These are the three proposals for recreation sea bass fishing for 2011:

1) maintain the current minimum fish size and adjust the possession limit and season;
regulations would include a 12.5 inch TL minimum fish size, 2 fish possession limit (-23 fish),
and an open season from June 1 through July 31 and November 1 through December 31;
[0.2622+0.2410-0.0632] = total reduction* = 44.0 percent

2) maintain the current minimum fish size adjust the possession limit and season; regulations
would include a 12.5 inch TL minimum fish size, 5 fish possession limit (-20 fish), and an open
season from July 1 through September 18 and November 1 through December 31;
[0.3864+0.0787-0.304] = total reduction* = 43.5 percent

3) adjust the minimum fish size and possession limit, maintain season; regulations would
include a 13.0 inch TL minimum fish size (+ 0.5 inch TL), 1 fish possession limit (-24 fish), and
an open season from May 22 through October 11 and November 1 through December 31;

So the best we can hope for is to be cut from 25 fish per day to 5 fish perday!

So the best we can hope for is to be cut from 25 fish per day to 5 fish perday!

Is the reduction in quota warranted? Why or why not?

We get most of our fish in buzzards bay in may.......no season in may!!!!

Wow, that is a hell of a drop. I dont target them at all but i read the fisherman every week. Seems that regardless of the open season they are biting every where. If the reduction is warranted because of some good scientific evidence im all for. If its just a grab for commercial fisherman than they really need to look more closely at the issue.

Who needs to keep 25 fish a day? that's 1500 fish per 2 month period per person

these fish are very abundant and the stocks are in great shape as far as i can tell. i can catch a limit of them, if i wanted that many, in an hour, or two if it's "slow". this is a rediculous reduction. a 1 fish limit - you've got to be kidding me. i'd be fine with a 10 fish limit

Who needs to keep 25 fish a day? that's 1500 fish per 2 month period per person

what bob said...

Draconian measures , fish "Science" is far from perfect. :confused:

the daily possession limited is not 25 fish per day, it is 20...

Is the reduction in quota warranted? Why or why not?

The current stock assessment has the biomass above the level required for maximum sustainable yield. Close to 150% of the MSY required biomass. Evidently the "scientists" don't believe their own numbers. The commercials are getting hit just as bad, its not a fish grab, unless you consider the NMFS to be grabbing the fish. MA was the only state at 20 fish per day, all the other states were at the permitted 25 fish per day. These are often small fish guys, 25 three pound fish doesn't produce a ton of filets, and who goes fishing for them every day. Yes you MA guys are screwed double, because the big fish are up in Buzzards bay in May.

Commercially in RI last year was horrible because of the dates they had for commercial season .
even late . commercial was shut all of August /was suppose to open 9/1 ,, 3 days before / they sent out a notice that it wasn,t going to open til 11/1 >3 days after that they extended the rec. ;;

Rumor was [is] that MA. sea bass both rec & commercial in 2010 ,,,,was a slam /blam than you maam season ><><><


as a good friend & a very knowledgeable fisherman has said over & over ........ what ever they purpose or actually put into effect ............just figure that fisherie is in the complete opposite of what they say/do ;:fishin:

Who needs to keep 25 fish a day? that's 1500 fish per 2 month period per person

What?? you work for nmfs's?......that how they add things up.....lottsa rec. folks sea bass 3 or 4 times a year tops and TRY to fill the freezer, whats wrong with that?......and since sea bass are boat caught fish.....not cheap to run a boat these days.....most guys try to get the most out of the day they run there boat.......again, what's wrong with that?

I don't have a problem with what you state, I'm just saying my example is excessive IMO

instead of the usual "let's kill 'em 'till there gone"...i think it's good to be proactive for once. sure wish they'd treat stripers the same way.

I agree if there is a problem, adjust the limit, size, season.... but how in the world do you go from 20 fish a day in Mass to the possibility of 1 fish a day over the course of the winter? What is the basis for such a drastic reduction ?

Like I said elsewhere...fishery agency problems are unfix-able.

Turning on and off fisheries is not "management".

The "1500 fish / month is not enough for you?" thinking is rampant esp when comm fishermen are pitted against recs. I would bet no one fishes anywhere near that much as it is asinine to make such assumptions. In reality most people will stop fishing for them when the catch limit is low. Look at Tog in MA...3/day, many of the fishing reports show guys not even trying because it is not worth it for a 3 bag limit. I heard the same argument for fluke when cuts there were being battered about.


What I want to know is if NMF folks are assuming we go every day and take our limit? That is what is sounds like. If not what is their assumption(s) to assume a 45% reduction?

[QUOTE=Mr. Sandman;811948]Like I said elsewhere...fishery agency problems are unfix-able.

Turning on and off fisheries is not "management".

That is a good point, if the stock is in such dire straits that we go from 20 to 1 bag limit, how is it possible that "they" did not see this coming 1 or 2 seasons ago and make adjustments then? Maybe we just don't have all the facts at hand.... but this just does not add up.

instead of the usual "let's kill 'em 'till there gone"...i think it's good to be proactive for once. sure wish they'd treat stripers the same way.

Exactly my thought. Unfortunately, many people have a mindset of "if fisheries managers aren't letting us exploit a species to the fullest, then they aren't doing their job."

That mentality is working at well for the striped bass. :yak5:

These are the three proposals for recreation sea bass fishing for 2011:

1) maintain the current minimum fish size and adjust the possession limit and season;
regulations would include a 12.5 inch TL minimum fish size, 2 fish possession limit (-23 fish),
and an open season from June 1 through July 31 and November 1 through December 31;
[0.2622+0.2410-0.0632] = total reduction* = 44.0 percent

2) maintain the current minimum fish size adjust the possession limit and season; regulations
would include a 12.5 inch TL minimum fish size, 5 fish possession limit (-20 fish), and an open
season from July 1 through September 18 and November 1 through December 31;
[0.3864+0.0787-0.304] = total reduction* = 43.5 percent

3) adjust the minimum fish size and possession limit, maintain season; regulations would
include a 13.0 inch TL minimum fish size (+ 0.5 inch TL), 1 fish possession limit (-24 fish), and
an open season from May 22 through October 11 and November 1 through December 31;

what a crock of %$%$%$%$! Sure wish these guys would pull their heads out of their asses.. maybe actually try fishing for them.. then they will see the true condition of the stocks.. :wall:

[QUOTE=Mr. Sandman;811948]Like I said elsewhere...fishery agency problems are unfix-able.

Turning on and off fisheries is not "management".

That is a good point, if the stock is in such dire straits that we go from 20 to 1 bag limit, how is it possible that "they" did not see this coming 1 or 2 seasons ago and make adjustments then? Maybe we just don't have all the facts at hand.... but this just does not add up.


"They" (Fishery groups) used the same "logic" for SB..complete moratorium....maybe it was warranted but THEY HAD BEEN MAGAGING THE SPECIES FOR DECADES PRIOR!!! This is what kills me...they keep patting themselves on the back for a job well done and saving the bass but in FACT they did nothing in terms of actually managing the species. The fact is THEY were (and still are) more part of the problem then the solution. This is why fishery management is an unfixable problem. The government must disband all fishery departments and start with some conservative approaches. This harvesting the maximum yield theory does not work. We should not consider the oceans a farm and try to squeeeeze every last drop of resource from it.

Any idea why the word " Harvest " is used so much ?
Wouldn't harvest imply farming, taking care of the land, seeding, nurturing then harvesting. Then do it all over next season.
I don't see a parallel.

" Harvest " is the wrong word.

Any idea why the word " Harvest " is used so much ?
Wouldn't harvest imply farming, taking care of the land, seeding, nurturing then harvesting. Then do it all over next season.
I don't see a parallel.

" Harvest " is the wrong word.

"Harvest" sounds better than "Kill".

Is hamburger "harvested"?

"Harvest" sounds better than "Kill".

Is hamburger "harvested"?

The fish and game folks apply the word "harvest" when referring to hunting as well .......as in harvesting a deer.....go figure?

I suspect the result of the fluke mess has been to shift recreational fishing pressure onto seabass and the ASMFC suspects the current level of pressure is unsustainable.

Exactly my thought. Unfortunately, many people have a mindset of "if fisheries managers aren't letting us exploit a species to the fullest, then they aren't doing their job."

That mentality is working at well for the striped bass. :yak5:

The stock is at 150% of the msy biomass. They are supposed to manage to the msy biomass, that is the law. The problem is twofold 1) they don't believe their own numbers and 2) they are taking so many
'precautionary" measures that it makes the stock assessment meaningless. If they managed striped bass like this we wouldn't have a 2011 season!

instead of the usual "let's kill 'em 'till there gone"...i think it's good to be proactive for once. sure wish they'd treat stripers the same way.

If they did manage striped bass this way we would't have a season!

The fish and game folks apply the word "harvest" when referring to hunting as well .......as in harvesting a deer.....go figure?
Just another example of the same situation. Sounds better to the general public to say the animals were "harvested" than "killed". The whole thing seems silly to me and it's merely done as a PR thing.
The stock is at 150% of the msy biomass. They are supposed to manage to the msy biomass, that is the law. The problem is twofold 1) they don't believe their own numbers and 2) they are taking so many
'precautionary" measures that it makes the stock assessment meaningless. If they managed striped bass like this we wouldn't have a 2011 season!
MSV is a terrible metric that is impossible to reliably compute because it is based on numbers with a massive margin for error.

Some precaution might just be a good thing. I wish they'd use some precaution when managing striped bass. While you say that if they managed striped bass like this you wouldn't have a season, I say that if they don't *start* managing striped bass like this then eventually there will be no fish to have a season for.

If they did manage striped bass this way we would't have a season!

If they cut the S-B daily take by ~40 percent, and increased the size limit, we'd have 1 fish per day at 36", which many people (myself included) seem to be in favor of.

NMFS is now run by the Pew Foundation and they're very simple goal is to stop all fishing.
Get used to it.

NMFS is now run by the Pew Foundation and they're very simple goal is to stop all fishing.
Get used to it.

A bit simplistic I think, but worthy of some discussion.

Actually, the Pew Trusts (at least as I understand it and that is not all that well) exist to create a counterbalance to the economic interests that favor over-exploitation of environmental resources. It funds many groups. Some are indeed radically anti-use, but others....and I think the CLF is one.....are more balanced. Their interest seems to be in restoring fish populations closer to pre-industrial fishing levels. Fishing is not an issue for them if it can be done responsibly, but preserving someone's "right" to fish or make a living fishing is not their priority......restoring fish populations is.

From a recreational (or consumer) standpoint it is hard to see how more abundant fish would be a bad thing. The issue is access to those fish. MPA's are coming in the areas we fish (just ask the guys in California). If fishermen, both recreational and commercial, had been able to control their greed and fish more responsibly MPA's would not be necessary. We can't....so we will get screwed.......and we have only ourselves (not the Pew Trust) to blame.

MPA?

MPA?

Marine protection area. A huge block of water that no one is allowed to fish in. It's like a bird sanctuary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's amazing to see what a mpa does for an area. the way life bounces back is truely amazing. one of the problems with them though is that other areas get hammered with all the fishing pressure that gets shifted to them. as an angler it would be very sad to see stellwagen as an mpa - which is what they want. there's got to be a happy medium

Here is a link to the government's mandate National Marine Protected Areas Center: MPA Federal Advisory Committee (http://www.mpa.gov/fac/)

You will see that it includes all user groups including anglers and commercial fishermen......but also environmentalists. The Pew money funds the latter groups and they are well connected as a result. Instead of fighting the idea, they have bought into it and are active using it to get what they want. Fishermen, being much stupider by far, have resisted the idea and fought against it. Bad move when the end result is mandated by law. As a result our "needs" become marginalized and things go forward without us.

In California this has lead to the closure of many prime fishing areas. Maybe it does not have to be such. Limited catch recreational fishing (as opposed to fill the boat to the brim high pressure recreational use) could probably be negotiated as these areas are set up, but this will not happen if recreational fishermen join forces with industrial interests and choose to pretend the current system can be fixed. The Gov, courts, and CLF know that is not true and have moved beyond pretense into action. Bad in the short term, but maybe better for recreational fishermen in the long term than the continued stupidity that is fishery management.

Here is a quote from the Calif Dept of Fish and Wildlife regarding the law they are dealing with.

"The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) directs the state to reevaluate and redesign California’s system of marine protected areas (MPAs) to: increase coherence and effectiveness in protecting the state's marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as to improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems subject to minimal human disturbance."

Bad law from our standpoint, because it includes a stipulation against human "disturbance" under which ANY fishing could be characterized.

All it takes for us to end up in the same place is a ballot question sold to the non-fishing public as a vote to "protect nature". Since the public in general wants to feel good about protecting the planet, voting for something like this is a feel good opportunity and it would likely pass.

If recreational and commercial fisherman continue to insist on maximal utilization fishing.......as they do now and undoubtedly will continue to do.....it will be a very easy sell to the general public asking them to shut us down for the "good of nature". Very easy because it will be correct, sad to say.

MPA?

MPA=Maximum Protection from Anglers.......:bs:

I'll go for the 5 fish limit for REC ,I don't put fish in the freezer, I catch so many shorts , and I will hold out for a big one and toss a just legal one back,
such a tasty fish the colors of a male with the big hump just a pic of a fish like that makes me happy
LINK ,
Happy Thanksgiving everyone

"Harvest" sounds better than "Kill".

Is hamburger "harvested"?

true that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

HARVEST is also used because we are referring to a natural resource.
as in the ocean is the "field", the species are the "crop", and we are the "farmers".

ahhhhh, yes; but, will we be GOOD stewards of our Provision~~~ that is THE question!!!
:fishin: :fishin: :fishin: :fishin:

I'll go for the 5 fish limit for REC ,I don't put fish in the freezer, I catch so many shorts , and I will hold out for a big one and toss a just legal one back,
such a tasty fish the colors of a male with the big hump just a pic of a fish like that makes me happy
LINK ,
Happy Thanksgiving everyone

Not enough fish.......it's starting to cost big buck to run the boat for the day.....10 fish minimum........

Not enough fish.......it's starting to cost big buck to run the boat for the day.....10 fish minimum........

Right because limits should be based on how much it costs fishermen to go after the species. How about this? If regulators feel that the limits need to be reduced below what's "worth it", they just close the season?

Does anyone have any actual science behind these proposals - good or bad?

They start small and eventually they'll take it all.Only thing everyone in their fancy boats will be able to do in a few years is have lunch and pull water skis.Sell the boats, the cost per trip/slip to try and pay for the amount of fish means nothing to these people in charge.NOTHING.Boat yards will see less $$ shops at the boat yards see less $$$.The bait guy gets less $$$.We are losing it all little by little.Seems like there's not much we can do about it.....:wall:

I agree we're losing little by little, death by 1,000 cuts. However, we have also from time to time been the excessive ones impacting too much. Unfortunately, fisheries management is far from a well oiled (and accurate) machine.

Right because limits should be based on how much it costs fishermen to go after the species. How about this? If regulators feel that the limits need to be reduced below what's "worth it", they just close the season?

Does anyone have any actual science behind these proposals - good or bad?

Ya.....those fishermen and boat owners also happen to be voters,taxpayers and citizens.........so the question I put to you johhny boy is do we manage the fish stocks for the good of the people and the commonwealth or just for the health of the fish stocks unto it's self?

Ya.....those fishermen and boat owners also happen to be voters,taxpayers and citizens.........so the question I put to you johhny boy is do we manage the fish stocks for the good of the people and the commonwealth or just for the health of the fish stocks unto it's self?
Limits shouldn't be based on the price of fuel and whether those limits allow for high enough margins when the fish are brought to market.

I believe the guess was that the MPA would create a no intrusion zone in the " HOPE " ( where have we heard that before ), that the overflow would replenish nearby areas to be fished.:confused:

Limits shouldn't be based on the price of fuel and whether those limits allow for high enough margins when the fish are brought to market.



I'm not talking about bringing anything to market but rather referring to rec. folk( that's families) catching enough fish for the freezer to offset the cost of running There boat........