Relief on the way after Red Tide

Wow... more bailouts, that's just what we need.

Opportunists scoop up things out of the ocean that people like to eat--and when those things they're scooping disappear, that makes the scoopers entitled to bailouts? Give me a break!

Let me keep my tax money so I can spend it where I want rather than waste it on more BAILOUTS!!

Red Tide is a naturally occurring annual event NOT a disaster.

No more BAILOUTS!! No more CORPORATE WELFARE. Reform all welfare!!

Part of New England's tourism appeal includes a nice plate of fried clams on a Summer day. The hard working shellfishermen deserve help when a 'Red Tide' hits, because they help provide a delicious, unique meal for people who live in and visit the region.

if you think that money is bailing out any fisherman, you should check your facts and see how that money is distributed. I want my fish fresh, and if my taxes pay to keep a person working on the water in a dayboat, or on the tidal flats, I'm happy to do so. There's something in it for me. I want them to continue fishing in a sustainable way so I can continue to get harvest from the sea.

I don't think "relief" constitutes a bailout. Fishermen suffer as a result of a natural disaster. Bailouts for corporate marauders are the result of greed alone.

Do either of you realize how much revenue shellfishing brings to the state of Massachusetts, over $20 million a year! The shellfish never disappeared, shellfishermen could not harvest them because they contained high amounts of toxin from the red tide algal blooms. If you were to eat the shellfish during a red tide closure you could get very sick. The people eligible for this relief are very hard working individuals not fat cats from Wall Street who try to screw the system any way they can to make a profit. This relief money is well deserved for all the families affected by the red tide which closed shellfish beds for two months this past summer.

If you would like to help stop "red tide" from happening, start by scooping up your dogs poo, stop fertilizing your lawns and help you local watershed association figure out better ways to stop runoff from the land. Extra nutrients in the water help feed these little critters which then repruduce into more and more until the numbers are out of control. If we eliminate the amount of nutrients that flow into our watersheds, this problem might be solved over time. I am a shellfisherman/ aquaculturarlist, when red tide hits, I get layed off for 6-9 weeks. Its not a bailout, it is a way to insure families can survive in these tough times.

I am a northshore (Mass) clammer. The assistance is appreciated. A little rambling backround--money allocated to massachusets for relief of red tide disaster spring of '05 was not given to affected business men until fall of '07. And only after the state skimmed $200,000.00 for themsevles, so I do understand some of the outrage. For a $200,000 "sevice fee" it would be nice to see a little $$$ sooner. The average affected individual recieved some number over $2K. Not a whole lot for ten weeks of lost pay. Four of the ten weeks were probable caused by governmental inefficiencies. We lost the same four weeks this time around too! There had not been a red tide since the early 70's--now we've had 3 in 4 years. The state and fed were not forthcomming with information until this year when threaten with legal action. We did get info regarding red tide "counts" in different areas--this indicated some areas were closed when offcials had no cause at the time. The previous red tides '05 and '06 we were closed essentially because they said so with no or little information. I can't understand how the large processor of our clams can make multi-million dollar bets by freezing thousands of gallons of clams during the offseason. No red tide in 30+ years, now we get one practically every year--producer has plenty of frozen supply--a little light on this issue I'll bet a lot of bugs would scatter.

Dear blog sensor, this was my first ever attempt at blogging--i was incorrect the state did only withhold an amount undisclosed north of 100K. It is unfortunate you have chosen not to post an opinion of someone who actualy has knowledge of the issue.