Yep, the ASMFC has an addendum to propose an increase in the commercial quota to "improve" equality between recs and comms.
(Also on the agenda is discussion for changing how YOY indices are measured / failure quantified). Full text:

The proposal to increase the coastal commercial quota is intended to improve equality between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors. Although Amendment 6 established management programs for both fisheries based on the same target fishing mortality rate, the implementation of state-specific quotas for coastal commercial harvest (and not for recreational harvest) has prevented the commercial and recreational fisheries from responding equally to changes in striped bass population size. Since 2003, coastal commercial harvest has decreased by 3.6 percent, while recreational harvest has increased by 13.7 percent. Under the option, the Board would select a percent increase to be applied to the coastal commercial allocations assigned in Amendment 6.

Now many of you know that I am not pro or anti-commercial fishing for Stripers (I'd prefer reducing takes on both rec / com and better protection for forage fish). I know we have members that fish commercially and members that support game fish status. So we cover all the bases here and often argue these points ad nauseum. But I think the vast majority of the people here think that the stocks are heading in the wrong direction and that a reduction in take all across the board is necessary to benefit the health of the stocks.

So without getting into yet another battle to quagmire discussion (we can have another thread for that) who here is willing to GO TO THE HEARING? Maine and New Hampshire are coming in September. But Mass and RI are next week.

Add your name to the following lists on which meeting you can attend. Mass is next Monday in Dedham and RI is next Tuesday in Gansett.


John R: MASS (likely) & RI (definitely)


Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
August 16, 2010; 6:00 PM
Holiday Inn
55 Ariadne Road
Dedham, Massachusetts
Contact: Jared Silva at (617) 626-1534

Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife
August 17, 2010; 6:00 PM
URI, Narragansett Bay Campus, Corless Auditorium
215 South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Contact: Mark Gibson at (401) 423-1935

Time to go all in. Full document attached.

RI for sure.

RI for sure.

Excellent :btu:


This is not a meeting people can afford to miss or hope others attend in their place.

If you give a bleep about the fish, you'll do what you can to go.

Where are they having the NH meeting? Any Info?

Maybe. I have a 6:00 AM "wheel up" to Pittsburgh 8/18. We will see. What time is the meeting?

Where are they having the NH meeting? Any Info?

NH is in September

Maybe. I have a 6:00 AM "wheel up" to Pittsburgh 8/18. We will see. What time is the meeting?

6PM meeting at URI Bay Campus

NH is in September



6PM meeting at URI Bay Campus

I will try to make it. Beautiful "hot" Norfolk VA right now

Folks may not like it but my position is 1 fish 36" NO COMMERCIAL. There are plenty of people who are selling their fish at the back door with no license, and others who catch more than they are allowed and pass them on to other license holders who sell them for a cut. At some point we have to look at the value of the fishing and not the value of the fish caught.
I am planning on Mass. and maybe R.I.

Folks may not like it but my position is 1 fish 36" NO COMMERCIAL. There are plenty of people who are selling their fish at the back door with no license, and others who catch more than they are allowed and pass them on to other license holders who sell them for a cut. At some point we have to look at the value of the fishing and not the value of the fish caught.

So go to the Mass Meeting.

We can write letters and maybe have an impact, we can go to the meeting and maybe have an impact, we can go to the meeting AND write a letter and maybe have more of an impact, or we can beyotch about it here and have zero impact ;) - even though we may feel we have done something we probably haven't.

I'm hoping to get out of work early enough to shoot down to Dedham.

NH is in September




I know....just wondering if you knew where.....thats a lot closer to my house than Dedham is

I will be going to the New Hampshire meeting for sure and I will also try to go to the Mass and Maine meetings. Letters have already been sent.


New Hampshire Fish and Game
September 13, 2010; 7:00 PM
Urban Forestry Center
45 Elwyn Road
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Contact: Doug Grout at (603) 868-1095

That works a lot better than Dedham

I will be at Dedham
Time for the silent majority to grow some teeth.
No more excuses, it's time to man up or shut up and we will get what we deserve.

I will be at Dedham
Time for the silent majority to grow some teeth.
No more excuses, it's time to man up or shut up and we will get what we deserve.


:btu:

I will write a letter,

Going to something like this then getting up at 4:30am makes a tough day at work

will try for dedham next monday...

will be going to the r.i meeting. time to get my butt off the couch and do something constructive for a change.
at least now when i bit**ch, i can say i tried to do something about it.

I'll be at the Dedham meeting in support of an increase.

I'll be at the Dedham meeting in support of an increase.

Supporting an increase because of the science, or because of your wallet?

Rhode Island in support of conservation and science.

Supporting an increase because of the science, or because of your wallet?



If people want to buy it someone has to sell it !

I have no issues with selling bass.
My issue is with where are the replacements.
Pulled this off the USFWS site.
Notice any trend ?

If people want to buy it someone has to sell it !

Until there's none left to sell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If people want to buy it someone has to sell it !

I'm OK with it but we can't chance that it runs out. Unlike farming where we replenish the crop, we need to be extra careful this crop replaces itself.

Otherwise Tragedy of the Commons Part Deaux and all.

It's already started John .. All the signs are there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why don't the commercials' invest in farming. The investment amount by each investor correlates to a percentage of the take.

let's kill 'em 'till they're gone... :smash:

what eben said...

It's already started John .. All the signs are there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Yeh, I think so too.

PLEASE, we can do better than this, right? I know more people that are going than voiced on this thread, but lets get more of a firm list please. We need to represent this better. IIRC, Rhode island is one of the states in favor of increasing the quota, therefore it is very important to make it known that a lot of fishers don't want increased commercial take.

RI: Tuesday night

JohnR
Afterhours
Piemma
Slow Eddie
Red Sox Ticket

MA: Monday night

JohnR (maybe)
Ecduzitgood
JohnnyD
Makai
Freebie

NH (September)

MikeToole
TDF


MA in support of increased quota:

Raider Ronnie

I'll be at the RI hearing.

DZ

Supporting an increase because of the science, or because of your wallet?

right there is the reason why nothing will ever get done....

Ron has a valid reason for wanting an increase and you have a valid reason for a decrease.......but instead of working together for a common goal.....people get nasty.

Republican meet Democrat
Democrat meet Republican.

Ah there's the rub.

If people want to buy it someone has to sell it !

I think people also use that mentality as justification for the manufacture of Meth.

I hope your kids aren't going to be taking up the family business. At some point, the comms will run out of a product to sell. Who's going to pay them for Charters when there aren't any bass left to catch?

See you there Dennis


We really need a good turnout to these meetings.


Republican meet Democrat
Democrat meet Republican.

Ah there's the rub.

Do you mean like an oil and water thing? Or Democrats are for reductions and republicans are for exploitations? Dunno, couldn't figure it out ;)

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

Can someone donate a nice plug to be given away as a lottery for all S-B attendees even raider ron.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

I'd support an increase if there was any reliable science. However, the science does not demonstrate that the striped bass population is thriving enough to take on a large increase of pressure from Comms. Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).

When issues with regards to regulation come up on these forums, the majority of commercials that post basically have a position of "cut the recs and increase our quota" - just look at the tuna thread or the thread about the SF bill.

Hell, even the damn proposal by ASMFC re-enforces my above point:
The proposal to increase the coastal commercial quota is intended to improve equality between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors.

There are two ways to improve the equality - reduce the rec limits or increase the comm quota. One of those methods is beneficial to the long-term health of the fish population and the other is demonstrative of the ways ASMFC is an impotent regulation body and continually buckles to pressure from the commercial sector.

Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).



My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.

I'll be at the NH one.. I've been a guest speaker there, it's easy to get to...

My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.
What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Oil companies are trying to shoot down clean air and alternative energy initiatives across the country while providing misinformation to the general public. Should I be sympathetic to the oil companies desire to make more money and strike down other industries, as opposed to thinking that they are merely trying to increase their own wealth at the expense of the general public?

Many commercial guys are opposed to this insane proposal.

Sure, a myopic one year look at the data indicates a small increase will not reduce spawning stock biomass but that view ignores two important ASMFC reports.

ASMFC managers have been informed by scientists that fishing mortality is higher than currently calculated due to poaching and a new (f) or fishing mortality number is being developed.

The managers have also heard presentations that natural mortality is higher than currently being calculated due to the disease mycobacteriosis being detected in the coastal spawning stock and Hudson and Deleware river stocks.

Managers are quietly talking about a fishing reduction when the updated mortality numbers come in but the State of NY pushed the short term viewpoint.

Any Charter Boat or other buisness that testifies for a commercial increase should be boycotted. Why give money or refer money to those willing to risk the future of our fish. Hit them in the wallet is what I say.

What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, .

That is what is important to them....do you run your business to make money or are you a not-for-profit organization? That is their means to make money, they are good at it and they depend on it. Walking into a meeting with the attitude that they are raping a resource is not going to accomplish anything.

not for nothing but the science on both sides of the argument pretty much sucks so who do you listen to....

I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Is it because the resource is struggling or because its a resource you have a personal interest in that makes it worth protecting.

some would argue that the plight of the plover is a resource worth protecting :hihi:

If people go into these meetings playing the blame game...both sides get pissed, and any credible arguments they have, become meaningless.

Any Charter Boat or other buisness that testifies for a commercial increase should be boycotted. Why give money or refer money to those willing to risk the future of our fish. Hit them in the wallet is what I say.
BP, You and I have butted heads on a few occasions but I could not agree more with the above comment. Groups that support a commercial increase are either demonstrating their selfishness or completely out of their mind.

That is what is important to them....do you run your business to make money or are you a not-for-profit organization? That is their means to make money, they are good at it and they depend on it. Walking into a meeting with the attitude that they are raping a resource is not going to accomplish anything.
Nope. My business doesn't involve exploiting a natural resource or anyone for that matter. It involves win-win situations for all parties involved - they get high quality service, I get paid. On the other hand, those that support an increase to the quotas are, in my opinion, merely looking to further exploit a resource that is potentially on the verge of a crash for slightly more money in the short term - a situation that is eventually a lose-lose for everyone when they are out of business due to a lack of fish.

not for nothing but the science on both sides of the argument pretty much sucks so who do you listen to....
I completely agree and have never contested that. My contempt is with people of the opinion that because there is little reliable science demonstrating the stocks are at risk, that means quotas can be increased even though there is as much a lack supporting their position. There's far more risk in having a quota that is too low, than there is of having one that is too high.


Is it because the resource is struggling or because its a resource you have a personal interest in that makes it worth protecting.

some would argue that the plight of the plover is a resource worth protecting :hihi:

If people go into these meetings playing the blame game...both sides get pissed, and any credible arguments they have, become meaningless.
My position is because I believe the resource is struggling. As I've stated before, with healthy stocks and effective regulation, I'd support commercial fishing. Unfortunately, ASMFC sucks... plain and simple. The stocks do not show obvious signs of health and the regulatory body consistently demonstrates their incompetence.

And don't get me started on the plovers.:p The plight of that species is a demonstration of Darwinism, not over-exploitation.

Come on, that's it? Nobody else feel they can show up for one one of these meetings?

Come on, that's it? Nobody else feel they can show up for one one of these meetings?

Why do you think that is John???? Its because that there are Way More people on this board selling bass both boat and surf during the com season. Times are tough, not everyone can afford to drop a few hundred bucks a trip to go fishing on a regular basis, they need to sell fish to at least offset expenses, or fish damn hard and make a few bucks to get ahead during the comm season...

Now before the JohnnyD's, Makai's,Numbskull's, and the Sandmans jump all over me, I in no way support this bill... I dont think there is a need to raise the Comm quota and I myself am not for this bill. I though dont rely 100% to make a living from being on the water... However, I dont think raising the Mass comm quota will make much of a difference because honestly, I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference. The Black Market for striped bass Im sure is well over 1.1 million pounds in some states during a season... Who is killing those fish, just Comm Guys??? Common....

... I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference.



Hey Kenny, if these New England guys would see the amount of slob fish killed in a 6 mile stretch in Monmouth Cty NJ during a good May or June week, they would crap their pants.

Pretty sure the Mass quota has increased nearly every year since the moratorium ended. Why all the fuss now? Isn't Mass authorized to take up to 2 million pounds if they see it fit? If anything, Mass has stayed pretty conservative with regard to commercial pressure.

I would, however, end the out of state licenses so us poor Taxachusetts residents have a bigger piece of our own pie to eat....don't forget the sales tax holiday this coming weekend, either...now is the perfect time to buy that expensive piece of fishing gear you've longed for but needed just a little nudge...

To those of you attending meetings, thanks for doing that, If they had Maryland hearings, I would be all over it. Maryland just does whatever they wish to and then hire the professional justifier to fend off those of us with common sense. They don't do 'public comment' or 'will of the people' well here. Usually we just get a 'thank you for writing' form letter.

If the commercial and recreational catches need to have equity, then how about making a keeper slot for recreational fishing and reduce the take to one per day.

Also ask them why the two fisheries need to have equity to increase the catch rather than find equity by decreasing the catch.

How many of us really need to take more than 1 fish per day? One fish a week or every 4-5 days is about my take.

Crap, I went thru all this in 1976-1981 with Stripers Unlimited.
Then there was a proven problem and at every meeting I attended
(at Boston Aquarium et.al.) arguing for sanity, the
commercials in large attendance pooh-poohed the
loss as poor statistics, natural cause or taking food
out of the mouths of their babies.
Why do we have to go over this all again. Take a
look at the latest issue of Surfcasters Journal (http://www.surfcastersjournal.com)
for confessions of a poacher. The commercial limit
is a fiction, wrapped in a mystery and coated with
statistics.
I will be at the meeting in Dedham and will speak
against any such nonsense. Recreationals have to
register and pay a license next year as part of a
program to measure their limits. Until we have
more info from this program hold all changes.
This is a blatant attempt to grandfather in quotas for
commercials before the recreational licensing begins.
See youse there. I will be wearing my MSBA shirt.

Why do you think that is John???? Its because that there are Way More people on this board selling bass both boat and surf during the com season. [quote]

I'd be shocked if 10% here were selling commercially - and I don't have a problem with it - within reason. I have a lot of friends and fellow anglers that are licensed commercial shore and boat, different states. If the stocks were in better shape, I'd consider getting a license myself.

What's at stake: [QUOTE]The proposal to increase the coastal commercial quota is intended to improve equality between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors. Although Amendment 6 established management programs for both fisheries based on the same target fishing mortality rate, the implementation of state-specific quotas for coastal commercial harvest (and not for recreational harvest) has prevented the commercial and recreational fisheries from responding equally to changes in striped bass population size. Since 2003, coastal commercial harvest has decreased by 3.6 percent, while recreational harvest has increased by 13.7 percent. Under the option, the Board would select a percent increase to be applied to the coastal commercial allocations assigned in Amendment 6.

So while Rec fishing might be up since 2003 the general consensus is that it has long since peaked and is in decline. With Commercial harvests off slightly over that same time period, why would we want to INCREASE the take?

Personally, I'm for reduction on both Rec & Commercial harvest - not elimination.

[QUOTE=CowHunter;787846]I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference. The Black Market for striped bass Im sure is well over 1.1 million pounds in some states during a season... Who is killing those fish, just Comm Guys??? Common.... [quote]

So because the real damage is being done down south we should ignore it? Or allow it to do even more real damage? Because the black market is for say 1.1 million pounds we should ignore it?

Sheeit, we might as well open the EEZ while we're at ignoring the other things.

I agree with Kenny on this issue; I'm fine, for the present time, with the commercial quota the way it is (I have fished commercially since 1972, thru the good and the bad). My issue is that the rec people do not realize how many fish they kill during the season. As I said, I have been on the water for close to 40 years, and I don't EVER remember seeing this many people fishing for bass exclusively....each year, as fishing has gotten better, more people fish for them....look at the charter boat industry, even headboats regularly fish for striped bass these days. Back in the beginning of the lean years (late 70's, early 80's) charter boats fished for bluefish regularly, tuna most of the late summer and fluke, cod....they were only 3 or 4 boats at the Point (Judith) who fished bass regularly. Striped Bass is now a mainstay of the charter industry...as Kenny said, see what goes on down south of us (NJ, and Maryland, Virginia in the winter); that is what is effecting the population.

The coastwide commercial quota has been static for more than a few years; the recreational catch has increased exponentially with the increase in biomass for the last several years...anyone (Rec or Comm) who denies that is living in a fantasy world.
It gets very tiring to constantly hear how the commercial fisherman is killing all the bass when I have only been allowed to use the same amount of quota each year....I only catch more if some other areas don't have fish, but I do....at the end of the day X amount of fish are landed and subtracted from the alloted quota (be it MA or RI or NY)...

Now, reduce the recreational bag limit to 1 fish per day (as it was back when fish were everywhere, sic 1990's, early 2000's)...then see who squawks....

[QUOTE=CowHunter;787846]Why do you think that is John???? Its because that there are Way More people on this board selling bass both boat and surf during the com season. [quote]

I'd be shocked if 10% here were selling commercially - and I don't have a problem with it - within reason. I have a lot of friends and fellow anglers that are licensed commercial shore and boat, different states. If the stocks were in better shape, I'd consider getting a license myself.

What's at stake:

So while Rec fishing might be up since 2003 the general consensus is that it has long since peaked and is in decline. With Commercial harvests off slightly over that same time period, why would we want to INCREASE the take?

Personally, I'm for reduction on both Rec & Commercial harvest - not elimination.

[QUOTE=CowHunter;787846]I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference. The Black Market for striped bass Im sure is well over 1.1 million pounds in some states during a season... Who is killing those fish, just Comm Guys??? Common.... [quote]

So because the real damage is being done down south we should ignore it? Or allow it to do even more real damage? Because the black market is for say 1.1 million pounds we should ignore it?

Sheeit, we might as well open the EEZ while we're at ignoring the other things.

I dont think anybody is here ignoring the issues, hell Ive been pretty outspoken about alot of the issues especially protecting the EEZ... It is in all our best interest to protect the fishery as best we can. I may not do 360 days a year but I do about 150 trips a season for striped bass in several states from Mass to NC and have seen change of migrational patterns, water temp changes YOY, fish setting up in different areas, and most important the bait situation. I'm sorry if the fish dont show up in the same areas as they did in past years but they do need the right conditions. And Im sorry that the fish arent stacked on the beach in every spot that people surfcast.... Guys on here that bitch and whine that there are no striped bass around honestly dont have a clue about the fishery and its just a waste of time discussing the issue with them, if only they knew the potential out there....(By the way I am really glad they dont know) I Do not think the fishery is on the verge of collapse if guys are running out there doing 30, 40, 50, 200 + fish a trip, Sorry.... You know there does have to be a balance of Bass and bait... The big bodies of fish are going to where the bait is to sustain them, plain and simple... Best of luck in the 2010 season! As for me, been the best year for big fish with 5 50's and a 67.4 boated on my boat. By the way Team Reel Deal Got another board fish yesterday... Not bitchin' just fishin....

As far as just 10 % on here with com license, I really dont know what the numbers are, but nearly all that I talk to on this board sell bass...

&&&&&&&& around & around ?>?>?>?>?:jump1:

&&&&&&&& around & around ?>?>?>?>?:jump1:

It is a merry go round!!!!

Look at how many guys are attending this meeting... 5 a day??? How many on this site??? Some of the others don't see a problem and the rest are selling Bass!!

JMAC and Cowhunter - now you can come to the meetings then and take the position that I'm advocating ;) : NOT to increase the commercial quota. I'm not saying end comm fishing. The purpose of this meeting is to take public input on whether or not there should be a quota INCREASE. So in that it then it appears we're in agreement.

My regular position with regard to the overall stocks it to cut rec & comm back by a third which is better for the fish. And protect the forage fish.

I'm working on getting my son a ride to football so I can go.The bill is nonsense.RI

A777

THIS ISN,T A RI proposal ...this is higher up .federal or someplace .,.,:confused:

I'm 90% certain I'll make it that night

Let me get this right.The increase would be for

1.RI 3,662 lbs
2.MD 2164 lbs
3. NY 232,767 lbs

Total of 238,593 lbs of bass on top of the already 7,341,207 lbs total between the two.Making the new total 7,579,800 lbs.

3,806,275 for both rec and comm.

Can someone tell me how they guesstimate the rec numbers in the first place.

Can someone tell me how they guesstimate the rec numbers in the first place.
It sure seems like they apply the following technique:
http://www.thousandtyone.com/blog/content/binary/ManBlingfoldedWithDart.gif

If there is a discrepancy between the comm take and the recreational take, why not decrease the recreational take rather than up the comm quota to level it out??? Make the recreational limit 1 fish per day, any size... But upping the comm quota to simply be equitable with the bogus recreational figure doesnt make any sense... smells like some lobbying going on behind the scenes...

If there is a discrepancy between the comm take and the recreational take, why not decrease the recreational take rather than up the comm quota to level it out??? Make the recreational limit 1 fish per day, any size... But upping the comm quota to simply be equitable with the bogus recreational figure doesnt make any sense... smells like some lobbying going on behind the scenes...

Reduce the recreational take????? Recreational season doesnt close, you can go 7 days a week, 1,2,3,4,5 times a day, 12 months a year in some states as long as you dont have more than 2 fish in posession at anytime... Nobody counts those fish... Those rec kill numbers are way, way higher than anyone can estimate, they can never estimate em as they have no clue... The 1 fish a man would make the greatest difference, just think u do have to put a size limit on it...

I'm saying reduce the rec take by 50% by making it one fish per day instead of 2. Since it's never REALLY possible to accurately estimate the amount of fish joe-weekend takes, if 75% of anglers are honest and actually follow regs, than the 1 fish per day would reduce the amount taken by a large percentage... I feel I'm getting off topic though... the Point I am making is this :

you should never INCREASE a take (comm quota) in an attempt to equalize a discrepancy... If it is thought that the rec-angler takes more per year, then take steps to reduce that amount, not increase it to make everyone happy. the goal should be to decrease the total amount of the resource taken per season... on BOTH SIDES... Do what's best for the RESOURCE and it's future, not disgruntled categories of anglers... that is a no-brainer

I'm saying reduce the rec take by 50% by making it one fish per day instead of 2. Since it's never REALLY possible to accurately estimate the amount of fish joe-weekend takes, if 75% of anglers are honest and actually follow regs, than the 1 fish per day would reduce the amount taken by a large percentage... I feel I'm getting off topic though... the Point I am making is this :

you should never INCREASE a take (comm quota) in an attempt to equalize a discrepancy... If it is thought that the rec-angler takes more per year, then take steps to reduce that amount, not increase it to make everyone happy. the goal should be to decrease the total amount of the resource taken per season... on BOTH SIDES... Do what's best for the RESOURCE and it's future, not disgruntled categories of anglers... that is a no-brainer

I agree with you 100%.. The problem is that the Recs will never go for the 1 fish until its to late, If the com catch was increased to even 50% of the rec catch man would people be crying....

Many recreational fisherman are too shortsighted when it comes to their own favorite past time... I'm a rec. angler, and I would like to be catching bass 10 years from now.

I agree with you 100%.. The problem is that the Recs will never go for the 1 fish until its to late, If the com catch was increased to even 50% of the rec catch man would people be crying....

I agree with this but for a reason you will not like. Looking at this from another stand point why would a recreational fisherman agree to a one fish limit when others individuals are allowed to catch many more and make a profit from it. I agree that we need to reduce the recreational harvest but I think the only way it can actually happen is by either eliminating commercial fishing or greatly reducing the quota.

To say their is a "discrepancy" because recs catch is increasing while commercial is not, is meaningless and should not be part of the management process. Actually the recreational catch has not been increasing over the last five years, it has more or less been stable. Fisheries are to be managed in the best interest of the public. From a dollar standpoint for stripers the big money and jobs comes from recreational fishing. From the human standpoint millions of people get to enjoy recreational fishing for stripers bring family and friends together, even if only for one day. May sound corny but it's true.

We can keep say the fish are just in other areas or people do not know how to fish but doesn't match the ASMFC numbers. There has been about a 20%decrease in the spawning stock from 2004 to 2008.

I agree with this but for a reason you will not like. Looking at this from another stand point why would a recreational fisherman agree to a one fish limit when others individuals are allowed to catch many more and make a profit from it. I agree that we need to reduce the recreational harvest but I think the only way it can actually happen is by either eliminating commercial fishing or greatly reducing the quota.

To say their is a "discrepancy" because recs catch is increasing while commercial is not, is meaningless and should not be part of the management process. Actually the recreational catch has not been increasing over the last five years, it has more or less been stable. Fisheries are to be managed in the best interest of the public. From a dollar standpoint for stripers the big money and jobs comes from recreational fishing. From the human standpoint millions of people get to enjoy recreational fishing for stripers bring family and friends together, even if only for one day. May sound corny but it's true.

We can keep say the fish are just in other areas or people do not know how to fish but doesn't match the ASMFC numbers. There has been about a 20%decrease in the spawning stock from 2004 to 2008.

I really believe that even if you did get rid of the Comm fishing in Mass and RI the combined 1.3 million pounds will not make a difference. I know many will disagree....

I agree with this but for a reason you will not like. Looking at this from another stand point why would a recreational fisherman agree to a one fish limit when others individuals are allowed to catch many more and make a profit from it. I agree that we need to reduce the recreational harvest but I think the only way it can actually happen is by either eliminating commercial fishing or greatly reducing the quota.

To say their is a "discrepancy" because recs catch is increasing while commercial is not, is meaningless and should not be part of the management process. Actually the recreational catch has not been increasing over the last five years, it has more or less been stable. Fisheries are to be managed in the best interest of the public. From a dollar standpoint for stripers the big money and jobs comes from recreational fishing. From the human standpoint millions of people get to enjoy recreational fishing for stripers bring family and friends together, even if only for one day. May sound corny but it's true.

We can keep say the fish are just in other areas or people do not know how to fish but doesn't match the ASMFC numbers. There has been about a 20%decrease in the spawning stock from 2004 to 2008.

What happens to the general public, who do not fish, but love to eat fish, specifically striped bass? It has been a tradition for generations that specific sectors of the population (be they religious, ethnic, etc), have eaten striped bass. I know the argument always comes up about farm raised HYBRID striped bass....but it just doesn't pass muster compared to the real thing. So by caving in to the demands of the recreational fishery to have the whole fishery to themselves, you eliminate that portion of the population that does not have the means to catch it themselves.
And as you say, recreational fishing is a big cash cow...boats based on striper fishing, tackle based on striper fishing, quasi-commercial aspect of charter boat industry, etc....sounds pretty hypocritical to me that the commercial fisherman is the culprit to the supposed "downfall" of the striped bass....as always, it comes down to what's in it for me....

JMAC

Were you on the water today ??? east passage ????:confused:

The biggest mistake any of us can make based on this issue is to pick a side, and then argue it's validity... Do whatever it takes to preserve and protect the future of this fragile resource... I dont give a rats arse about the person who loves the taste of striped bass... They'll be tasting frozen fish sticks when the fishery collapses again... Do what's best for preserving the resource... period.

We tried to reduce recreational take in Rhode Island some years ago by asking our managers for a more conservative option. Our managers told us that AFMFC will take any savings and give it to other states/user groups. When AFMFC says "your permitted to take so much in your state" you have to come up with a figuere that equals an amount that they approve - any more they reject it - any less they take the savings and pass it to someone else. No leeway.

I would think that a majority of recs would approve of a more conservative take - an exception would possibly be the "for hire" industry but they are a small fraction of the rec number. But recreational take is not the issue here at these current meetings.

DZ

Were you on the water today ??? east passage ????

no.....haven't been in Bay since RI season....except bait....banging my head against the wall in MA...

I really believe that even if you did get rid of the Comm fishing in Mass and RI the combined 1.3 million pounds will not make a difference. I know many will disagree....

I disagree mostly because you aren't including the copious amounts of poaching in that number.

I disagree mostly because you aren't including the copious amounts of poaching in that number.

You guys are making a big deal over the poaching that is going on during the mass and Ri commercial season. What you fail to understand is that it still goes towards the quota which gets shut down in Ma at 1.1 million pounds. And in Ri on their spring and fall quota which is what, 100k or so? Fish are swapped Ma, Ri and so on. How many of the best comm guys u see out there fishing bass when the season is closed??? The bigger problem lies in rec guys going out 1, 2 plus times a day keeping their 2 fish each and selling them black market, nobody is counting those fish and that is going on in quite a few states where the black market is huge. Forget about nc and Va, those southern boys make the northern poachers look like amatures, they use gill nets, drag Em, haul seign Em and don't give a rats as about being legal on the water... They also poAch the eez zone without a care in the world.. All the hard core rec guys that want 2 at 28 inches promote poaching the wAy I see it. I only kill for myself what I am going to eat fresh not freeze when I'm not com fishing or doing charters. On the charters guys don't care what the limit is because they are going to kill the limit regardless.... This time around the rec guys can blame the comm guys, but in the end, it's the rec guys killing well over 90percent of the striped bass kill... Is what it is...
Johnny, rec guys, kinda like ur teapot to kettle pic???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sure seems like if it was'nt for the $$$ tag on them alot of problems would'nt exist....:huh:

Johnny, rec guys, kinda like ur teapot to kettle pic???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Going strictly from what I've experienced, almost every single commercial fisherman I have met has "issues with counting". That's not to say that all of them break the law, and the ones I've met are a small sample size. There is no denying that not all the fish that are caught on a commercial license are sold legally.

With regards to rec guys making 1 or 2+ trips a day and getting their 2 fish each time, I've never witnessed it - I'm sure some people do. I'd be curious to see *any* report that shows the recreation kill is "90percent of the striped bass kill".

In terms of me keeping fish, I've kept one this year and it was for my girl's mother.

In case you didn't get the teapot and kettle picture I posted, it was with regards to how you talk out of both side of your mouth. In one moment you complain about how many fish are killed and by whom, and in the next you're posting pictures of 50lbers killed and boasting about your 20 fish days.

I may disagree with Raider Ronnie on a pretty consistent basis, but at least he has enough balls to pick his side and stick with it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you think too many fish are being killed then put your money where your mouth is and stop chartering and give up your commercial permit, otherwise quit bitching about how many fish are killed and by whom.

Cow hunter... I dont know you, your profession, or your intent... and this is not meant as a jab... I mean it with no disrespect... but your avatar image speaks so much louder than anything you type in this forum... a picture is worth a thousand words... I've never removed that many breeders from circulation in my LIFETIME... never mind one tide... Like I said... no disrespect, but I can only stare at that image so many times before everything you type starts sounding like the teacher on Charlie Brown.

In no way am I complaining, just stating facts and experiences... I'm not going to stop chartering because it's killing bass, the law allows 2 fish a man, my clients want two fish so be it. I am stating that it is not necesary to have a 2 a man limit that clients merely kill two fish because the law allows it if the law allowed 1 fish a man they would be just as happy. As for the commercial season, I will fish it as long as it exists because the quota will get filled with or without me, yes I can live without it. I just don't think u guys realize how many guys do it, that's why u only have 5 guys a day going to this meeting... Yes raider Ronnie is strictly diehard com / charter guy... U do have to realize that charter guys are taking rec guys out fishing and charters are responsible for more rec kill than anyone else up the coast... Just because I am stating Facts, wether people like to hear it or not, there ate several states affecting the fishery not just Boston harbor or stellwagon... I'm sorry if I com fish, charter, and surf / rec fish, but I do it all and nobody has a right to tell me to pick a side or stop doing it cause it might be harming the fishery and so on, I am far from being blind as to what's going on. Ive fished on all sides.. I am telling you as a charter captain, the rec catch is way to high and way out of balance.
Again just because I dont agree with raising the com quota, in all honesty, On paper they deserve to raise the com quota to balance out the com vs recreational catch.... And yes, I truly believe the rec catch is 90% or better... I believe even the NOAA conservatively agrees with me by the look of their graphs...
For christ sake, we are comparing people running meth labs as equivelent to poachers. JohnnyD made a comment about Big oil preventing alternative energy... Well it is in their best interest... Is it any different than diehard rec guys or diehard comm guys wanting the fishery for themselves?????

If you want to read what the estimated recreational striped bass mortality rate is click below. If the fishery was going to collaspe it may be because of the recreational fisher person.

Catch And Release For Stripers (http://www.arkansasstripers.com/catch_and_release_kills_stripers.htm)

Cow hunter... I dont know you, your profession, or your intent... and this is not meant as a jab... I mean it with no disrespect... but your avatar image speaks so much louder than anything you type in this forum... a picture is worth a thousand words... I've never removed that many breeders from circulation in my LIFETIME... never mind one tide... Like I said... no disrespect, but I can only stare at that image so many times before everything you type starts sounding like the teacher on Charlie Brown.

No problem.... I dont want to claim Im somebody Im not... Yes I kill bass commercially, yes I charter, and yes I surfcast... I have fished all up and down the coast for years and I am just stating my observations and changes over the last few years. I am not one sided and am merely stating that things are well off balance....

If you want to read what the estimated recreational striped bass mortality rate is click below. If the fishery was going to collaspe it may be because of the recreational fisher person.

Catch And Release For Stripers (http://www.arkansasstripers.com/catch_and_release_kills_stripers.htm)


That is all Im saying, You cant blame the comm guys this time around with less than 10% of the catch... Although I do believe we are a ways away from any collapse, plenty of fish still around, some of us have been extremely spoiled over the last few years...

With regards to rec guys making 1 or 2+ trips a day and getting their 2 fish each time, I've never witnessed it - I'm sure some people do. I'd be curious to see *any* report that shows the recreation kill is "90percent of the striped bass kill".

If you saw what went on the last few years you would probably cry... The poaching was so bad that they flooded the market... There was several hundred LBS of dead bass floating in a harbor at one time because they couldnt get rid of the fish because black market was flooded... The blind eyes just thought of it as a fish kill... I cant tell you how often it happens, every single day, over and over...


http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sbass/images/fig40_2.gif

Just look at the NOAA chart, what say do recs have about not raising the Comm catch???

Again how do they estimate rec kills when they never get reported ? I'm not saying the numbers are right or wrong.Just trying to figure out how they can possibly estimate how many fish the rec angler kills.I can't think of any possible equation that would hold any weight ? The numbers just don't add up.The managers need to rework the entire system again.I know quite a few rec bass fisherman that are lucky to take 1 or 2 a year.Nevermind 1-2 twice a day.I've never seen that.Not saying it never happens.

Again how do they estimate rec kills when they never get reported ? I'm not saying the numbers are right or wrong.Just trying to figure out how they can possibly estimate how many fish the rec angler kills.I can't think of any possible equation that would hold any weight ? The numbers just don't add up.The managers need to rework the entire system again.I know quite a few rec bass fisherman that are lucky to take 1 or 2 a year.Nevermind 1-2 twice a day.I've never seen that.Not saying it never happens.

I'm assuming they largely base it on the charter fleets catch that is reported, and I'm sure that the entire charter fleet isn't nowhere near the actual numbers.. Sometimes there are polls taken fro fisherman and averaged out... U think the guys doing the real numbers are being honest in catch numbers???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Down in VA and NC most of the fishing is done by boat.Not much in the way of inshore fishing.Recently the pattern has the fish way offshore and the captain can either risk going over the fence or catching squat.Not much of a risk down there. They fill dumpsters daily with racks of rocks.I guess my point is access is more difficult without a boat,therefore the rec impact is somewhat limited.

The rec catch will NEVER be tallied,even close to accurately.Even with the new licenses,say someone calls you at the end of the season,asks how you did?How many of you even know how many you've kept?
If you do know,will you answer honestly?
Most guys here seem to be for a 1 fish a day rec catch.These guys know that if they report lower numbers than they actually saw,maybe the regs would change towards that end.
On the other hand,you have noobs,and glory hounds,who,even though talking to a stranger,on the phone,that they will NEVER meet,will pad their numbers,and try to make themselves look like a killer.The system is effed,and will stay that way,in my opinion.

Down in VA and NC most of the fishing is done by boat.Not much in the way of inshore fishing.Recently the pattern has the fish way offshore and the captain can either risk going over the fence or catching squat.Not much of a risk down there. They fill dumpsters daily with racks of rocks.I guess my point is access is more difficult without a boat,therefore the rec impact is somewhat limited.

No it is all considered recreational catch.... Nowhere do charter catches get counted towards a commercial quota.... The bulk of the biomass stages down there, is concentrated and easy pickins... That's why those dumpsters are loaded every day... Who's counting those fish????

The rec catch will NEVER be tallied,even close to accurately.Even with the new licenses,say someone calls you at the end of the season,asks how you did?How many of you even know how many you've kept?
If you do know,will you answer honestly?
Most guys here seem to be for a 1 fish a day rec catch.These guys know that if they report lower numbers than they actually saw,maybe the regs would change towards that end.
On the other hand,you have noobs,and glory hounds,who,even though talking to a stranger,on the phone,that they will NEVER meet,will pad their numbers,and try to make themselves look like a killer.The system is effed,and will stay that way,in my opinion.

Agreed it will never be tallied accurately... I think most people don't won't to be bothered with reporting their numbers though and the numbers reported will be much lower. People tend to be more lazy, forget, fall behind, and in the end don't report squat...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"On paper they deserve to raise the com quota to balance out the com vs recreational catch.... "

Imagine you have 2 small children... they are having an argument because one of them somehow has ten 2-liter bottles of soda, while the other one has one... there are two ways to solve the problem to make it equitable... you could reduce the amount of soda that the little bastard with 10 bottle has, or you could give the other kid 9 more bottles to make it fair... Either one would make it more equitable, but as a RESPONSIBLE parent, which solution would take into account the well being of the kids and their health? No kid needs 10 damn bottles of soda. you follow?

I am strictly rec... reduce the rec take to balance it out.

[QUOTE=ivanputski;788213
I am strictly rec... reduce the rec take to balance it out.[/QUOTE]

Ivan,
Very good point. Realistically, that is exactly what should happen. If this passes each state that increases its commercial take should reduce its rec take proportionatly.

DZ

Yeh, I think so too.

Some of us have been saying it for a few years now. Personally I killed 2 fish this year out of quite a few hundred I have caught. I am not against taking a bass for the table. I just am dead set against 28" 2 fish. There is no need to kill 2 fish a day. I don't care how F&%$#&*ing poor you say you are.

1 fish 36" or make it a game fish and strictly catch and release..

Which brings up a rather interesting question. I wonder how many of these "so called hardcore stripermen" would keep fishing, buying gear, boats, slips, etc, etc, if it were catch and release like in the 80s?

I remember in 89 thru 92, 3 of us would have Deep Hole all to ourselves on the midnight low tides. Couldn't keep anything so guys just stopped fishing. It was GREAT!!!!

Which brings up a rather interesting question. I wonder how many of these "so called hardcore stripermen" would keep fishing, buying gear, boats, slips, etc, etc, if it were catch and release like in the 80s?

I remember in 89 thru 92, 3 of us would have Deep Hole all to ourselves on the midnight low tides. Couldn't keep anything so guys just stopped fishing. It was GREAT!!!!

I'd welcome it!

"On paper they deserve to raise the com quota to balance out the com vs recreational catch.... "

Imagine you have 2 small children... they are having an argument because one of them somehow has ten 2-liter bottles of soda, while the other one has one... there are two ways to solve the problem to make it equitable... you could reduce the amount of soda that the little bastard with 10 bottle has, or you could give the other kid 9 more bottles to make it fair... Either one would make it more equitable, but as a RESPONSIBLE parent, which solution would take into account the well being of the kids and their health? No kid needs 10 damn bottles of soda. you follow?

I am strictly rec... reduce the rec take to balance it out.


WHAT? WHY?

Who says the take has to be 50/50 ?
I don't get that:huh:
because I see it differently

There are x number of recreational fishermen, there are y number of comm. fishermen. Base the amounts on the proportion for example there are 10 times as many recs. as comms, so it gets split 10 to 1. how hard is that?

Unfortunately I can't attend tonights' meeting, I have an appt. at 6 that I already rescheduled once.

I'll be at the NH meeting.

WHAT? WHY?

Who says the take has to be 50/50 ?
I don't get that:huh:
because I see it differently
Exactly what I've been wondering.

A question I'd like to see answered tonight: "what is the justification for increasing the commercial quota as a means of equality instead of attempting to decrease the recreational take? And what is the science behind that justification?"

They want to increase the quota to establish equality. If that is the case then the recs should be allowed to sell their catch legally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They want to increase the quota to establish equality. If that is the case then the recs should be allowed to sell their catch legally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As a recreational fisherman like the rest of us all are, except for a few weeks that we play commercial fishermen, all you need to do is pay 35 bucks for an individual striped bass license and you can sell fish over 34 inches.

See how simple that is. :smash:

WHAT? WHY?

Who says the take has to be 50/50 ?
I don't get that:huh:
because I see it differently

There are x number of recreational fishermen, there are y number of comm. fishermen. Base the amounts on the proportion for example there are 10 times as many recs. as comms, so it gets split 10 to 1. how hard is that?

Unfortunately I can't attend tonights' meeting, I have an appt. at 6 that I already rescheduled once.

The take doesnt have to be 50/50... the take should BE REDUCED ALL TOGETHER TO ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THE RESOURCE. It has nothing to do with whats fair, who deserves what, or who wants to take fish home for dinner OR profit... its about MAKING SURE WE HAVE FISH IN 10 YEARS... why is this point so difficult for so many to understand? Dont UP the take to make a certain group happy... LOWER it (rec daily limit) if equity is the goal... If there are no fish left, none of this will matter at all...

I'm done with this topic... it's like a conservative trying to convince a liberal to agree with them... Most of our minds are made up and refuse to change views regardless of the common sense right in front of us... I feel I've made my position known, for what it's worth... IT'S ABOUT TAKING STEPS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE STRIPED BASS TO ARGUE ABOUT 10 YEARS FROM NOW... Recreational take: 1 fish per day, any size.



*over and out*

So what happened at this meeting ? :huh:
I could not make it. Wife's dad is in the hospital and I had to get boys to football tonight.

Only 33 people showed up. Everyone at the meeting spoke out against increasing the commercial harvest. Many also commented that they would support a decrease in the recreational harvest. Many based this on a lack of confidence in the fishery data, especially open data points related to mycobacteriosis and poaching.

Interesting point was that as much as 70% of the stripers from Chesapeake Bay may be infected with mycobacteriosis and that 75% of the stripers come from Chesapeake Bay. Research on the affects on bass has not been completed yet.

The data presented also showed a 20% decrease in the spawning biomass between the peak in 2005 and present numbers.

The presenter was focused on the point that while there has been a 20% decrease in the number of bass the numbers were still above the SSB Target and threshold number. so there was justification to increase the harvest. So I guess they figure it's OK to keep increasing the numbers until we actually drop below the SSB target number.

My favorite part of the meeting were the graphs that show the SSB is trending downward along with Abundance numbers. Those numbers don't take into account the mortality from myco or poaching, which ASMFC recognizes as issues that will cause an increase in mortality yet, these idiot fisheries managers still think it's acceptable to further increase the number of fish taken because the ASMFC models don't show the fish at trigger points for action. :smash:

Bureaucratic stupidity at its finest.


I did find it interesting that not a single commercial fisherman showed up to show support for the increase.

I was also surprised that there didn't seem to be any commercial fishermen present. I hope they don't know it's a done deal and the hearing was just to appear as though our input mattered.

I did find it interesting that not a single commercial fisherman showed up to show support for the increase.

......tuesday is a commercial day....probaly getting bait or sleeping....

I was also surprised that there didn't seem to be any commercial fishermen present. I hope they don't know it's a done deal and the hearing was just to appear as though our input mattered.



Not many I talked to even knew about the meeting and to be honest I knew nothing of it till this tread was started.

Reminder that the RI meeting is tonight (in case some are confused).

Very informative meeting. I hope to have some time to run through and put up a few things, perhaps in a new thread.

Things are not exactly rosy with striped bass. We should be looking at reducing pressure, not adding pressure.

Also informative was the second topic of the evening which calls for a change to the way "recruitment" numbers are derived that will be more conservative (and after yesterdays meeting I support).

The take doesnt have to be 50/50... the take should BE REDUCED ALL TOGETHER TO ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THE RESOURCE. It has nothing to do with whats fair, who deserves what, or who wants to take fish home for dinner OR profit... its about MAKING SURE WE HAVE FISH IN 10 YEARS... why is this point so difficult for so many to understand? Dont UP the take to make a certain group happy... LOWER it (rec daily limit) if equity is the goal... If there are no fish left, none of this will matter at all...

I'm done with this topic... it's like a conservative trying to convince a liberal to agree with them... Most of our minds are made up and refuse to change views regardless of the common sense right in front of us... I feel I've made my position known, for what it's worth... IT'S ABOUT TAKING STEPS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE STRIPED BASS TO ARGUE ABOUT 10 YEARS FROM NOW... Recreational take: 1 fish per day, any size.



*over and out*

no arguement here
I personally would be fine if striped bass was catch and release.

I guess nobody in power sees that the bass are on the brink of decline, and they are willing to wait until they are over the edge to do something about it. That is what I don't understand. Between bycatch,seals, polution and disease etc. the bass need less pressure not more.

no arguement here
I personally would be fine if striped bass was catch and release.

I guess nobody in power sees that the bass are on the brink of decline, and they are willing to wait until they are over the edge to do something about it. That is what I don't understand. Between bycatch,seals, polution and disease etc. the bass need less pressure not more.

The mentality of ASMFC that I've always had and was re-enforced by the meeting last night is that they take a position of "our data does not show the striped bass is at an unrecoverable level so the harvest can be increased." There is no conservative approach to how they manage - if the data they have at this very moment doesn't show the bass at a trigger point or critical level (regardless of known mortality that isn't included in that data and would increase their reported mortality), then harvest can be increased.

One thing that irked me a little was the ASMFC Vision printed on the front page of the packet: "ASMFC Vision: Healthy, self-sustaining populations of all Atlantic coast fish species or successful restoration well in progress by the year 2015."
With all the data trending downward even before major mortality factors like poaching and myco are considered, even holding these meetings seems to be a huge contradiction of that Vision Statement.

Should be noted that many on the ASMFC striper board are totally against this measure and have strongly supported a much more conservative approach. Ritchie White, the New Hampshire representative has been a very strong supporter of taking more conservative action. So I wouldn't pile them all in one heap. We should be recognizing and supporting these representative and looking to remove ones like the New York member who pushed for this change.

I'll be at the RI meeting tonight as well. If any of you are going who weren't at the MA meeting last night, please take a moment to read through my synopsis of last night's meeting in preparation.

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/stripertalk/65622-my-take-last-nights-asmfc-addendum-ii-hearing-ma.html

Look--the managers are doing nothing but adhere to the management standards that have applied since the bass were declared to be fully recovered.

And that is to manage it on the basis of allowing "maximum sustainable yield". With a target mortality of F = .30, whatever that means in terms of mortality numbers.

That's the mandate that ASMFC has, and that's the way the law mandates that it has to be managed.

Nobody cares about bycatch, nobody cares about disease mortality, and noboody cares about predation.

That is the hard and fast reality.

Mortality restrictions have to come from above. The management philosophy has to change.

If that makes these meetings just a dog and pony show, with the outcome pre-ordained, well, that's the way it is.

OK Mike
so maybe it's time for change

unfortunately i wont be able to make it tonight but my email went in this afternoon along with a snail mail copy

turnout seemed light- about 30 or so i'd guess. all but one wanted status quo, one who favored increase owned a fish trap co. and stated stock was fully recovered...:smash:

Gotta give the fish trap guy credit for having the balls to say his piece in the face of practically unanimous opposition. There were a few guys I had pegged for commercial fishermen before the meeting started who spoke out against the increase.

OK Mike
so maybe it's time for change

Of course it's time for a change--but change has to start at the elected official level, because the bureaucrats and hacks aren't going to cut it.

Here's the real problem---numbers. Do you think that people like Barney Frank, and Bill Delahunt, Congressmen from districts with large commercial fishing interests in their constituency, have any freaking clue as to how many recreational fishermen there are in Massachusetts? Or any of the 4 people vying for Delahunt's seat in November. Maybe Jeff Perry might have somewhat of an idea. But they don't know our numbers. They see 30-odd people show up for a hearing, when there should be 350. They have no idea whether there are 3500, 35,000 or 350,000 recreational salt water anglers in the Commonwealth, or whether it's 3.5 million or 35 million nationwide.

I have to laugh. All year long I've heard a lot of you guys piss and moan about the SW license. Complaining about a "new fishing tax", vowing that you'll thumb the nose at the law, saying you'll refuse to put your name in the Federal registry. All over a lousy $10 license--less than the cost of two jigs or an 8 pack of Sluggos. One main objective of the Registry--perhaps its main aim--is to put a number on the noses of fishermen. The one effing thing that politicians know how to do is count noses, as noses = votes. They know how many commercial licenses are in existence, and they sure know how many dollars commercial interests donate to their PAC. They have no idea how many of us are out there, and how many voters they're pissing off by catering to the commercial interests. Yet, when we finally have a means to achieve that, all that many of you have done is bitch about it.

The fact of the matter is that recreational fishermen call the shots in a lot of the states that have existing SW licenses. Redfish are gamefish in every Gulf state and in Florida. Take Florida for example. FCA, the Florida Conservation Assn, is largely responsible for gamefish status for reds and snook. They achieved this with the power of numbers. If you think that Beacon Hill is a hackarama, the back rooms of Tallahassee make the hacks in Boston look like rank amateurs at the corruption game. Once the hacks in Florida saw how many people--voters--held a SW license, things started to change. And then FCA did something else. Again, backed by the power of numbers, they were able to put a question on the general election ballot amending the state constitution to ban inshore netting. That question passed by a vote of 72%. That took away the power of the backroom deal makers to gut any legislative net ban--it's now part of the state constitution, and can't ever be repealed except by another general election question that passes.

We can keep on being unrepresented, or we can put the power of numbers to work to effect changes. But, by all means, keep on bitching about having to fork over the outrageous sum of $10 to maybe get them to look at us as more than just a bunch of Joe Sixpacks with a white bucket who fish maybe 2-3 times a year on our 2 week vacations.

The other problem is that we're worse than disorganized. We're infighting amonst ourselves. The major groups that supposedly speak for us, RFA and CCA, are more interested in fighting between themselves than in speaking with one voice on behalf of recreational anglers. The commercial organizations speak as one. We backstab each other to be the alpha male of the pack. That's why I don't give any money to either group.

good post

Very well put, MikeP.

Word up !