Wow is all i can say if it passes...

House document # 245 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/docket_bill.htm)

It won't let me post the word document because it is in .docx format and saving it as something else makes a mess of the document.

Copy and paste will have to do...

SECTION 1. Section 110A of chapter 130 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 Official Edition, is herby amended by striking the section in its entirety and inserting in place thereof the following sentences:-
(a)Commercial harvesting and sale of wild striped bass shall be prohibited in the commonwealth. The director, with the approval of the marine fisheries advisory commission, shall adopt rules and regulations relative to the taking or possession of wild striped bass by recreational angling, provided that in no instance shall any rule or regulation authorize the taking or possession of striped bass which are less than 20 inches in length or greater than 26 inches total length but less than 40 inches total length. It is unlawful to take or possess striped bass unless the fish are whole with head on and are between 20 and 26 inches total length or 40 inches and greater total length.
(b)It is unlawful to take or possess more than one (1) striped bass each day.
(c)All aquaculture raised striped bass for sale in the commonwealth shall bear the tag of the grower or distributor of the fish.
(d)Whoever violates any rules or regulations made pursuant to this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars for each fish taken or possessed for the first violation, five hundred dollars for each fish taken or possessed for the second violation and for each subsequent violation shall be fined one thousand dollars for each fish taken or possessed or imprisoned not more than sixty days or both. No part of any fine imposed for the taking or possession of any striped bass in violation of any such regulation shall be remitted.
(e)
SECTION 2. The striped bass quota for commercial fishing provided to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission shall not be added to recreational fishing quotas. Said quota shall be set aside for conservation and the Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries shall use his best efforts in working with the Commission to see that the amount of this quota is not given to other states but remains the property of the Commonwealth to be used for conservation of striped bass.

damn liberals

he also put one up instituting salt water fishing licenses, another for health care trust.
I don't know why they'd allow us to kill bass before they get a chance to spawn:huh:

damn liberals

I'm an idiot...

From what i understand this is a done deal...

I just feel bad, not only for the commercial guys as i still have 2 family members that do this 24/7-365 a year, but for the 20-26" bass everyone will be allowed to keep..

and with 1 @ 40"+ kiss the stock good bye...

figure this... with extremely low #'s...

in any day in MA during the Striper season...
100,000 fishermen that keep fish fishing in MA a day
20-26" fish are so common so for the sake of argument
100,000 20-26" stripers a day are going to the table.
multiply that by 18 weeks or 126 days(again a low average)

12,600,000 20-26" fish are absolutely going to the table.

I read a report that showed an estimated 23,000,000 20-26" bass will be going to the table.

How many 40" fish will there be? who knows... with all the BS down South... netting, long lining from the beach, ect... How many 27-39" fish are going to get eaten by seals, released back "dead" gut hooked... Not at a $1,000 fine per fish... I will not chance it...

No kidding. What the hell is the matter with people trying to conserve a decreasing fish population?

It's not about conservation here any more.. you want to conserve the fish then make it NO-TAKE. <PERIOD>

the only thing this amendment will do is guarantee the slaughter of this species.

Think about it for a minute.. how many throwbacks have you thrown back that went belly up? I can't even tell you a number of fish i have caught in the 34-38" range that inhaled plugs, eels into the gut/gills...

So now when this passes and i catch a 38" bass that inhaled a needlefish or what ever and it is guaranteed dead i must now throw it back. All day long you can slaughter 22-24" fish on sandworm/sea clam... now it's legal...

It's not about conservation here any more.. you want to conserve the fish then make it NO-TAKE. <PERIOD>

the only thing this amendment will do is guarantee the slaughter of this species.

Think about it for a minute.. how many throwbacks have you thrown back that went belly up? I can't even tell you a number of fish i have caught in the 34-38" range that inhaled plugs, eels into the gut/gills...

So now when this passes and i catch a 38" bass that inhaled a needlefish or what ever and it is guaranteed dead i must now throw it back. All day long you can slaughter 22-24" fish on sandworm/sea clam... now it's legal...

Son-of-A..... That's what I get for being on S-B.com while working.

I skimmed through and read the bill basically as 1 fish 26-40". Taking into consideration that females don't reach sexual maturity until they're between age 4-8, fish taken towards the latter part of that age range probably haven't bred yet.

I'd be curious what kind of "scientific research" is backing regulations like this. Or do they think that taking the commercial guys out of the picture in just one state of the 8-10 states you can find Stripers, they'll solve all the problems the stock faces?

he also put one up instituting salt water fishing licenses, another for health care trust.
I don't know why they'd allow us to kill bass before they get a chance to spawn:huh:


Although I have a science background, I am not a fisheries expert. I will give you my best explanation based on my limited knowledge...

by have the slot between 20 and 26, the population of fish that size is reduced with the intent of taking some pressure off of the forage fish. This is supposed to allow the remaining fish to grow bigger, faster and reproduce more as they will be healthier/better fed. Also,some fish may breed a few times by 26".

The 27-40 fish are now off limits, have less competition from schoolies and should serve as a healthy breeding stock to replenish the smaller fish. It is easy to replenish lots of 20-26" fish. It is harder and takes longer to replace the 38" fish.

The above 40"? Most likely it is to again reduce pressure on bait and allow for trophies to be kept.

It's not about conservation here any more.. you want to conserve the fish then make it NO-TAKE. <PERIOD>

the only thing this amendment will do is guarantee the slaughter of this species.

So now when this passes and i catch a 38" bass that inhaled a needlefish or what ever and it is guaranteed dead i must now throw it back. All day long you can slaughter 22-24" fish on sandworm/sea clam... now it's legal...

I am pretty sure 1 fish at this slot would be better for the health of the population than current regs, all other factors aside. Also, at this point if you catch a 27" fish that inhaled a needlefish and is dead you would need to throw it back. I would guess there isn;t any solid data on it, but coastwide there are probably more 27" fish caught and fatally injured than 38" fish.

I am not saying this bill is the answer, trying to be objective about what I think the reasoning behind it might be.

Also, no take would not necessarily be the best for conservation if there wasn't no take of all forage fish. If the population is too big it collapses. The population needs to be balanced to be healthy

One thing to consider is that if this bill passes it will take MA out-of-compliance with the ASMFC fishery management plan which provides a minimum size of 28 inches. The net result of that could well be a total shutdown of the fishery in MA.

Although I have a science background, I am not a fisheries expert. I will give you my best explanation based on my limited knowledge...

by have the slot between 20 and 26, the population of fish that size is reduced with the intent of taking some pressure off of the forage fish. This is supposed to allow the remaining fish to grow bigger, faster and reproduce more as they will be healthier/better fed. Also,some fish may breed a few times by 26".

The 27-40 fish are now off limits, have less competition from schoolies and should serve as a healthy breeding stock to replenish the smaller fish. It is easy to replenish lots of 20-26" fish. It is harder and takes longer to replace the 38" fish.

The above 40"? Most likely it is to again reduce pressure on bait and allow for trophies to be kept.

I tend to agree with Zimmy (but I'm not a fisheries expert either). One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of striped bass over 34" (or so) are female. By allowing the 20"-26" slot, the mix is more likely to include an equal proportion of males to females; whereas, the over 28" requirement will tend to unevenly impact females as the fish get progressively larger.

The new ruling would leaves a big, protect slot of 27"-40" fish in the spawning population and would curtail the disproportionate mortality of female bass.

One thing to consider is that if this bill passes it will take MA out-of-compliance with the ASMFC fishery management plan which provides a minimum size of 28 inches. The net result of that could well be a total shutdown of the fishery in MA.

Mike,
What might happen is they would ask for a "conservation equivelancy". I believe that is what Rhode Island fish trap operators did that last year so they could drop to a 26" fish. They gave up a few thousand ponds to be able to drop the size limit.

Mass could make the numbers work.

DZ

The purpose of the slot limit is to allow for taking more males and to protect a larger number of females so that they can reach breeder age. If you go down into the Southern striper states they already have a 18-28 inch slot or a 20-26 inch slot, two fish per day. Most of these states have seasons to protect fish larger then 28".

I have no real idea of how many more fish would be caught with a 20-26" slot for 1 fish a day, but I do not think the difference would hurt the fishery as much as you might think. If a fair percentage of the fish killed are males and a reduction in the number of larger fish killed occurs, in the end the fishery may make out.

Right now 8 of the 14 states allow commercial fishing for stripers. If Mass stops commercial striper fishing this will balance out the states at 7 to 7. This could end up playing very large in the ASMFC.

leptar, you ARE joking, right?

do the math on 2 per day on the low end of the slot times yer x number of anglers in MA, and then figure in 2 per day on the over 40" slot. there is no way in hale this does not kill LESS fish by the simple reason that 2 is twice 1.

more importantly, this will protect millions of commercially caught stripers per year. why didn't yer numbers offset the millions of stripers that the comm's can no longer take?

i LOVE the idea and am hopeful that the ASMFC will follow suit and do something proactive to Fix the Forage. i must say that 1@36"+ seems a bit more feasible and a better protection of the species. i will take this though and it seems like a good place to start,,,,,,,,,,

BassDawg, not joking...

Tell me if i am wrong,and this is what i thought to be true when i started this.
1,100,000 lbs of stripers more or less is what MA comm's are allowed to take for 2009.
If Ma abolished the Striper fishery all together the other states do take a split share of that 1,100,000 lbs since it is all regulated by the feds?

So really Ma comms miss out and the commercial fishing is just extended in other states to make the market quota...

To my understanding Leptar,you are correct.

No, that is not a sure thing or even close to being a sure thing. Mass will have to work out a new agreement with the ASMFC due to the slot limit. For 2009 Mass owns their commercial quote and it is highly unlikely that the ASMFC will try to give that to another state in 2009. Plus now you will be looking at a 7 7 split on states that do or don't allow commercial fishing. It is highly likely that the Mass quota will not be given to another state. I think what you will actually be seeing is the end of commercial fishing for stripers if Mass ends it because I think NY would soon fall in line.

BassDawg, not joking...

Tell me if i am wrong,and this is what i thought to be true when i started this.
1,100,000 lbs of stripers more or less is what MA comm's are allowed to take for 2009.
If Ma abolished the Striper fishery all together the other states do take a split share of that 1,100,000 lbs since it is all regulated by the feds?

So really Ma comms miss out and the commercial fishing is just extended in other states to make the market quota...

i am aware of that possibility,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

but it still reflects on the MA take, right?
just trying to hep ya arrive at better numbers, bro!

and i DO agree that we are looking at the overall state of the migratory stocks; still yet a slot, a reduction IN HALF of the daily allowable kill for MA, and stiffer fines SHOULD go a long way towards protecting our beloved prey!!

not trying to ruffle any feathers, my fine feathered friend.
:bl: :btu: :btu: :bl:

No, that is not a sure thing or even close to being a sure thing. Mass will have to work out a new agreement with the ASMFC due to the slot limit. For 2009 Mass owns their commercial quote and it is highly unlikely that the ASMFC will try to give that to another state in 2009. Plus now you will be looking at a 7 7 split on states that do or don't allow commercial fishing. It is highly likely that the Mass quota will not be given to another state. I think what you will actually be seeing is the end of commercial fishing for stripers if Mass ends it because I think NY would soon fall in line.

:claps: :claps: :claps: :claps:

!!!BRAVO!!!

:claps: :claps: :claps: :claps:

Has anybody making comments on the science related to this bill actually talked to a scientist that works with stock asessment programs?

Can anyone state directly what the new "f" rate will be?

The Mass Striped Bass Assn will be soon be releasing a position on the bill that includes analysis of the science behind the bill.

The bill will not slip by quietly by any means...in MA the next step is a hearing.

Has anybody making comments on the science related to this bill actually talked to a scientist that works with stock asessment programs?

Can anyone state directly what the new "f" rate will be?

The Mass Striped Bass Assn will be soon be releasing a position on the bill that includes analysis of the science behind the bill.

The bill will not slip by quietly by any means...in MA the next step is a hearing.

I spoke with a friend who is an emeritus scientist from WHOI. He was at a meeting with the scientists in charge of stock assessment and obtained a very chagrinned admission from them that their current stock estimates were probably wildly inaccurate and that the real number might well be less than 1/2 of what they are choosing to use for management decisions. There is also the issue of increased natural mortality in MA waters related to the burgeoning seal population.

So is MSBA in favor of maintaining the current maximum use of the resource, or reducing pressure on the population by some other means?

Numby, I am not really sure what you are asking, nor do I see how resource "use" (which I assume you mean fishing mortality) is related to this bill.

It is clear that this bill will increase fishing mortality.

My question and my point is to have an intellegent informed discussion we need details on analysis not I think of you think.

We all should consider the merits of the Bill, not the emotions of the bill.

1. If MA eliminates it's commercial fishery it can not keep those fish without harvest. Sure, MA could do what Jersey has done and add a third fish to the recreational take, but it can not hold these fish in reserve. The management plan will give that quota to another state.

So let's discuss this element of the Bill, what do we do???

Maybe Patrick will let us know when we will be discussing this subject. So any of you guys on here that want to understand it better can attend the meeting. They are very informative and believe me Patrick does a good job on informing.

I don't have a preconceived notion about this, other than that I think the population data is wrong and has probably been buffed to present the most favorable possible estimate because of political pressures and commercial bias on the board.

I would hope MSBA's experienced fisherman recognize the same issue and are interested in addressing it. To do so every idea should be considered on its own merit. Why, for instance, assume MA must give up any of its quota it chooses to use for conservation purposes? Why assume the recreational catch can not be limited by other means such as adjusting the slot limit or establishing a season (not that that is likely to be popular). And why prioritize the quantity of the fishery as opposed to the quality of the fishery?

I don't have a strong opinion regarding this bill........though I think it is ill conceived and poorly timed.....and very unlikely to pass. From a purely selfish standpoint I hope it does pass, after which the recreational limit would likely need to be severely curtailed to keep mortality below current levels (you get what you ask for) and a court case if necessary could ensue (probably backed by the Conservation Law Foundation) to establish a state's right NOT to kill fish if they so choose........which I suspect would be successful and ultimately save some decent fish for me to target over the waning years of my life.

why not let the commercial qouta stay as it is and have the recreational be a catch and release only fishery?

why not let the commercial qouta stay as it is and have the recreational be a catch and release only fishery?

Because, I want a fish for the bbq, the one I caught:humpty::wave:

Yes, I have talked to scientist/researchers on this topic, plus done a lot of reading, but not specifically on this bill. Many of them are very supportive of using slot limits and are starting to see a real weakening fishery.

Main point to remember is that Mass can stop commercial fishing on it's own but to change to a slot fish would require ASMFC approval in the end. When they bring forward the slot limit the first thing that will be required is to determine the affect. At that time the science that Patrick is questioning will be applied. The results could vary but increasing above the current kill numbers is very unlikely. The slot size could change, there could be seasons associated with the slot, part or all of the commercial quota could be moved to the recreational fisherman and so on. So while the law may have some flaws associated with the slot limit, it is a good starting point.

Comments that the commercial quota will be turned over to the other states are backwards looking comments. Presently NH has a commercial quota that it does not use and NJ has a quota that it can use towards increasing recreational catch. But that is todays quota distribution process, but like everything it is subjected to change. Getting Mass out of the striper commercial fishing column can not be over stated in it's importance. ASMFC has been looking at making major changes to the stripe bass regulations. At the Feb ASMFC meeting there was a vote to put forward on an addendum to increase the commercial quota by as much as 25%. It failed on a tie vote with Mass voting in support of increasing the quota. What we need are more Richie Whites on the stripe bass management board. Take some time to read the report from the last meeting.

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/minutesandmeetings/board/feb09SBBoardMinutes.pdf

No, I am not against commercial fishing as a whole. People talk about job losses associated with commercial fishing for stripers but everyone needs to remember that the real job market associated with stripers comes from recreational fishing. The value of having a quality recreational outlet for the public can never be overstated.

From what i understand this is a done deal...

I just feel bad, not only for the commercial guys as i still have 2 family members that do this 24/7-365 a year, but for the 20-26" bass everyone will be allowed to keep..

and with 1 @ 40"+ kiss the stock good bye...

figure this... with extremely low #'s...

in any day in MA during the Striper season...
100,000 fishermen that keep fish fishing in MA a day
20-26" fish are so common so for the sake of argument
100,000 20-26" stripers a day are going to the table.
multiply that by 18 weeks or 126 days(again a low average)

12,600,000 20-26" fish are absolutely going to the table.

I read a report that showed an estimated 23,000,000 20-26" bass will be going to the table.

How many 40" fish will there be? who knows... with all the BS down South... netting, long lining from the beach, ect... How many 27-39" fish are going to get eaten by seals, released back "dead" gut hooked... Not at a $1,000 fine per fish... I will not chance it...

Please, fill us in on "from what you understand this is a done deal.."
IMO this effort is a pee poor way to start conserving the resource. Commercial allocation in MA is what 1:29 of total catch. 1:4 of the MA landings. 1200 commercials, 650,000 recs. As written this bill is nothing more than an resource allocation grab. SF propoganda bs.

Please, fill us in on "from what you understand this is a done deal.."
IMO this effort is a pee poor way to start conserving the resource. Commercial allocation in MA is what 1:29 of total catch. 1:4 of the MA landings. 1200 commercials, 650,000 recs. As written this bill is nothing more than an resource allocation grab. SF propoganda bs.

I was told there are more representatives supporting this "amendment". That this bill was something that many in office feel as a positive motion towards conservation. I am awaiting for some information from the ASFMC regarding what they will do if MA does decide to make striped bass a no take on the commercial side. What happens to the quota...

Ask MA DMF as well...it would be interesting to see if what you get for an answer matches what I got....hmmmmmm

Still doing my homework on this one.

the striped bass becomes a gamefish, there must be conservation measures that protect its forage, as well, for it to survive in the overall picture.
we never hear much debating on what we don't see, except pogy boats. and that is usually when pogies are scarce.

1200 commercials, 650,000 recs.


I gotta ask....where does this number come from.....That number seems astronomically high...

Your talking 10% of the state being recreational fisherman....

i'm pretty sure that figure was thrown out there by brad burns, pres. of stripers forever in conjunction w/ magamefishbill.org
there were some other projections and that did'nt seem realistic.
for instance 3,400 more jobs in MA if the bill goes through, and an 200 million $ increase in revenue in the state of MA if the bill passes.

i'm pretty sure that figure was thrown out there by brad burns, pres. of stripers forever in conjunction w/ magamefishbill.org
there were some other projections and that did'nt seem realistic.
for instance 3,400 more jobs in MA if the bill goes through, and an 200 million $ increase in revenue in the state of MA if the bill passes.

Those numbers seem horribly exaggerated. Whoever created that "650,000 recs" number will either be confirmed a genius or proven an idiot when the salt licensing program goes into effect. Like TDF pointed out, the equivalent of 1/10 of the state of MA are recreational saltwater fisherman?

I gotta ask....where does this number come from.....That number seems astronomically high...

Your talking 10% of the state being recreational fisherman....

Here is a excerpt from http://www.mass.gov/czm/oceanmanagement/waves_of_change/pdf/trdemogecon.pdf

"Over the past ten years, the state's recreational fishing industry has expanded enormously, and is now ranked as the second most valuable in the United States. The striped bass recreational fishery is widely regarded as the finest in the country, and draws participants from all over the country. Marine recreational anglers in Massachusetts spent about $850 million pursuing their sport in 19985. Over 900,000 people participated in the marine recreational fishery in 2002, including 560,000 of the Commonwealth’s citizens"

That's 2002! I can't locate that 650 number but I'll come across it again. The actual number I saw was 665,000.



Found it, an excerpt from http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellfleet/news/x844646213/Bill-seeks-end-to-commercial-striped-bass-fishing

A study sponsored by Stripers Forever estimates recreational fishing added 1.16 billion to state economy versus 24.2 million from commercial fishing (in 2003) and created 10,986 jobs to 524 in commercial fishing. Only 23 fishermen caught 6,000 pounds ($18,000 worth) of bass.
“So it’s not a commercial fishery,” Caldwell opined. “In Massachusetts there are 665,000 (striped bass) recreational fishermen, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and only 1,207 commercial fishermen reporting a catch.”

Granted all of those folks did not catch fish. The commercial catch in MA amounts to a hill of beans in the overall picture. Art

why not let the commercial qouta stay as it is and have the recreational be a catch and release only fishery?

hear!! hear!!

givemeabreak. The striper is not here to line your pockets for a few weeks with greenbacks. Heck, The comm quota could be more than filled with the by-catch that is dumped back dead. No need for a comm R&R'ers. It's time has passed.
Rec fishing is largely C&R TODAY anyway! Most RECs are FAR more conservation minded then nearly EVERY comm bass fishermen I have seen.

Fact is, most rec fishermen don't even catch a single SB all season and there is more than 1200 comm lic's. So that number of 650K rec fishermen is highly distorting of the number of bass fishermen.


If I was the Striper CZAR, this is what I would do and do it today:


1) shut down R&R SB comm fishing (they take a million # from popular concentrated areas depleting local stocks each season, further, there is a black market of selling < 34" fish as well as a bait taking problem more like a "scam" that is totally unreported and contributes to the bait exploitation that is rampant.

2) limit Recs to 1@36 (keep is simple, and cut it further if need be) and mandate reporting for every kept fish under the new fishing license.

3) take CONSERVATIVE steps to build up forage stocks. This is a separate issue as ALL fish would benefit from this and it is NOT getting the attn it deserves. Currently, under "personal use" you can take an unlimited about of bait with ANY SIZE NET! As long as you do not sell it. (But who is going to catch them doing under the table deals to their buddies?)
(new reg this year, I got clarification on this today):tm: So, with regs like this, how can we say that the DMF is taking steps to protect bait? They are not. Frankly, the commercial guys have them in their pocket. They are taking steps to better keep track of real commercial bait guys but what about the guys taking 1000+ bunker per day (for "personal use") to sell under the table, (unreported, both from a fish and a TAX standpoint) to their unlicensed bait-dealing fishing buddies? This hurts the real bait dealers as wel as the stocks.

4) Gamefish status would cut thru all the reg crap and FORCE DMF to do the moral and just thing and take the $ off the fishes head without hurting the billion dollar rec fishing industry) Moreover it is EASY to enforce, not like the nightmare we have today which is largely unenforced, and really out of control. Further, there would be a lot LESS bait taken to support catching/selling of SB . No one would want 1000 bunker for personal use because there would be no one to sell them to. The result would be more bunker.

I can't see a single reason to keep wild SB a comm fish. The species deserves this respect. It is not about more for me and less for you. I still have a Comm SB lic, I use to sell them and I want to see it shut down. As a rec fishermen I see few fishermen taking fish home, recs are mostly C&R now with the occasional one being taken home to eat. I want to see the striper really protected, fed much better and I don't want to see every fishermen-supported industry go BK, they are having a tuff time as it is. Gamefish will go a looooong way to do this IMO in a simple step with little enforcement needed.

IMO this bill will pass, its gonna happen. It might not pass in its current form but it will pass eventually. The YOY index has been weak and is declining, and if it has another bad year again this year, combined with the disease and fishing pressure at peak along with the anecdotal accounts of bad SB fishing in most areas...I think this will pass. I have thought about this alot and originally did not like it because I thought it could be managed but after seeing what the current management style has yielded us ....this is the only way. You will never get DMF to do the job. They are being pulled in too many directions and IMO are borderline corrupt...except in RI where everyone is openly corrupt:liquify: :hihi:

Once MA goes gamefish, the word is NY will and then it is over coast wide. It is gonna happen. I give it 3 years or less. Look for a big push after the YOY numbers are out later this year. If that is bad it could happen sooner. The days of the comm R&R bass man are ending I can see the light....can I get an AMEN?!!

2) limit Recs to 1@36(keep is simple, and cut it further if need be) and mandate reporting for every kept fish under the new fishing license.

Ding Ding Ding.

people are dumb. Keep the limit easy to remember and it won't be an issue... Slots will cause more small fish to be laid out and measured for 10min rather than quickly released.... plus it will reduce the amount kept by a lot IMHO

BassDawg, not joking...

Tell me if i am wrong,and this is what i thought to be true when i started this.
1,100,000 lbs of stripers more or less is what MA comm's are allowed to take for 2009.
If Ma abolished the Striper fishery all together the other states do take a split share of that 1,100,000 lbs since it is all regulated by the feds?

So really Ma comms miss out and the commercial fishing is just extended in other states to make the market quota...

Thats the way I understand it.

I believe its written somewhere....my argument is how did they arrive at these numbers....seriously, 1 in 10??? I just don't buy it....I want to know how they got these numbers, not some "Estimate" that they use to prove a point.


Here is a excerpt from http://www.mass.gov/czm/oceanmanagement/waves_of_change/pdf/trdemogecon.pdf

"Over the past ten years, the state's recreational fishing industry has expanded enormously, and is now ranked as the second most valuable in the United States. The striped bass recreational fishery is widely regarded as the finest in the country, and draws participants from all over the country. Marine recreational anglers in Massachusetts spent about $850 million pursuing their sport in 19985. Over 900,000 people participated in the marine recreational fishery in 2002, including 560,000 of the Commonwealth’s citizens"

That's 2002! I can't locate that 650 number but I'll come across it again. The actual number I saw was 665,000.



Found it, an excerpt from http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellfleet/news/x844646213/Bill-seeks-end-to-commercial-striped-bass-fishing

A study sponsored by Stripers Forever estimates recreational fishing added 1.16 billion to state economy versus 24.2 million from commercial fishing (in 2003) and created 10,986 jobs to 524 in commercial fishing. Only 23 fishermen caught 6,000 pounds ($18,000 worth) of bass.
“So it’s not a commercial fishery,” Caldwell opined. “In Massachusetts there are 665,000 (striped bass) recreational fishermen, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and only 1,207 commercial fishermen reporting a catch.”

Granted all of those folks did not catch fish. The commercial catch in MA amounts to a hill of beans in the overall picture. Art

I'm w/whatever sandman said... no seriously.

Amen Sandman :thanks:

I believe its written somewhere....my argument is how did they arrive at these numbers....seriously, 1 in 10??? I just don't buy it....I want to know how they got these numbers, not some "Estimate" that they use to prove a point.

While I don't know how they reached this number I do not find it surprising at all when your looking at all marine recreational fishing. Many of these people are once or twice a year party boaters, charter trips or just throwing a chunk from the beach. Half the party boat charters are businesses taking their employees out for their once or twice a year fishing trips. Last May I stayed at a hotel on the cape and each morning there was 3 buses in the parking lot. Here there was 110 people from western Mass at the hotel down for three days of scup fishing.

That being said there may be 600,000 fishing trips a year....but 600,000 different anglers...thats where I kind of find the number being hard to swallow.

and are they lumping in Sweetwater anglers and ice-fisherman into that total to justify the number.....in that case plenty of rec anglers that never had salt touch their line.

As often happens in threads like these there is often mis-information. Because of this I decided to contact SF to get some clarification. Info included below in brackets.

[The daily bag limit would be one fish, period. The bill does not say what size of fish CAN be harvested, but rather what size of fish CANNOT be harvested.

The slot would be determined by the department, but no fish could be smaller than 20 inches and no fish could be harvested between 26 and 40 inches. The department could have a tighter regulation than 20 through 26, for example 22 through 25, but it could not be more lenient than 20 through 26. Also, the department could make a larger minimum 42 or 44 or whatever, but it could not allow 38. If the fishery required it there could be only a fish of over 40 inches - or greater. The state might also decide instead to allow only a slot fish and complete hands off the larger ones.]


I suggest those that may want to see how the numbers are arrived at contact SF.

DZ

Ok just so we are on the same page...
We know that "scientific data" is based upon the input that "volunteers" and "paid" staff collect when they are armed with that pen and pad with a pocket lined with 1/2 melted candy..

We all know fishermen tell tales...

So even if 5% of the information collect is bullchit.. that in itself would be enough to over exaggerate any "published scientific data".

That is why i base my opinion on what i see and not what is read to me.

I got a reply from the ASFMC

"My understanding is that the bill (HD 245) indicates that the Massachusetts commercial striped bass quota would be set aside for conservation, rather than being given to MA recreational fishermen (such as through a mechanism similar to the recreational "bonus fish program" in NJ) or to fishermen (commercial or recreational) in other states. Also, there is currently no language in the Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan related to state transfer of commercial quota, nor do any states transfer any coastal commercial quota at this point. IF HD 245 were passed as law, and IF Massachusetts wanted to transfer its commercial quota to other states' commercial fishermen to catch (which seems contrary to the intent of the bill as I understand it), an addendum to the striped bass plan would be required to permit it. Should anything of this sort happen, there would be public hearings and a comment period, at which time I would suggest you and all concerned constituents provide comment.

Best regards,

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission"

AYYYYYY MEN!!

i agree with MOST of what Sandman is putting down,,,,,,,,,,,,,

especially 1 @36"+.

much easier to do and to enforce, unless
fishery mngmt requires the killing of the 20"-26" to augment
their fecundity ratios and better preserve the species, then so be it!
i DO KNOW that slots worked for the redfish in SW FL. cheaters and poachers included. no tolereance is key as well, poachers arew less likely to poach if they know they can lose their WHOLE kit and kiboodle; plus fines, and jailtime if needs be.

and as i and others have stated, ad nauseum, ALL of this IS MOOT

if we don't FIX THE FORAGE!!!! the two measures must go
hand in hand and must be supported by the science; yet, how can it
not be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems like a no brainer from where i'm typing??
:wall: :huh: :huh: :wall:

ALL of this IS MOOT

if we don't FIX THE FORAGE!!!!


Just for info - not saying the striper stock is crashing but... during the last crash in the 1980s forage had nothing to do with it.

DZ

Dennis, as you know I'm researching the crash of the bass stocks in the late 1800's that finally caused the demise of the great striped bass clubs of the time -

In fact, I've been lucky enough to enlist the help of Dr. O'Nitis - the famous Irish marine biologist now that he's retired - figured it would be a good way to keep him out of mischief, too...:hihi:...but it also gives me someone with a science background to bounce things off of to keep any conjecture plausible...geez, talk about researching cold cases...:hs:

I've got some theories about that one - but from what I've unearthed so far, it seems like it was too much of everything going south over a 30 or so year period to maintain a robust stock - overfishing, forage depletion and the degradation of habitat - I keep thinking it's as much a cautionary tale as a piece of surfcasting history - I've found a few nuggets lately, too -

BTW, thanks for the call, I was at work - I'll try to give you a ring later today - and yup, I'm real interested...:)

Another thing about the slot... I love the way it works in NC for drum. It is great to see tons of big fish caught and all released. I can't think of a time I've heard any complaim about not being able to keep bigger fish. The drum slot is 1 fish 18-27". The data indicate that stocks have gone up since instituting the slot. If I had a vote it would be the small slot and nothing over 27" for bass coastwide. The problem I have with 1 @ 36" is that, while it reduces the overall take as there aren't as many fish that size caught, it targets the breeders.

IMO that "problem" is a misconception. 1@ 36 allows EVERY FISH to breed something like 4 or 5 times ( I don't have the numbers but is is something on that order). We are talking massive amounts of fish allowed to breed EVERY YEAR. The older so called "breeder" fish you site do have more eggs per fish however I am not convinced that they are as ripe or as healthy as a sub 36"er. If you ever have cut open a big female and looked at her eggs they are a different (much darker) color and I would bet most will not most of the eggs will not hatch even though there are more of them.

The problem I have with taking tiny fish is that you don't even give the fish a chance to reach maturity and spawn more than once. Give every fish a chance to spawn more than once.

1@ 36 has also worked, it was used during the rebound years and numbers increased dramatically. It allows ALL fish (not just a selected group) to spawn multiple times before being taken. Further, you spread the (rate of failure) risk among a larger number of females.

The slot is a theory and has never been technically proven. I would like to see some real evidence (not antidotes) that a few big females would be better then then bulk of the spawning biomass. I don't believe anyone has every really proved this. Saying it "worked" for one species is not the same. There are a lot of other variables that contributed to the rebound of those fish.


Lastly it is simple and straightforward.

I don't know about you but I just don't want to take a small fish...ever. It just feels naturally wrong to do so. I don't get any feeling of pride in even catching a small bass. I will stop fishing for them if that is all there is.

The Mass. Striped Bass Association has been arguing this for years, that is the one fish at 36" rule. It brought sanity and the fish stocks back before and if it was put in place permantly again we would never have to talk about this again. So yes, what Sandman said, ditto here.

this slot is the same (or very similar) to Maine's regulations (as far as I can recall- they may have changed). It made good sense for the guides up there, since jsut about everybody "took home some meat" and also got to pose with their "big fish" from the day..... they had 1 fish over 40" for the entire season if I recall.

this slot is the same (or very similar) to Maine's regulations (as far as I can recall- they may have changed). It made good sense for the guides up there, since jsut about everybody "took home some meat" and also got to pose with their "big fish" from the day..... they had 1 fish over 40" for the entire season if I recall.


Yes it is the same as ME and when Me got their slot the rec catch in went up HUGE numbers.

Yes it is the same as ME and when Me got their slot the rec catch in went up HUGE numbers.
They have had the same limit since and what happened last year?
Striper populations have always been volatile and I have never seen any evidence that anything man does has much to do with it. What happened to the population at the beginning of the previous century? Was it overfishing? Pollution? It is pretty well documented that there was a population crash and all the NE bass clubs closed up.

IMO that "problem" is a misconception....If you ever have cut open a big female and looked at her eggs they are a different (much darker) color and I would bet most will not most of the eggs will not hatch even though there are more of them.

The problem I have with taking tiny fish is that you don't even give the fish a chance to reach maturity and spawn more than once. Give every fish a chance to spawn more than once.

1@ 36 has also worked, it was used during the rebound years and numbers increased dramatically. It allows ALL fish (not just a selected group) to spawn multiple times before being taken. Further, you spread the (rate of failure) risk among a larger number of females.

The slot is a theory and has never been technically proven. I would like to see some real evidence (not antidotes) that a few big females would be better then then bulk of the spawning biomass. I don't believe anyone has every really proved this. Saying it "worked" for one species is not the same. There are a lot of other variables that contributed to the rebound of those fish.


Lastly it is simple and straightforward.

I don't know about you but I just don't want to take a small fish...ever. It just feels naturally wrong to do so. I don't get any feeling of pride in even catching a small bass. I will stop fishing for them if that is all there is.

I can't say what I think definitively about 1@36" as I just don't know.

However:
I have not found any literature that says there is a drop in viability of eggs in fish in the 40-50lb range. That might be an issue when the fish is in the 60lb + range. If there is data that I haven't read I would be interested in seeing it. Those bigger fish put out exponentially more eggs. It takes tons more small fish to make up for lost big fish.

Over 36" you are taking almost entirely females.

I think there is validity that by targeting small fish, you get less competition and the males take some of the impact, which allows the fish to grow bigger more quickly and and be healthier.

During the rebound years the # of people fishing and catching were dramatically lower than now.

The idea with the slot is that there are more big fish to "catch", not less. I personally would rather eat a 26" or 22" for that matter than a 40". Keeping the 40" "feels" wrong to me; that is my personal feeling, not necessarily one that makes sense. I don't fish for pride, I don't keep big fish for pride, but if I wanna eat one I wopuld prefer it to be smaller :)

Much of this is just my opinion, by the way....

You make some good points and I don't dispute (many of)them.


I too would rather eat a smaller fish for a number of reasons but 36 is a good balance. A 36 in fish has a lot of eggs. Not as much as a 60 but again still a lot. And if we had LOTS of 36" fish as a breeding base that could not be touched...I would feel a lot more comfortable about the stability of the breeding stock. (also, that does not mean that all fish over 36" would be gobbled up by the rec take either, as I said, the sport is clearly moving in the conservationist direction with more C&R going on today than ever before. With sensible recs and good sportsmanship (along with a ton of available bait!) I think the species would have a bright future.

There has never been a time when there were a lot of 60#ers. There just hasn't. They die for many reasons some fisherman related, some natural. On the other hand there have been times when there have been many very healthy mid size fish. I just like my chances better with masses of mid size fish. Basically I like playing to the bell curve, you want you breeding base at the sweet spot not the tail ends. And I have my doubts you can artificially increase the number of heavyweights significantly enough to matter by tweaking the rec take. If that was the ONLY form of mortality, then maybe, perhaps, but it isn't.

As for pride, perhaps that is the wrong word. (I blast out verbage and post without thinking about it too often But my point was that most fisherman want to catch large fish, not small ones. I really fish for memories...and the ones I recall the best seem to be the ones that involved larger fish, not smaller ones.


Bottom line... I am so not sure that a slot will produce "more" jumbos and even if they did I am not sure that it would necessarily produce more young fish. Until it is proven my view would be to keep is simple and lock in a %$%$%$%$load of 36" fish which for most people is a big fish.