If the striped bass is made a gamefish.....what would be the parameters as far as fishing them? Could recreational fisherman still catch and keep them? Could commercial fisherman still fish them??? Can anyone clue me in, I am curious how gamefish status works!:thanks:

" Gamefish" as a regulatory term means no take by anybody. There is a group (stripers forever) that uses the term as one of its goals. This group is not actually advocating true gamefish status but instead wishes to end commercial fishing and allow a higher level recreational take in the form of liberalizing the rules on the recreational harvest of schoolies. So far this group has not accomplished anything and has failed to even muster a paid membership base.

JB

Bigfish,
The way the term is being used with respect to stripers it means that no sale of the fish would be allowed, as is currently the case in CT and NJ as well as several other states.

So we would be able to catch them and eat them....just not sell them? No commercial fishing at all?:confused:

Zero. No otter trawl, handline, rod-and-reel, octopus pots, Gravity traps, whippy boughs or spring traps, stone walls as tidal weirs, gillnets, fyke nets, fish traps, hoop nets, lampara seines, ritual techniques like scoop baskets, verandah nets, and angling in the air............................................... .........

I think that it is their mission to stop the sale of striped bass. In Florida there is no sale of snook and redfish. They are gamefish only, and if you choose to keep one it has to fall into a slot limit, say 20"--28". Anything under or over gets released.

I signed up for their email news items at the Marlborough show. I realized they were against commercial taking of stripers, but I had no idea their slant was so retsrictive. The guys in the booth got a real charge when I wrote down my aol address, stripedbass@aol.com. With that address I was an instant celebrity. I dont think their cup of tea is for me. Good question Bigfish!

Put yourself in the fishes position and asked yourself, "is it going to be worth eating this?"

my understanding, and i could be wrong, is that gamefish status will also eliminate targeting during the "spawning time slot". i was informed that this would put a closed season roughly until the 1st of June! does anyone have any clarification regarding that?

From the responses that I have seen so far I would have to say that I would not want gamefish status for stripers....sounds more like something the folks at PETA would like!!!:yak:

Most of you have this all wrong. Maine has gamefish status. No commercial fishing. Can keep one fish between 20-26 inches. Log on to stripersforever.org and read for yourself. They are pro-recreational fisherman.

I've not read anything about stripersforever that would lead me to believe they want to restrict recreational fishing in any way.

What does seem clear is that the commercial side is more about politics/money than species management. With all the revenue recreational fishing is capable of generating, it seems to be a nobrainer to me.

-spence

The aim of Stripers Forever is hugely one sided and totally selfish in the fact that they want gamefish status for bass for recreational use only. First recs take way more bass in MA than the commercials. The only reason we know how much the comms take is that they must report thier take. If recs had to it would be a real eye opener. They do not want to have recs report for this reason. Second the light tackle and fly guys are behind this, 90% percent of those guys are novice to the sport and know nothing of it's history. Say it does make it through and the bass become a gamefish. The guides will clean up and make more money than anyone because by making it a gamefish they have the fish still as a resource and they can make money without having to catch and sell them. That in fact makes the fish a commercial product in another way and the guides and Stripers Forever now have that resource captured all for themselves which is what they really want. Don't be fooled. This is a thinly vieled attempt by one user group trying to capture the resource for themselves by making outrageous exagerations. misconceptions and lies.

I haven't sold a fish since 1986. I still support the commercial sale and you all need to know that this attempt is being forwarded by ceratin people who, in the name of conservation, are trying to have it all to themselves. And remenber this, most of the people in that group are novices and most couldn't catch thier ass anyway if thier lives depended on it. Rookies duped by liars is what Stripers Forever is, plain and simple.

Want to help Striped Bass? Sign the petitions to stop the depletion of the bases food sources like Menhaden, herring poaching etc, than you really will be doing something good for the Striped bass.

This sounds like a commercial fisherman's responce. It is one sided. The side of the recreational fisherman. Look at Florida. Would it make sense to have a commercial fishery for snook? They protect their snook like gold. However you still can fish for them'keep them and eat them. It is true that the recreational angler harvests more fish than the commercial guys,but the commercial guys kill about 100,000 fish a year 34" and above in Massachusetts . Let the commercial guys switch to guiding and we will have the best of both worlds.

Who here is a commercial fisherman?

Not me but why?:confused:

This is a case of user group allocation and trying to get the commercial allocation moved to the recs. By nature I think is unfair to exclude the commercials for sake of a "right to claim more fish". I also feel that StripersForever is just being selfish gimme gimme gimme. However, all that said, I think 40 fish per open day is way too friekin much of a take.

Yes, the rec take exceeds the commercial take but the rec group exponentialy exceeds the comm group. And the commercials that bass fish are not going to make a living off bass, purely supplemental in form or another. So in that sense its not a "true commercial" fish.

This always make for good fodder come cabin fever time :)

BF,

The answer to your question depends on verbage and definition. true "gamefish" status is "no-take" period. One hundred per cent catch & release. As has been noted, there are other ways some states have written laws, as has been mentioned in the FLA Snook comments.

The isssues like allocation, public access, aqua farming, tradition & historical use, social value, commercial value and recreational value all come into play in this question.

Then I am against giving stripers "game Fish" status! Thanks for the info, but I would rather keep working at conservation through limiting the take by all than not to be able to harvest a few for recreation and for my table. Those of you who disagree with me then that is your option, but for the 6 or 8 fish I take a year....fisherman like me are not the problem. I also agree it lies with take permitted by commercials, JohnR hit it on the head....40 fish per open day is way too much!:huh: JMO!

Thanks for the input, I just like to be informed on some things. This being one of them.:)

JohnR, I have no idea what your motivations are or who you are affiliated with to state such blatant misinformation. I won't waste my time going into it with you because the facts or many published books and reports. There are many sites on the internet as well. The legal amount of fish allotted may be lower to comms than recs but the kill enormous on the comms side. ENORMOUS.
Here is an example of hundreds if thousands:

From Keith Walters:


UP THE CREEK FRIDAY 3-5-04
"We picked up 11 illegal nets yesterday," a Natural Resources Police (NRP)
officer told me recently. None of the nets had the required buoys marked
with the fisherman's license number, it could be concluded the nets were
illegal, or had been abandoned. Some people call these freed, or lost,
gill nets "Ghost Nets." They have been mostly previously-illegal
monofilament that is more deadly than the old nylon material, and the
now-legal "multi-filament" (two strands make it legal now) material has an
estimated 50-plus year life; it keeps catching and killing for years. This
change from the old nylon net to the deadly twin-strand mono sometimes
called "crystal" due to its clarity in the water, was actively supported
by Pete Jensen in his previous incarnation as Fisheries Director.
After the officer's net confiscation, some people indicated an interest in
buying the illegal nets (back?). The NRP cop I'll call Officer X for good
reasons, couldn't believe the economics of that situation. If someone
admitted ownership, the fine could be as low as $150 to get back a net
costing $300 or so. (Judges often return net to poachers after they pay
their fines, I was told by another officer at headquarters).
"Bidness-wise" that chap better get a job on land; he has no future as a
striper-poacher.
Officer X saw a broken balloon floating on the surface and motored over to
it, thinking it might be a marker like the small corks or tiny floats
poachers use to mark their nets. The balloon was free floating, but X
looked down into the water and saw an unmarked gill net. He and his
partner picked it up, then found another, and another, etc., and
confiscated them, too. After they pulled in several more nets, they went
back to the place they found the first one; X had marked it on his GPS.
They circled around with grappling hooks and - guess what? - more
unbuoyed, unmarked gill net. Some nets were free-floating; others had
anchors. They soon had so much net in the boat they had to proceed to
shore slowly so they wouldn't swamp their small boat.
As we talked, X admitted the NRP has had trouble with state officials
getting poachers off after the officers have made a good case, "Even
testified AGAINST us," another X told me. That is very demoralizing. Your
own bosses testify against you in court after you've worked hard,
sometimes undercover, to make a case.
"We are getting a lot of illegal net," a supervisor told me, "compared
with past years, it's about the same yardage. They [poachers] are not
getting any more honest as time goes by."
No wonder so many NRP officers support the twin bills in the Maryland
Legislature that would meld the NRP and Park Rangers into the Maryland
State Police - to get the politics out.
Will the NRP ever get free of the DNR crook-protectors? I doubt it.
Government agencies rarely give up a piece of their turf without a fight.


If you are not a comm then you must be for the recs. Greed is the only thing comms are about and therefore they must be dealt with a heavy hand as they do with recs. Do you think the last moratorium was do to recs? There are 100 times more rec striper fishermen now than in the early 80s. It was due to bad management and typically greedy business men who influenced government to look the other way and still do. Get with it man or you'll be looking at another moratorium.

Ol'Pajamas....you do not clarify which group you side with, and you do not really give any idea of solution other than your attempt to level "all" of the blame at the commercial fisherman. My belief is that both sides have an equal hand in the problem, and among both groups are those that do not follow the letter of the law. They choose to ignore the rules that are in place that, if followed, would benefit all. As I said, I am not a commercial fisherman, simply someone who goes out to enjoy the resources that have been given to us. A beautiful day or night, on the water, and catching some fish and enjoying myself and occasionally, taking a fish home to enjoy (and as I said, I take very few...that is not to say that others should not be able to take what is allowed them by law). It is those in my belief, that skirt the laws and the rules to turn a quick, dishonest buck. We all see it going on and it is up to us as individuals to let them know that what they do is wrong, set them straight and if need be, turn them in to the environmental police. Though these agencies I believe have their problems, we must work with them to see that people who skirt the laws are held accountable. I was not pleased when the state of Mass. went to a two fish at 28" a day limit, I do not believe anyone has the need to take more fish in a day than they can use. There is much gluttony out there both in the recreational ranks and the commercial industry. People who fish recreationally, In my estimation, many of them believe that since they are allowed to take two fish a day do just that.....and much of it will go to waste. Self-restraint and good catch and release practices and policeing others when we see them do wrong can go a long way to helping the resource remain strong in numbers. I do see many people fill their freezers to overflowing for the winter, and come spring, many of them will dispose of much of what they have not eaten do to freezer burn and just the fact that soon they will be able to stock up with fresh fish. I am hoping in the near future the state of Mass will return to a one fish a day limit at 28 inches. I will always believe that one fish a day is more than anyone needs as it will feed a family of four and still have a few filets for the freezer. Need more, go out and get another but to just keep for the sake of "well the state says I can have two so two is what I will take" is preposterous. Just my own opinion folks, agree to disagree is OK with me. I respect others opinions, that is why I asked this question and I look forward to hearing others thoughts.:kewl:

As far as calling JohnR into question.....you better have all your eggs in one basket before you call him to task. JohnR is far from uninformed and by no means stupid.:huh:

I am a rec and completely behind Stripers Forever. If you know how much pocket lining is done my the comms, you will understand why SF must be hard nosed. Politics and comms are in bed together. The majority is the recs and yet we must obey them. On the issue of stripers, Atlantic menhaden and american eels as well some other marine life I think conservation must come down hard on commercial fishing.

It was recs who brought the last moratorium. It isn't recs who are over fishing bunker. It was recs who virtually eliminated Atlantic Salmon. It was recs who over fished scallops on the south shore of long island. This is their track record. I don't cull stripers, recs do. Recs don't look out for me and so I'm not interested in them. I write the politicos and do what I can to keep the environment in check and in the process I keep small business owners in buisiness with my business and that is far more profitable than the over killing of stripers.

Is it just me or is Ol'Pajamas being a little vague about just about everything? He says he is a 'rec" and then shortly after it seems as if he is leveling his sites at the 'Recs"? :confused: Is it just me guys or is Ol'Pajamas talkin' in circles?:huh:

I don't mean to sound insulting OP but you are jumping from one boat (issue) to another so fast that I do not really know what it is you are trying to say?:confused:

I think Maine has it correct. No commercial fishing for stripers. Keep one fish a day between 20-26 inches. Everyone knows the smaller fish are better to eat. Plus you probably could catch dinner in a very short time fishing. When we are talking about a migratory fish it make no sense to have one state allow commercial fishing like Mass. and then another state protect them.

Doesn't Maine let you keep a fish over 40 inches?

I thought it was 1 fish 22-26 inches or 1 fish over 40 inches.

yes that is correct. I am assuming most people are not going to easily catch a 40 plus

Wow. It is truly amazing (and scary) how gullable members of Stripers Forever can be.

Ol Pajamas, I'm sorry to have to point this out to you and all of the other Brad Burns groupies out there but the article you posted makes a collasal leap to assuming the nets were set for stripers (there are other fish in the sea) All it really said was that there are presumably illegal gill nets set in the water.

Now I don't think that you will get an argument from anyone that this sort of practice (assuming it is true) is loathful and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent to the law (ditto for rec offenses)

However, to somehow make a connection that this activity is leading to "enormous kill" of stripers is yet another misleading and irresponsible attempt by Stripers Forever to make a case against commercial harvest of striped bass when they simply do not have real facts to make their case.

Further more even if striped bass were the target fish of these netters then these fish would still go against the commercial quota whne they were sold at shore. In other words, this would only affect other commercial fishermen by forcing the price down for stripers and closing the season earlier than expected.

Ol Pajamas, please review the following graph and when you're done wincing please explain to me again why commercial fishermen are the single greatest threat to striped bass (please try to include pertinent facts if possible).

Also, I may be going out on a limb here but I think that maybe this is the sort of thing that JohnR had in mind when he said that Stripers Forever was all about "gimme gimme gimme".

I agree. What a shame too because instead of focusing effort into sustainable uses, Stripers Forever only seeks sole uses. That Sir, by another name is truly called - greed.

Sincerely,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

P.S.
That's my real name what's yours?

Originally posted by spence
I've not read anything about stripersforever that would lead me to believe they want to restrict recreational fishing in any way.


Spence, Stripers Forever wants to keep the EEZ closed even though there is no science to support its continued closure (stripers fully recovered since 1995 and now very abundant). They claim that they want to keep it closed so that commercial fishermen won't have more waters available to them to fish.

What Stripers Forever doesn't tell you is that a closed EEZ is closed to both commercial and recreational fishermen.

I was going to point out the same fact to Ol' Pajamas about the fact that there were simply "nets" in the water, but I felt that given the total mis-direction of his message, and the fact that he kept jumping from, as I said earlier, "one boat to another", I thought I would let it lie. Thanks for bringing it up though, I did enjoy your message. I do believe that Ol' Pajamas is not really fully informed on any of the issues, from either side of the fence. He is just simply spouting out whatever "Stripers Forever" has surgically implanted in his head!:bl: :hihi: :laugha: I wish you guys could see me right now....I am laughing my butt off after reading Flatts1's response and I got tears running down my face from laughing so hard!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Unless you trade in that "Barney Fife one bullet pistol" and get your hands on a "Rambo machine gun" Flatts1 has you out-gunned Ol' Pajamas so you better go re-arm with credible weaponry and get some facts.:rocketem:

I gotta go wipe away the tears now!:laugha:

A few comments,

The last completed survey of MA Rec landings gives the number of fish (keepers) per individual, not per trip at .05 person per year. The average person who fishes for striped bass harvests 1/2 a fish per year. Even with this small number, the Rec harvest is massive.

The MA Commercial quota is a Hard TAC (total allowable Catch)...John R, I agree that 40 fish per day is high but records available to the public showed to the MA SB Advisory panel in 2002-2003 showed less thatn 10 40 fish landings two years ago. Many of these boarts taking 40 fish are splitting the catch between 3 or 4 licenses.

Inside info is that MA will take a hard look at 10 fish on Sunday (to prevcent front loading or stacking fish) and 20 fish the rest of the four open days. This will help to stabilize the price, but wether it is 40 fish or 10 fish, the quota closes and the TAC will not change.

MA is the only state that has a 100% rod & reel commercial fishery...part of the confusion around how the Commercial take of Striped Bass is handled is due to the fact that down Carolina way there is a more traditional commercial effort on the fish (nets, draggers, etc.)

2 fish at 28" is the standard set by the ASMFC (governing Management body) and is here to stay for a while.

Interesting FACTS from 2002 (the most recent I could find). Check out how bad us recs mangle our catch!! Yikes!

During 2002, the commercial fishery for striped bass in Massachusetts harvested about 44,897 fish weighing 924,870 pounds.
Total losses due to commercial harvesting (including release mortality) were 54,128 fish weighing 1,011,283 pounds.
The recreational fishery harvested about 309,582 striped bass weighing over 4.3 million pounds.
Total losses due to recreational fishing (including release mortality) were 767,114 fish weighing 8.2 million pounds.
The majority of losses, 93% by number and 89% by weight, was attributed to the recreational fishery.

Above taken from 2002 Massachusetts Striped Bass Monitoring Report (Nelson 2003).

I am not in support of gamefish status.

I cant believe that there are so many fisherman who disagree with what stripers forever is in favor of. Log on to their website stripersforever.org then decide. Is Maine wrong making the sriper a gamefish? That is the question. Is Mass. right not making it a gamefish?

Originally posted by flatts1
Spence, Stripers Forever wants to keep the EEZ closed even though there is no science to support its continued closure (stripers fully recovered since 1995 and now very abundant). They claim that they want to keep it closed so that commercial fishermen won't have more waters available to them to fish.

What Stripers Forever doesn't tell you is that a closed EEZ is closed to both commercial and recreational fishermen.

Keeping something closed that has proven successful isn't a new restriction in my book.

For all the numbers that show the stock is fully recoverd, there is also a lot of evidence that shows looming problems. We won't have a genuine healthy stock until we address forage, pollution and spawning ground issues as well.

Originally posted by flatts1
Further more even if striped bass were the target fish of these netters then these fish would still go against the commercial quota whne they were sold at shore. In other words, this would only affect other commercial fishermen by forcing the price down for stripers and closing the season earlier than expected.

How many fishermen try to sell poached fish legally? Chances are they don't, and they don't come off the comm quota. We just had a boat down the road get busted this summer for selling 30,000 pounds. How many times didn't they get caught? How many other boats are doing this?

I fully understand that recs take more fish than the comms, but that's not the real issue. The potential impact to individual state's revenue is much larger than a limited comm take could ever produce. The notion by Flaptail above that gamefish status is a tool so fishing guides can make out is ridiculous. Will they do better, most likely...but the benefits to all related recreational fishing markets are much broader.

It doesn't seem like the commercial fleet is eager to change, but change is just what is needed to balance a traditional industry with today's necessary environmental and management standards.

-spence

Spence
Re:"It doesn't seem like the commercial fleet is eager to change, but change is just what is needed to balance a traditional industry with today's necessary environmental and management standards"

Spunds like just another anti-commercial fisherman to me. Blame them for all the problems and while we squabble amount ourselve Pew will get the whole ocean closed for all of us.

Originally posted by MakoMike
Spunds like just another anti-commercial fisherman to me. Blame them for all the problems and while we squabble amount ourselve Pew will get the whole ocean closed for all of us. [/B]
Standard response. Because I'm critical I must be anti-commercial right?

What's Pew?

-spence

Ohhhh so many posts so little time - Ol PJ's, I am a RECREATIONAL angler that has never sold a bass and unless something drastically were to change with the fishery and we had ten times as many as today, I have no intention of doing so either. I have never sold a fish that I caught and I keep less than a dozen fish per year.

What I have done is participated in fisheries meetings for the past 7 or 8 years. I look at the data and try to make an unemotional response that is reasonably good for the sport AND the fish.

I also believe in being not an exclusionist. Many of the issues we have today is that one group tries to exclude another. When the Sierra Club tries to remove all offroading at say CCNS instead of a balance management plan and balanced regs, they are attempting to EXCLUDE guys like you and me and some bird watchers from getting an OSV permit and taking our vehicles on the beach. When someone like the Ocean Conservancy excludes anglers from fishing in the Cali Channel Islands (or eventually here - and it is coming folks - don't kid yourselves) that is a case of one group EXCLUDING another. When any one user group attempts to remove another user group, I have a problem with it. In my opinion it becomes self serving to try to remove one group for access to a fish when it will likely benefit another.

As for whether the bass have truly recovered? That's debatable. It can surely be considered recovered when it has filled out its year classes in addition to just biomass et all.

I fought against two fish for recs AND increasing the quota for comms in mass. I fight for reduction of netting of menhaden and herring and forage fish. I voice my opinion for effective management of a resource, not excluding one group out of it. Yes, I would like to see a decrease in the TAC for commercials and I'd also like to see a reduction for recs.

To me, I'd like to see striper bycatch go against the commercial quota and be sold, not thrown overboard. I think that is fair and equitable. Sucks, but I'm not bycatching bass. If I do catch and release a bass, I try very hard to release it safely, some will still die no matter what. Anyone that says they release every fish they catch and every single one lives is still full of crap or delusional - some will still die. Sad but true... But I digress.

So maybe you can say I have an axe to grind - yeh maybe, but its not petty enough to be at the expense of another user group. It's about balance and fairness AND the fish.

Now without being accusatory, let the debate continue :D

Spence,
In thses parts about 60% of the commercial abss catch is on rod & reel and other 40% is gillnets, not what do you want to change that would make things any better? Being critical of the industry is easy and mostly a knee jerk reaction. How about some specifics?

Originally posted by MakoMike
Spence,
In thses parts about 60% of the commercial abss catch is on rod & reel and other 40% is gillnets, not what do you want to change that would make things any better? Being critical of the industry is easy and mostly a knee jerk reaction. How about some specifics?
I don't think I've said anything without thinking about it first. I'm not very knee-jerk...

As for what would I change...I'd start managing the ocean as an ecosystem rather than this absurd idea you can just pick a single species out and increase/decrease the load based on some prediction model.

Stripers are somewhat unique as they are one of the few large fish that can be caught from, or close to shore in the northeast. They seem to have a much larger value to the recreational industry than to a limited commercial catch and it's clear they can barely sustain limited recreational and commercial quotas. Given this I'd make them a gamefish and go for healthy stocks and good revenue for the states from recreational fishing.

I'm not anti-commercial by the way. I appreciate the fact that people are willing to do a dangerous job so I can buy my stick sword for the grill.

But I also believe that if left unchecked commercial fleets will wipe the oceans clean. For sure there are good comms that follow the rules, and management has had a big impact in the US. But the rules the comms have to follow seem to be based more on negotiated tactical settlements with no strategic endgame. Each group is pushed more to the extreme because they are afraid of loosing everything.

That's why I think we need big change in how we fish. Just my opinion of course...I grew up in Iowa and have little saltwater heritage. My view is that of the outsider.

-spence

Originally posted by spence


They seem to have a much larger value to the recreational industry than to a limited commercial catch and it's clear they can barely sustain limited recreational and commercial quotas. Given this I'd make them a gamefish and go for healthy stocks and good revenue for the states from recreational fishing.



Those are two mighty big assumptions that the scientists that study this stuff wouldn't agree with. Plus, the folks that are pushing for gamefish status don't want the catch reduced, they just want recreational fishermen to do all the killing.

Spence is absolutely correct about the recreational striped bass fishing economic impact -v- the economic impact of commercial fishing for stripers - its not even close. From a purely economic generation standpoint.

As for making it a gamefish, it wouldn't be bad but it would still - IMO - be a case of user reallocation. You can achieve the same biomass and yield goals with effective management (it ain't too bad right now) AND, probably more importantly, a recovery of the forage fish.

Then there would be room for both comms & recs and you'd have healthier stocks than just bass...

But just my opinion :doh:

Originally posted by MakoMike
Those are two mighty big assumptions that the scientists that study this stuff wouldn't agree with.
That's part of the problem. Scientists really can't agree on the health of the species. I've read many articles that state both sides well, though there is enough room for doubt that I'm not convinced.

As for the economic impact, it's a non argument. I'd go dig up the numbers if I didn't have dinner to make :smash:

-spence

Originally posted by 'ol pajamas
I am a rec and completely behind Stripers Forever. If you know how much pocket lining is done my the comms, you will understand why SF must be hard nosed. Politics and comms are in bed together. The majority is the recs and yet we must obey them. On the issue of stripers, Atlantic menhaden and american eels as well some other marine life I think conservation must come down hard on commercial fishing.

It was recs who brought the last moratorium. It isn't recs who are over fishing bunker. It was recs who virtually eliminated Atlantic Salmon. It was recs who over fished scallops on the south shore of long island. This is their track record. I don't cull stripers, recs do. Recs don't look out for me and so I'm not interested in them. I write the politicos and do what I can to keep the environment in check and in the process I keep small business owners in buisiness with my business and that is far more profitable than the over killing of stripers.

This sounds alot like a voice from yesteryear!:confused:

Sorry about my sloppy earlier post. I stated rec in in certain instances where comm should have been used.

I would like to add cod and pollock to the Hall of Shame of government and comm fishing success stories.

Ol PJ,
So you put scallopers, draggers, gillnetters and pinhookers, trap fishermen etc. all inthe same basket? No commercial is a good commercial and all recs are saints?
Spence & John,
Yes, recreational fishing for stiped bass generates more economic activity than commercial fishing. OTOH the recreational catch of stripers is more than double the commercial catch. If we are going to analyze it in strictly economic terms we have to measure economic acitivty per pound of fish, or something similar. Now how small would the rec. catch have to be before people would stop fishing for them? On the other side of the coin, will increasing the recreational catch result in more economic activity or is it maxed out already? It would take a major economic study to answer those questions and no ones really knows the answers right now. No one knows what the marginal econonomic aciticty will be for an additonal pound of stripes caught by either sector. So any speculating that increasing the recreational catch would be economically more beneficial than leaving the current catch with the commercials is just pure B.S.

It doesn't matter if recs aren't saints. I want the POWER. I don't want the coms and government to have it. What is so difficult about that concept. Why is there such a difference between NJ and NY recommended intake of Hudson River stripers? Because NY is commercial and NJ isn't. It's the same river. NY chooses to possibly poison their citizens in order to support the comms.

It's not about who is right or who is wrong it is about power.

OPJ,
I have a hot flash for you, there is no commercial striper fishing in the Hudson river. So its only your bias showing through.

Great thread and posts. After reading everything it seems like we're all, rec's and comm, are missing the real problem, the root of it all. It seems like if you get right down to it, there'd be plenty of Stripers to go around for both sides if certain restrictions were enforced or better yet created on the striped bass' feed. To many times I've seen poachers pulling 5 gallon bucket after bucket at hidden herring runs and if I'm not mistaken didn't Mass last year or the year before allow some Russian fleet to come in and take some un-goddly amount of herring and menhaden from our waters?? Sorry for not being as up on the politics as you fellas, but I thought I'd throw this out there as my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
Also, look at the decline on the length to weight ratio with regard to the Striper. It used to be and inch equaled a pound, not anymore and why? Is it less baitfish in the waters? Stress levels, poaching of young fish that havent had time to reproduce????

There's commericial fishing in NY smarty pants and I am biased. This is politics.

I thought all of the Hudson River was catch and release?????:confused: Could be I am wrong, anyone know for sure?:huh:

I striper a day over 18".

No commercial though right???:confused:

the economic impact of Recrational fishing for Striped Bass far exceeds that of Commercial fishing for Striped Bass. Bass for commercial fishing is not a staple bread winner but a time limited side game that few regular comms particpate in. Many of the "commercial" rod & reelers are in fact recs with the comm license for bass fishing. Also where it is rod & reel most often and not damaging to an ecosystem, I feel that it is not "bad" (comm striper fishing) as long as regulations are adhered to and that these regulations have built in triggers to protect the stocks should they decline. Again, the bigger issue is the forage fish... Also penaltys should be far stiffer for those that break the law - comm & rec.

Ol PJ - you want power? Did you get your meds in on time? You want power, so you want to be judge and jury and determine who gets allocation, right? WTH does that have to do with protecting the fish?

Both parties ruined the stocks the last time and both parties suffered thru moratoriums and regs til they came back. I remember being a kid on the Chesapeke filling buckets of "rock" because we didn't know any better and nobody else did either. Things should be alot different these days and the stock should not collapse due to over fishing - might due to health and lack of forage but not overfishing as the rules are in place already to protect that.

Hotfish - you're correct - forage fish are the red headed step child in this equation.

Well here we go again!! Every one fighting over who gets the fishing rights!!

There is good and bad on both sides!!

And as far DMF goes, they did a good job of getting the fish back!!
But they have no idea on how to keep it good!! They don't want to say no to the commercials and they don't want to say no the recreactional !!
But they need to adress some concerns and take acation!! They can't be concerned for eaither!! They need to think about the fishery and what is good for it!! Not for us!

And we Comm. and Rec. should shut up and thank god for what we now have!! Come toghter and find a middle ground, and see what we all can do toghter to keep the fishery alive and well.

Till this happens we will NEVER have a Great Fishery!! This goes for all fish! Not Just Bass.

Originally posted by MakoMike
Spence & John,
Yes, recreational fishing for stiped bass generates more economic activity than commercial fishing. OTOH the recreational catch of stripers is more than double the commercial catch. If we are going to analyze it in strictly economic terms we have to measure economic acitivty per pound of fish, or something similar.
...snip...
No one knows what the marginal econonomic aciticty will be for an additonal pound of stripes caught by either sector. So any speculating that increasing the recreational catch would be economically more beneficial than leaving the current catch with the commercials is just pure B.S. [/B]
I don't think anyone here ever speculated that there was a linear relationship between the rec quota and revenue generation. For sure there is a lower cut off where the rec industry would go entirely underground. There is also a high cut off where the rec market is maxed. The key here isn't increasing rec quotas, it's maintaining a healthy species to ensure the rec industry can be sustained. It's quite possible that max rec revenue would require lower rec quotas to be sustainable. I would have no issue with that.

If recs were near or at their max revenue capacity, and they were consuming a minority of the fish things may be different. But it's clear that the recs already consume the majority of the fish. So what's the economic impact of allowing a commercial harvest that must be tightly regulated to mitigate the potential risk?

To me it appears that the economic impact of commercial striper fishing is minimal and doesn't represent a significant value justification to warrant a commercial catch which has the potential to upset the recreational benefits.

-spence

Originally posted by spence
The key here isn't increasing rec quotas, it's maintaining a healthy species to ensure the rec industry can be sustained.
So what's the economic impact of allowing a commercial harvest that must be tightly regulated to mitigate the potential risk?

To me it appears that the economic impact of commercial striper fishing is minimal and doesn't represent a significant value justification to warrant a commercial catch which has the potential to upset the recreational benefits.

-spence

Spence several points. First stipers forever, the organization behind the push to make stripers a game fish is entirely about increasing rec quotas. Their agenda is to eliminate commercial fishing so that the recs can kill more.
Secondly, whatever the economic impact of the commercial fishing, its incremental to the economic impact of the recreational fishery, and I seriously doubt that its minimal. If it truly were minimal why would recreational fishermen care about the few measley fish the commercials catch?
Third, although uncontrolled commercial catch might affect the recreational fishery, no one is advocating that. What we have now is a tightly controlled commercial fishery which is not affecting, and under the rules of the ASMFC can't affect the recreational fishery.
To me it doesn't make any sense and is unfair to make stripers a gamefish.

Originally posted by MakoMike
Spence several points. First stipers forever, the organization behind the push to make stripers a game fish is entirely about increasing rec quotas. Their agenda is to eliminate commercial fishing so that the recs can kill more.

That certainly is a biased and spun opinion. Gamefish status would increase rec quotas as a % of the entire quota, but doesn't necessarily have any impact on the total number of fish killed.

Secondly, whatever the economic impact of the commercial fishing, its incremental to the economic impact of the recreational fishery, and I seriously doubt that its minimal. If it truly were minimal why would recreational fishermen care about the few measley fish the commercials catch?

The economic impact of both fisheries are only connected in that one could make the other unviable. Rec fisherman care about the commercial take because it has the potential to harm the entire rec industry. As we have discussed, this has a much greater economic impact.

Third, although uncontrolled commercial catch might affect the recreational fishery, no one is advocating that. What we have now is a tightly controlled commercial fishery which is not affecting, and under the rules of the ASMFC can't affect the recreational fishery.
To me it doesn't make any sense and is unfair to make stripers a gamefish.
It's not affecting the rec industry today because of extreme measures that have been required due to commercial excess. Granted we have learned a lot and manage much better than in the past, but until issues such as bycatch, poaching, upgrading, forage, pollution etc...are addressed, it's not as simple as a yearly take.

I do believe many of the current rules limit a commercial fisherman's ability to best fish the ocean. That's why I think we need more comprehensive eco minded management, which is a bit beyond the whole gamefish thing...but that's another story.

Oh, and as a footnote. I agree Stripers Forever does mislead people as a tactic. This is evident in the Capt. James White article in this months RISAA newsletter. I plan to write a response to the editor...

-spence

That could not be more false. Are you trying to say they want 3 fish a day in Mass at 28 inches. for the recreational angler. The limit is currently 2 aday I wish it was one. I love these conspiracy theories. You have to look at other states and look at the big picture. We all want better fishing for stripers. The big issue is not the numbers the comercials take I think its the political influence they have. The recreational angler has no voice in most of these discussions. For example I am completely against having a saltwater fishing liscence but most other states have them and the money can be used to benefit the recreat. I am an outsider not from the North East originally. I think the fishing here is the best in the world better than Alaska. I am totally amazed at how many people think a striper should not have gamefish status. I think alot of people take the striped bass for granted.

Spence,

Re;"It's not affecting the rec industry today because of extreme measures that have been required due to commercial excess. Granted we have learned a lot and manage much better than in the past, but until issues such as bycatch, poaching, upgrading, forage, pollution etc...are addressed, it's not as simple as a yearly take."

Just to point out he obvious, makeing them a game fish will have zero effect on bycatch, poaching, forage, pollution etc.

Care to elaborate on what these "extreme measures" are?

Originally posted by MakoMike
Just to point out he obvious, makeing them a game fish will have zero effect on bycatch, poaching, forage, pollution etc.

Care to elaborate on what these "extreme measures" are? [/B]
I agree, that's why I've repeated several times we need a more encompassing management strategy. But even with strict enforcement, all the above have a large impact.

By extreme measures I'm referring to the fishing restrictions put in place in the 80's. Like taking the commercial harvest down to nearly zero.

-spence

Spence,
Just to make sure I have this straight. You agree that all of the problems you listed wouldn't be affected by making sptripers a gamefish. You also agree that, though extreme measures were required in the 80s they are not required today. Have I got that right?

Then why the hell do want to make them a gamefish?

To protect from commercial encroachment. I don't believe the comms will be happy with a minimal quota if the stocks appear healthy. It would be too easy for the balance to be upset and for the recreational industry to be hurt.

On second thought I don't agree with what you had said above. Chances are game-fish status would help deter poaching, up grading as well are making protection measures easier to pass.

-spence

I am all for gamefish status 2 fish a day at 28" and no sale of bass. Just last year in Rhody a boat got caught with I forget how many lbs of illegally stripers. If it became a gamefish maybe things like this would not happen as often. I don't think there is a big demand on the open market for stripers anyways so why not end the selling of bass. It's not like you can buy it at the supermarket or your average restaurant.

I guess its time to weigh in here as a representative of Stripers Forever. Some folks, commercial fishermen, mostly, are quick to label the growing push for game fish status for stripers as simply a quota grab by the recreationals at the expense of the long suffering commercials. I will pay a reward from my own pocket to anyone who can find any statement or recommendation from Stripers Forever that the commercial quota be just dumped into the recreational basket.
In fact, here is the excerpt from our discussion of our fall fishing survey addressing that very issue:

Of the 341 surveys that we recorded, only 1 person wanted to shift the entire commercial catch into an increased public bag limit. On average, recreational fishermen wanted to put 75% of the current commercial quota into expanding the conservation buffer, rather than just switch those fish to recreational harvest as our detractors claim. We would add that we would save even more fish by stopping commercial fishing because the illegal cash sales of striped bass would dry up very quickly once commercial fishing was halted and the sale of all wild bass made illegal.

The entire survey is available on our website.
Stripers Forever, as an organization, is barely one year old. Our only goal is to end commercial fishing for stripers. There are other important factors threatening the health of the striper fishery, but none that will have the immediate beneficial impact of the removal of the price on the head of marone saxatilis (striped bass).
We have no "official" position on what the recreational bag limit should be. Most of our members seem to feel it should be lowered from current levels, and from a personal standpoint, I agree with that. We have no "official" position on the harvest of fish in mid-spawn, although I personally despise the practice. We have no "official" position on the over fishing of bunker in Chesapeake Bay, although I personally think it must be ended.
We took what looked to be an "official" position on the matter of opening the EEZ to striper fishing when we opposed it at NMFS scoping meetings. We opposed it because we want to end the commercial harvest of stripers altogether, not to enlarge the area in which they may be harvested. If stripers were already gamefish, we would not have opposed the opening of the EEZ to recreational anglers.
We recognize that there are abusive and illegal practices engaged in by recreational anglers as well as commercial fishermen, and we look forward to the increased pressure that will be brought to bear on both groups when gamefish status has been achieved.
Our definition of Gamefish for striped bass is :no commercial sales of wild striped bass. Period. The same deal as redfish get in the Gulf states and Florida. Aquaculture already produces 12 million pounds of striped bass (hybrid) and we've been assured by industry reps that they could double that production in a year. The total (reported) commercial catch in 2003 was less than 10 million pounds, although unreported sales and bycatch would make that number significantly higher.
So, someone from the other side will jump in here with NMFS numbers about how many fish are already killed by the recreational anglers and how few are killed by the comms, and all that crap about "user groups" yada, yada, yada. It's really pretty simple though. The interests of 3 million tax-paying recreational anglers versus the interests of a (very) few thousand commercial folks, most of them looking for beer, eel and gas money.
We see real problems developing with the fishery right now. Skinny fish....sick fish...fish locally abundant but totally absent in other spots. It feels like the late 70's to a lot of old hands. Let's hope we don't have to ride the striper elevator all the way to the bottom again this time.

DeputyDog
aka George Watson
Stripers Forever

Well said: I think the comparison to the redfish is a good point. Some people need to travel to other places in order to get a better view of conservaton. The redfish is legendary in the south but the striped bass is probably the greatest fish of them all because you dont need a boat to catch them plus the topwater element and the size. However the redfish is protected at a higher level. Does that make sense to anyone? Not me