Four meetings down, nine to go.
That much we know about the Task Force on Fisheries Management after its get-together Tuesday night.
As the ice storm raged outside, representatives of conservation groups, recreational and commercial fishermen, guides and the charter boat industry, spent four hours in an Annapolis ballroom, much of it refighting the Hundred Years War of past slights and grievances.
The General Assembly charged the task force to: "Oversee a full review of current fishery management processes and develop recommendations for methods to improve, modernize and streamline fishery management" and to advise the General Assembly how to accomplish those goals during the 2009 and 2010 sessions.
But how the group is going to get there before the Dec. 1 deadline is as clear as the Susquehanna Flats during spring runoff.
Chairman Tom Lewis was wise to let everyone say his piece Tuesday, even though it was, as one observer said, "painful." A wild-eyed optimist might have likened it to the sorbet served as a palette cleanser before the main course at a fancy restaurant.
(An aside: It was really heartening to see about 15 Fisheries Service staffers show up on a lousy night on their own time to follow the proceedings. No one acknowledged or thanked them, even though it will fall to them to make the task force findings work.)
Now it's on to the main course - picking out those things everyone agrees must be improved and advising lawmakers how to accomplish them.
My score sheet shows a number of areas of common ground, among them are plain-language regulations, stronger law enforcement, more comprehensive stock assessments (how many fish, how big, where they are) and biologists to do the work, more access to the water.
It involves heavy lifting and putting aside the "he was mean to me" whining of Tuesday night.
Task force member Sherman Baynard said as much when he asked his colleagues to stick to the General Assembly's charge and avoid fighting old battles.
"If this group falls into that trap," he said, "we could be here for the rest of our lives."
Sorry, wrong number
Two state lawmakers have offered a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Delegates Barbara Frush and Virginia Clagett have introduced a bill to make it illegal for the Department of Natural Resources to issue a hunting license to anyone under 13. The hearing on HB 655 before the House Environmental Matters Committee is Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.
Why 13? Dunno. Certainly, facts have nothing to do with it.
It is true that national statistics show that youths under 19 are disproportionately involved in hunting mishaps, including self-inflicted injuries and deaths.
But in 2006, the most recent year Maryland Natural Resources Police has statistics, of the six reported mishaps - all nonfatal - just one involved a hunter under the age of 19.
The other five involved guys in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.
Watch out, fellas: Frush, who represents Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, and Clagett, whose territory is contained in Anne Arundel, might target you next.
A check of other years shows a similar nonalarming pattern. The last fatal accident involving someone under 13 was in 2003. That tragedy was the fault of the boy's father, who never instructed him properly, didn't take him to the mandatory state hunter safety course and handed his unlicensed, 10-year-old son a faulty crossbow.
Each year, more than 7,000 Marylanders, including children, take the safety course taught by certified instructors.
While 20 states have a minimum age of 12 or older, 30 states - including Maryland - allow youth hunting after certain requirements are met, such as completing a hunter safety course and being accompanied by an adult.
So what makes 13 the magic age?
Why not ask Frush and Clagett yourself? You can send them an e-mail through the General Assembly Web site: mlis.state.md.us.
Hit the paws button
Once again in Annapolis, we have the battling bruin bills.
One would place an immediate ban on black bear hunting in Maryland.
The other would ensure that every county has bears by October 2015.
Both bills will be heard at the same hearing as the hunting-age bill. If we are lucky, all three of them will disappear into a desk drawer.
The measure to give every county its own bear community is the tongue-in-cheek work of Western Maryland lawmakers who have grown sick and tired of busybodies from the mighty Baltimore-Washington suburbs and their we-know-best attitude.
It was funny once, gang. Now grow up and act like lawmakers.
The same could be said of the anti-hunting bill, another effort by Frush. Her attempts failed in 2003 and 2004. In 2006, her bill never got out of the Environmental Matters Committee.
Maryland wildlife managers have supervised four black bear hunts since the lifting of a 51-year moratorium in 2004. They have invested serious manpower in tracking and monitoring the bear population, work that was paid for by hunting license fees.
Frush's bill contains not a single nickel to continue those studies. Funny, isn't it, that "Care Bear" Frush doesn't put her money where her mouth is.
Actually, it's pathetic.
candy.thomson@baltsun.com