch 'em." 

"What really gets me is while they impose these limitations on OUR fish limits think of how many other States benefit from our States resources."

What has Maryland done for the striped bass popuplation on the east coast, killed a bunch of them in a festering toilet?

Welcome to Ameica, where everybody is ENTITLED, and everybody blames problems on somebody else.


----------



## Dae (Jun 25, 2002)

*Obviously there's a problem that needs to be fixed; or should have been fixed years ago. What did all the poor starving charter Capn's do for a living all the years that you couldn't catch any rockfish in the bay?*

Many went out of business, others went from charter to oysters, crabs, netting, etc... Yes, you do what you have to do to feed your family.

*What has Maryland done for the striped bass popuplation on the east coast, killed a bunch of them in a festering toilet?*

MD closed the the Striped bass fishery for 5 years, Va follow a couple years later. During the spawn, areas are closed to even C&R fishing. Currently, the upper bay where many of these fish spawn, the habitat is getting better and better. There is more bay grasses in the Susquehanna Flats and through the Elk river they many have seen in decades. For some reason, I never run up the North East river. I don't even like to run my boat in the Elk because the grass gets so thick now. 

Getting back to this quota/target/cap thing, The formula for MD's quota was setup prior to the Striped bass being considered fully recovered. And during those years, MD never exceeded this cap. Now, doesn't it make sense that if there are more fish, to be caught, MD would exceed the cap? Also, I think the fishing pressure may be less now then it was a few years ago. The reason is because a major part of DNR's budget comes for the sale of Fishing licenses and there are less and less licenses being sold every year.

BTW, a dead fish is a dead fish, it doesn't make any difference if a fish is killed in NY in July or here in the bay full of roe before it spawns; it will never breed again. So why does it make sense to cap MD's season and not the others? If there's any cap, it should be coast wide. If the stock is fully recovered as they say and the other states don't feel a cap is necessary for themselves, there's no reason for any other area of the fishes range to have a cap of any type.

*Welcome to America, where everybody is ENTITLED, and everybody blames problems on somebody else.*

So True... 


- Dae


----------



## fyremanjef (Feb 17, 2005)

*fish quotas*

Ok I know that there is a way for boaters to log their catches. I caught and kept only one rock last year from the bay. But this was not recorded anywhere. I know that the boaters make up a huge portion of the numbers of rock fish caught, but if they are going to regulate the catches, shouldn't the shore fishermen have to register and tag their catches as well?

Or are the number of fishes landed from shore that low?


----------



## Dae (Jun 25, 2002)

fyremanjef said:


> Ok I know that there is a way for boaters to log their catches. I caught and kept only one rock last year from the bay. But this was not recorded anywhere. I know that the boaters make up a huge portion of the numbers of rock fish caught, but if they are going to regulate the catches, shouldn't the shore fishermen have to register and tag their catches as well?
> 
> Or are the number of fishes landed from shore that low?


There's no requirement for ANY rec fishermen to log their catch. It doesn't make any difference if your on a boat or on shore.

Only Charters are required to log their catch. Commerical fishermen have tags. All fish sold through legal means has to have a tag.

I have no idea if shore catches are low or not, but for the average boat fishermen, the catch rate is probably not to different then a shore fishermen.

I can tell you that until I learned some tricks to boat fishing, I used to catch more fish from shore then from my boat.

These days, I do catch more fish from my boat, but I can tell you, at times, I cover over a 100 miles of water. 

As for keeping Stripers caught on my boat, mind you it's not just me fishing, only 2 were kept for all of '06. When I fished Va in Dec, we kept 10. From those 12 fish, I kept ZERO.

Most boat fishermen I know are primarily C&R fishermen. Maybe it's the company I keep, but it sure does seem strange to me that so many Stripers are taken from the bay during the Trophy season based on their guesstimate. 


- Dae


----------



## Baited Breath (Sep 3, 2006)

*Lots of facts, even more speculation*

Guess we just have to wait and see. In the mean time we must take care of what we have the ability to take care of. 

DNR has some volunteer projects that will have an impact on our bay and the fishery we all want to protect. I am looking at participating in some of the sampling projects for the watershed, at least this in some small way may help bring down the nitrogen levels and allow the water to hold fish again. 

At the same time don't over fertilize your yard, clean up after your dog and look after your septic systems.


----------



## Sandy Meador (Nov 9, 2006)

*My $.02 Worth*

Fisrt of all, I don't fish in MD, I fish VA and OBX. But I feel that the stripers should be regulated up and down the coast the same, no one state should be penalized!

As for the pollution problems, we've got to clean the Bay or we're gonna loose it all. Here in VA we are starting to do our part. I run a wastewater plant in Farmville and we are in the middle of a $2 million upgrade just for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. With only 50% of the upgrades, we have reduced out nitrogen discharge by 66%! 

I can only speak for my small town, but we have a pro-active Town Council and Manager and they are very much into doing what we can to clean the Bay.


----------



## cygnus-x1 (Oct 12, 2005)

Sandy Meador said:


> As for the pollution problems, we've got to clean the Bay or we're gonna loose it all. Here in VA we are starting to do our part. I run a wastewater plant in Farmville and we are in the middle of a $2 million upgrade just for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. With only 50% of the upgrades, we have reduced out nitrogen discharge by 66%!
> 
> I can only speak for my small town, but we have a pro-active Town Council and Manager and they are very much into doing what we can to clean the Bay.


You may be a small town but you all are doing a wonderful thing. That is the point as well ... what we have for teh most part all along the bay and its tributaries are small towns. Now they may not pollute as much as the upper bay big cities but they do contribute. If every town would try and do something it would make a difference.

good job!


----------



## Dae (Jun 25, 2002)

Sandy Meador said:


> Fisrt of all, I don't fish in MD, I fish VA and OBX. But I feel that the stripers should be regulated up and down the coast the same, no one state should be penalized!
> 
> As for the pollution problems, we've got to clean the Bay or we're gonna loose it all. Here in VA we are starting to do our part. I run a wastewater plant in Farmville and we are in the middle of a $2 million upgrade just for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. With only 50% of the upgrades, we have reduced out nitrogen discharge by 66%!
> 
> I can only speak for my small town, but we have a pro-active Town Council and Manager and they are very much into doing what we can to clean the Bay.


Sandy,

Can you tell us what the reason for the upgrade was? Was it to reduce pollutants, it was time to upgrade due to age or was it done in anticipation of further growth?

I'm wondering thing if it was done because of future growth, it only means the cut back is temporary and over all, the area (not just the plant) could be a worse polluter. I'm saying worse because you have to figure in the loss of land to blacktop and all the other gunk we produce in out daily lives from fertilizing the lawn to oil leaks from vehicles on the road.

BTW, up here at the top of the bay in Elkton, they're getting an upgrade to the sewer plant. Although it's going to be cleaner when finish, I feels it won't help with the bay because they are increasing the size due to more land developments that are planned. From my understanding, without the upgrade (increase in capacity), lots of developments on the drawing boards would have been nixed.

- Dae


----------



## Huntsman (Mar 6, 2003)

*Close to the hometown...*

The Farmville City government has all ways been somewhat proactive when it comes to issues of Forestry, Wildlife and Land conservation. I grew up in Campbell County and had friends that lived in Farmville and Appomatox. Great areas for Hunting and fresh water. Plan on tallying up a few acres in the Ville w/ in the next couple of years but we'll see. 

Thx for your input



Sandy Meador said:


> Fisrt of all, I don't fish in MD, I fish VA and OBX. But I feel that the stripers should be regulated up and down the coast the same, no one state should be penalized!
> 
> As for the pollution problems, we've got to clean the Bay or we're gonna loose it all. Here in VA we are starting to do our part. I run a wastewater plant in Farmville and we are in the middle of a $2 million upgrade just for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. With only 50% of the upgrades, we have reduced out nitrogen discharge by 66%!
> 
> I can only speak for my small town, but we have a pro-active Town Council and Manager and they are very much into doing what we can to clean the Bay.


----------



## Sandy Meador (Nov 9, 2006)

*Our upgrade -*

was only for the purpose of reducing our nitrogen and phosphorus discharge. To comply with the new EPA/Ches. Bay regulations that are suppose to go in effect in 2010.

When F'ville built their new plant in 1992-94, the actually hired a firm PRIOR to even drawing the blueprints that did a population/business study. They looked at and projected growth in our community for a 30 yr. future and we built a plant that would exceed capacity for that growth.

At that time, there was no limits on nitrogen or phos. dischages in the Bay watershed. But after all the studies, etc... on the Bay's health and algal blooms the EPA has set forth the required nitrogen and phos. reductions limits. Farmville decided to get on it PRIOR to the new regulations begin to go in effect.

Back in 2002, the Ches. Bay foundation did a study and our plant was rated as second best in the state as far as "removing nitrogen in the Ches. Bay watershed". And we want to continue to be on the top of the list. That is why the powers-to-be decided to get on top of this and utilize the best, up-to-date technology to reduce the nitrogen and phos.! BEFORE it is required!


----------



## Dae (Jun 25, 2002)

Sandy Meador said:


> was only for the purpose of reducing our nitrogen and phosphorus discharge. To comply with the new EPA/Ches. Bay regulations that are suppose to go in effect in 2010.
> 
> When F'ville built their new plant in 1992-94, the actually hired a firm PRIOR to even drawing the blueprints that did a population/business study. They looked at and projected growth in our community for a 30 yr. future and we built a plant that would exceed capacity for that growth.
> 
> ...


That is the way things should be handled! Kudos to Farmville for being proactive!!!

- Dae


----------

