... and this has been briefly covered before...

Do you think there have been too many large fish caught and not released lately? I know that many here have kept one or two, sometimes by necessity. But I'm seeing a whole load more of big fish getting weighed in at shops over the passed months(certainly in the mass shops)... Have I had one too many turns on the peace pipe as of late (I really don't do that)?

Right now , Mass commercial fisherman are taking the breeding stock out of the fishery. In a couple of years they'll want to lower the limit again.

I have some friends who fish commercially in MA. They follow the rules very strictly so you can't blame them but yesterday , one of them caught and sold more fish over 40 inches than I will catch and release in that size range in the next 5 years. These are law abiding people. The laws need to be changed.

I don't think one can say "now" as opposed to "before".

In my fishing career I've met anglers (surf and boat) who claim to have taken upwards of a dozen 40-50# fish a year. Even if they are only half truthful that's still a lot more than many guys get in a life time.

I'm not begrudging them their catch. Merely saying the taking of large numbers of big fish by a relatively small number of anglers (compared to the total angling population) isn't new. It could be that now more than before that was a problem for the survival of the stocks. But I think we just hear about it more today than before.

Gee I would be happy with just one 40+lb fish!

I think that too many fish in the 30-42 inch range are being kept throughout New England. As stated before, these people are simply taking advantage of what the law allows. There are more people striper fishing today than there were in years past. Many novice anglers take the term "keeper" literally. If I had a commercial license in Mass, I could have made about 250 bucks for a night of fishing Monday. The laws need to be changed and based on good research, not the wants of the rod and reel commercials and the charter captains.

The following is an excerpt from another fishing site. I'm not in the habit of posting such things, but in this case, it does have some interesting "discoveries".

"scientists are discovering more startling effects: According to a study being carried out by the National Marine Fisheries in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, overfishing is making fish smaller. As more and more larger fish are removed from waters with increasingly sophisticated fishing gear, the majority of fish left to breed are the smaller fish that are able to slip through the nets. The study also points out a potentially dangerous evolutionary trend: younger fish are maturing earlier, in turn producing some offspring that are both small and programmed to be young mothers. As reports the Boston Globe (7/15/01), a case in point is Boston haddock. In the 1960s, most haddock matured to three years old or later before spawning. Now, even one-year-olds are reproducing. According to Steven Murawski, chief of the population dynamic branch of National Marine Fisheries in Woods Hole, "It's like (eliminating) all the people who are 7 feet tall, they will become rarer and rarer and you'll have only small people left. It's fascinating to think humans are having this effect on fish. " Scientists are not sure whether the change is truly genetic or evolutionary, or if it is a short-term physiological adaptation that will end when excessive fishing pressure ends. Some fish may be maturing sooner because overfishing is leading to less competition and more food. In that case,the trend is not genetic and populations could return to their historic maturation levels. But if the change is genetic, then fish that mature early and produce less viable offspring could put the fishery in danger of collapse."

I don't think I would have used the word "fascinating" to describe what we humans are doing to the fish


Carl

The culling of fish is something I think the biologist don't know what to do with. By killing fish of certain classes this will occur.

I have a friend in Colorado who tried to get that across to his biologist when they imposed certain size limilts that was hurting the fishing. He had two private ponds stocked with brooktrout one pond he culled all the skinny trout keeping the short fat ones and the other he kept all the long skinny fish these fish had access to spawning wates as well. After a time all the fish where all for what he culled for.

For some reason the light bulb never went on, he is also consulting for the whirling disease that is doing a lot of harm to the trout fishery in the west. Again he is trying to get them to either breed for resistant fish to this disease because not all the trout are effected. Still they don't get the point.

I think the biologist are doing the best with what tools and training they have but the standards and information they are working with is flawed.

Is it correct that the way they manage our stripebass resource is by the total biomass of the population rather than the classes of available fish.

This problem with our striped bass is getting more complicated with the people who impose the limits trying to please all, starting with allowing the size for bass to be reduced for keepers. The larger fish the commercial guys are killing should of already spawned and added their genes to the popluation. I think allowing the 36" to go 28" is going to hurt us more. Some of those 28" are carrying those big fish genes and are being denied to contribute to the gene pool.

my $.02

I have to admit that in the past several weeks there seems to be alot of large fish being kept. I myself have kept 3 big fish this year, which for me is unusual, but I was fishing tournaments and they are not catch and release. Due to the fact that I caught that fish that weighed 36.7 lbs, I will probably not keep another fish this year unless I am tournament fishing and the fish I might catch would be bigger than that fish. Looking at it from the tackle shops perspective, for many long weeks this season I saw not alot of pictures being hung on there walls because nobody got into alot of the larger fish, then in the past several weeks things busted open and the pictures started growing.

Then commercial season started and the fish catch ratio for recreational has seemed to decline a bit. Which in my opinion happens every year. If you are a recreational and are taking 1 keeper a day, and a commercial can take 40 keepers a day over 34 inches then the big fish start to disappear pretty fast if the commercials are doing well. I have heard that the commercial season might be closing very soon as they have already taken half of the alotted quoted for the year already. SO will that leave enough big fish out there. Well I think yes as there is alot of water out there. We survived commercial season last year and this year so far have seen very heavy quality fish. But I am still concered at what I have seen personally this year of a class of fish between 10 inches and 23 " that seem to be lacking greatly. Is this the result of by catch from draggers, trawlers and gill nets? I do not have a clue, but would surely like to know.

40 fish is completely ridiculous. That's just plain greedy. No one here should be worried about keeping a few fish. Even keeping one a week is miniscule compared to 40 per day. I don't like keeping them, but I'm the only person that I can control, so I take my own stance as we all should. But really, is keeping a few fish in a season gonna hurt?

Absolutely not... 40 fish per day, xxxmillion pounds per year... those are the numbers that will make or break the stocks.

Also, 28" is too small. That serves no one. Let 'em spawn a few times. If you can't catch a 34" fish, you can't take one home... tough crap.

I guess the only thing we can do is too increase our support of these and other environmental issues. When I used to attend MSBA meetings, they would always update us on ways to voice our opinions to gov't.

Petitions, letters, armed resistance... I know I am for these issues, but I rarely actually do anything about it other than my own practices. Maybe I should talk less and act more.

I know florida anglers saved redfish and sea trout by banding together and fighting for several years. Now both fish along with snook are heavily protected... snook and reds both have gamefish status and there is NO commercial fishing. Don't remember if trout are include in that. And what were once collapsed stocks, are now booming fisheries that bring in $$MILLIONS from recreational anglers that come from all over the country and beyond.

Maybe we should use that as a case study and just try harder.

Based on the record 1996 year class, we should be seeing a flood of schoolies in the 18"-24" range right now. I'm afraid that year class has already been hammered.

I think the 40 fish per boat bag allows a concentration of fish to be hammered day after day until it's fished out. Last few years, there was a big school of 20-40 pound fish stacked up on Scorton Ledge, and boats were limiting out every day the fishery was open. The Mass commercial season is supposed to end Sept 30, but ever since they went to the present system, they season has never made it to the end of August before the quota was filled. And given the lag between the compiling of reports and their digesting by DMF, the quota is always exceeded by several thousands of pounds. There is good and bad in Mass' commercial fishery. The good is that it's hook and line only, and the size limit is high enough to allow most of the fish that are removed to have spawned once. The bad is that it allows virtually anyone to buy the license and sell their catch, and the vast majority of guys selling bass in the Commonwealth don't make their living from selling fish. It's not fair, given the small quota and short season, to the full-timers.

I'd like to see some changes coast-wide. I think a one fish daily recreational bag limit is more than fair. Size limits should be such to ensure a balance of year classes in the population. If there are 3 consecutive poor YOY indices, the limit should be raised to 36" coastwide. The collapse in the 80s resulted in part from a series of poor year classes, and they imposed the moratorium and 36" limit to protect the 1982 year class until they spawned once. By 1989, the YOY index jumped from an average of 3-4 to over 26. That one single spike in the YOY index allowed the re-opening of the commercial fishery, as it hiked the average for it and the two years preceeding it to over the target range of 8. Rather than an across the board 40 fish daily commercial bag, Mass should consider having a separate "recreational sale" fishery, where you can buy the license and keep maybe 3 a day over 36" to sell, as is the case in Rhody, under the present 4 days on, 3 days off system. Legit commercials who can document via tax returns that they derive the majority of their annual income from the sale of seafoood could still enjoy the 40 fish a day bag, and a longer seaon, without having part-timers eat into their livelihood.

I think with the larger fish showing up many anglers ae getting their personal biggest fish. These anglers proud of the catch are keeping them and getting them weighed -in and photed. I have only kept three fish and two were just over 28" which are the best eating IMO. Myself I like the idea of a slot limit like Maine has where the first time breeders have to be released until they are over 40" and there is nothing wrong with keeping a legal fish for the table!

I hate to say I told you so John, but if my fifty year old pre old-timers memory serves me correctly I believe I brought this up about two months ago. I'll stand by my previous post in regards to everybody taking extra large keepers home. I have much more in mind to say about this, but I hate repeating myself its not polite.

No honor is found in battle where no blood was spilled...........George Patton & Tony Stetzko's fish

Alot of bass don't get added in to the total harvest.
How many pounds are thrown back (BELLY-UP) in internatial waters? This is just p-- poor management.
Ma. commertial fishermen are lucky if they make ends meet. Their out there doing something they like, you got to respect that.

Holy Moly --- THE hot topic --- "Who gets which fish, and how many of them!!!" And - all the contributors are bringing up excellent points. So - I'll wade in with my 2 cents.
1) Fishery management decisions are made BY politicians FOR political reasons.A classic example to cite here would be the decision by Federal Judge Boldt in the state of Washington which decreed that one-half of all Pacific salmon caught by commercial fishermen must be caught by fishermen who are Native Americans. Now keep in mind that at the time of his decision only about 10% at the very most of all commercial fishermen were Native Americans. Can you imagine what happened and how subsequent judicial action further destroyed generational family fishing businesses. Oh - by the way - the resource went to hell in a hand cart pretty quickly!
2) We delude ourselves if we think for a moment that all the research done in the name fisheries management is ever considered as the basis for season. size. catch limits etc. If you doubt this - look around at other fish stocks besides just Striped Bass
(Trust me on this one - I know first hand that the Net Ban legislation in Florida had -no-none-nada- scientific data to support its passage. It did have, however, vast dollars of wealthy boat owners - million dollar + boats, not us common folk boats - in South Florida who did not want the net fishermen and their associated culture. They would rather buy imported bait fish!). Or better yet - what data was presented in support of the Newburyport authorities excluding surf fishermen from certain beach areas when a lifeguard was on duty --- politics? --- egos?
3) A great deal of scientific research conducted in the name of 'fisheries' is not necessarily viewed with any PRACTICAL APPLICATION in mind. In other words - research data often fails to address any immediate OR ESPECIALLY long term view toward "management' of a fishery. And I don't mean to disparage any of my many colleagues who work long and hard on research ranging from catch statistics and morphometric analysis all the way to genetic assessments and physiological measurements and on and on. BUT - I can't ever recall a study that began witha view toward enhancing any fishery.Oh - there is often the caveat that the data collected wil provide vital information for management decisions - Hmmmm - do you suppose any legislator ever read a fishery report or looked at long term data before voting his constituents??
4) Despite the best efforts of some of the finest conservation minded individuals and groups --- virtually everybody --- here comes the real glitch!! ---has THEIR OWN AGENDA and not necessarily that of the resource. For example - the commercial guys want bigger numbers of fish to catch, fewer size limits and longer seasons - Understandably. Sport fishermen want more trophy fish, fewer seasonal limitations, and less commercial fishing - Understandably Conservationists want fewer fish caught period - some to the extreme of being preservationist who don't want any caught - Again - Understandably.
SO - what to do what to do
Well - on the commercial side - the perspective of Limited Entry has the benefit of just simply not letting anyone who wants to be a commercial fishermen be one. In essence by "limiting" the number of guys commercial fishing (guys could mean boats) each guy could then conceivably get a bigger piece of the pie and even eat year round.
Another perspective could be the designation that say - Striped Bass - is a sport fish and not a commercial one. Yikes - don't hurt me now!!
On the sport fishing side - licensing would be a good first start (Don't yell!!! Calm down!!!) I was strongly oppossed to such action in Florida - especialy the idea of infringing on my 'god given rights' to the ocean - yadda, yadda, yadda. BUT - it has had a significant effect on the "sport" fishery in Florida. Yes, redfish, snook, and even sea trout have bounded back from previous lows very well. It should be noted however that one of the reasons has been the funds generated from licensing devoted to better law enforcement - despite that fact that there are still "sport fishermen" who will go out and catch several hundred pounds of gouper and then sell them in the back doors of seafood restaurants.
On everybody's side --- habitat preservation!!!!
With Striped Bass this is ESSENTIAL!!! Does anyone remember what pollution did to the Chesapeake Bay stocks (do kepones ring a bell). How are the Hudson River stocks doing? Just how much developemnt has gone on at Croton and as for utility mitigation -- successful??
What shape are the spawning and nursery grounds in now and what will they be like 10 years from now?
Big fish in the bay and in the surf are GREAT --- But before they get there they need lots and lots of strong vocal support for their spawning and nursery grounds - Yup, that same mentality that would kill sharks to enhance tourism would destroy habitat for "economic development" --- at least that is the catch phrase being used locally to rape fish habitat.
SO - there is actually a lot to do and a variety of different ways to approach it. It would seem, however, that the first order of business - would be --- TO DO FOR THE RESOURCE FIRST and NOT it's myriad of self motivated user groups!!
Well stand back John - I've got plenty of butt to go round now so you won't be chewed on too much - ha ha ha
john
john

Probably going to get a flaming for this but here goes:

While I'm not trying to put anyone out of business nor trying to saddle an an already hard life (commercial fishing) with extra problems, in terms of the striper just how much revenue is generated by commercial fishing vs. recreational fishing? IOW, what is the economic benefit to a state/region of commercial bass fishing vs. recreational bass fishing?

On the whole, only a relative handful of people make any sort of meaningful (e.g., full-time, primiary income source) money commercial bass fishing. Meanwhile thousands of people make tens of millions (at least) of dollars on recreational fishing for bass. The days of commercial bass fishing as a way of life are gone. Let's all face that. We can debate the meaning of such a passing later, but realistically very few people in the population today make their primary living commercial bassing anymore. Meanwhile thousands of people depend every day on the pursuit of bass (as well as other fish) by recreational fisherman for their livelihoods.

Industries come and go. Let's allow this one to pass too rather than wasting time and money trying to bring back the good 'ol days, which won't happen anyway.

Peace.

I like that last line of yours Jaiem.

I wonder if Rhodester reads this forum.

I don't know what I can add to this discussion for now so I will stop here.

Jaeim,

WHOOPDEEDOO!!! You have hit the nail on the head!!
Billions and Billions generated by fishermen --- all the gear, all the boats and motors, trailers, acessories for it all -- the jobs, the businesses.
But, in justification there is a food business component to the commercial side. However, as we know from countless years of experience --- commercial fishing - or any fishing AND hunting for that matter - will not stop until the last fish is caught (no need to list the extinct species here!!).
Enter - aquaculture - now quick get me off my soapbox.
john

Prince,

I'm not denying the food component to commercial fishing. I think it would be awful for the bass to be reduced to living as a farm raised species, effectively extinct in the wild. Merely pointing out that full-time industrial scale striped bass fishing, as an industry, is (for all intents and purposes) dead. No matter what brilliant management plan is created, the commercial industry for stripers isn't going to be revived to it's former glory. That's just fact. Only a tiny handful of commerical fishing companies (mainly muti-generation family businesses) continue the practice. And even then stripers only make up a portion of their yearly revenues.

I have no problem with the commerical rod&reel taging business, with some limits, as suppliment to farm fish. But the realities are that the striper fishery simply can not, and probably never will again, support both wide scale commercial bass fishing as well as recreational fishing. We can debate the reasons why the fishery won't support both and mourn the days gone by, but that is the fact.

Now, given the clearly limited resource of the striper, compare the numbers of people employed in the commercial bass industry vs. the recreational industry. I don't mean to reduce someone's livelihood to cold numbers, but the figures speak for themselves. Recreational anglers bring more positive economic value to a community/region/state (both private and public sectors) than the commercial industry.

We are reaching a point where hard choices have to be made. And as often happens with hard choices you can't please both sides. It is simply unwise and blind-sighted to overlook all the sales/revenues the recreational industry generates in favor of an ever shrinking industry.