why so much time? so the marionette masters have more time to maximize their economic yields?

Self-serving? How so, I rarely fish for striped bass.

As for the "poor quality of available data" that is taken into account. Have you ever read a stock assessment in detail? The scientists use what is called the "precautionary principle" in making the assessments and often IMHO are overly cautious in the resulting assessment. That's what's killing us with BSB right now, the stock is supposedly waaaay over the target SSB but the ABC is set very low because of the "data poor" state of the stock.

I guess you are unaware that in most fisheries management its the scientists that set the ABCs and the "managers" really just try to figure out how to stay within those numbers.

You're about 20 years behind the times in your attitudes and thinking.

You really think that 3 months is too long?

good luck mike....

yeah shut it down. Then I won't feel like I am missing something while working on my house during the fishing season. 10 years is about how much time I need.

:uhuh:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Vulcan axiom.... and those are science guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or the one.

That explains why you are content believing the ASMFC is managing them well.

I have not seen any change in fishery management, other than that mandated by a judge, over the more than 20 years I have been concerned about it. I have seen continued depletion of most of the stocks of fish I would like to catch and I blame apologists like yourself for facilitating such mismanagement.

You also seem unaware that science is useless with bad data, and that science is subservient to real world data not the other way around. To pretend that fishery management is based on science is ridiculous. It is based on data collection that makes use of science to predict the outcomes using that data set.

When you have bad data, you have bad results. There has been an abundance of real world information indicating that the striped bass data being used to predict management outcomes has been bad for the last 10 years. The ASMFC has chosen not to believe it for political and economic reasons......not "scientific" ones.

We just see things differently. Your perspective is that the fact that the striped bass SSB has not totally collapsed is proof the management has been OK. The fact that striped bass recreational catch is far below what the main user group wants does not matter. The ASMFC has done their job and killed every last "extra" fish out there. Now if they would just do the same for BSB everything would be grand.

To each their own, but why so many gloating posts from you about it on a board dedicated to striped bass fishing if you don't fish for bass anymore?

This ones for you mike....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWGXt979yg

Then you weren't paying attention:

I do give credit to MakoMike for his efforts to actually participate in the fishery management. As Numby is demonstrating it is a thankless job for the most part,and it can be particularly difficult when an educated and frustrated angler minimizes your efforts regardless of your intentions.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

I'll accept that. But I am past the point where anything done for striped bass will have any effect in my remaining lifetime. The fish I want to catch in the years I have left are out there swimming now, and disappearing by the millions of lbs each year.

Yes, I'm plenty bitter about it. Yes, my bitterness is ineffectual, but I make no apology for it.

Anybody who thinks the striped bass fishery has been well managed since the last collapse does not share any perspective I admire. Indeed, we all would have likely been better off if such a person had stayed out of fishery management.

I appreciate your perspective and I am hopeful the "management" improves in time. George,perhaps you should be grateful to the fishery and all the great memories it has provided you. Like most things,it will never be the same as it was.If somebody with your passion and smarts had chosen to dedicate a career to the fishery management perhaps things would be different.

Thanks, I needed that. :)

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all user groups.

The Scientists control the catch, its really that simple. The Science & statistical committees set the ABC, ACLs etc. The rest of the management structure has to abide by their determinations, no if ands or buts about it. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

The management of the striper fishery has been dominated by the catering to the party boat industry. I used to go to the meetings in the late 90's and despite the near collapse of the fishery just a decade before , the meetings were a joke. There would be 60 fisherman there. 45 recs and 5 coms and 10 party boat owners. The whole meeting then became the 10 party boat guys yelling and trying to intimidate the lone rec guy with the balls to speak up. Then the committees got overloaded with com and party boat supporting members and we ended up with 2 fish at 28". What a ridiculous limit! All so the party boat customers could be all but guaranteed to take home a fish thus making sure the party boat owners would fill their boats with stupid fisherman who cared zero about the sport or the fishery.

So now the science looks bad for the fishery and despite the science we are still at the party boat friendly limit of 2 at 28. What a ridiculous limit! You don't need to be a scientific genius to know that is a ridiculous limit..

So anyway , I stopped going to the meetings so I wouldn't be put in the position of having to punch the lights out of some party boat loudmouth who was getting in the face of anyone who said the limit should be reduced.

Yes I know this finger pointing at party boat owners (and coms and the politicians they support) is always labeled as divisive and how we should work together to solve the over fishing but you know what , its all a lie. The people who care about the fishery are always going to be bullied at meetings and talked down by the boisterous people who are in the game for money. At the bottom of it all is that as long as there is money to be made on striper fishing , the fishery will be in danger. Money and fisheries management simply don't mix. Get the money out of striper fishing and there will be instant fishery management targeted at a thriving stock , not at keeping every money grubber along the coast in greenbacks.

Oh , did I say 2 @28" is a ridiculous limit?

So go ahead and call me whatever you want. I won't respond because anybody who has been in the sport since the limit was 1@36 knows that behind every argument against conservation is a guy who is making money off the fishery.

Gee, Mike, it says it in your quote of the law above. The bit about optimizing yield specifically for the United States' [B] fishing industry [B].

I apologize for using such an unreliable source, however.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "fishing industry" includes both commercial and recreational fishing. IOW it includes your local tackle shop as well as your local fishmonger.

No, Mike, my recollections are correct and I am sure you know it.

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 that forced the MSA reauthorization of 1996 (just like with the more recent 2006 reauthorization) was entirely the result of legal action and legislative pressure by the Pew trust and other environmental orginizations. The fishing industry fought it tooth and nail until the fisheries were so damaged they had nothing left to lose. You go look it up. The US Judicary site has a nice summary if you are so interested.......which I'm sure you're not (I'd link it for you but don't know how from an iPad).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right, Mike (finally), the law caters specifically to those with an economic (i.e., commercial) interest in the fishery. It ignores entirely those of us with a recreational interest in the fishery. You can be very sure that phrasing was inserted under the lobbying pressure of economically interested parties while us recreational schmucks worked our usual jobs oblivious to the screwing we were getting (although obviously the act was concerned with far bigger issues than striped bass and recreational fishermen). A real good argument for gamefish status it seems.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Using your "logic" here Numby, would it be fair to blame you for Obamacare?

Didn't think so....but get it off of your chest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've had to kind of chuckle.In 95 we had loads of nice fish in Maine. MSA adopted. Numbers were changed to meet a figure dirived mostly from the charter industry as like back in the 70's an 80's nothing from the sportsfishermen was valid as we had no documentable data. All tourny an derby data was aneckdotal to ASMFC as they stated when it was brought forward each time.One thing that was promised though was a periodic reveiw of the process to tweek it so as all user groups were treated fairly.As sportsmen have caught up with sata entry things dissapeared from the process,commercial rod n reel became more entrenched and we saw a steady decline of fish in Maine.As the northern reps tried to get the accesment figure proces modified as it was beleived rightfully to be flawed and too high. Wider spread declining fish landings and fewer large migratory schools being found were. showing a familiar trend.Being screamed at by greedy types wanting to still chase the gold rush during hearings and meetings became more like the 80's. Today the decline is coastwide.Catch numbers are way down. Mirgration schools at both ends of the season are almost gone . Name calling by those that want it to stay the way it is for self interest that is usually conected to the pocketbook is starting to get like it was way back.The process can and will be changed. Steps are underway away from the name callers so that all the data right n wrong is being looked at to make changes in the process so the fish will benefit.
The stupedist part of the arguement is that we all have a vested interest in the fish stocks improving. When they do we all will benefit as there will be more fish. Wether they be comms,sport,tounement of for just to see an enjoy the economic benefit will be for all plus the system will be tweeked so as it works better and the fish stocks will be better and healthier.
The thing to do is stop wasting time with the loud nay sayers and get in touch with all those you know away from the shouters an name callers to work towards fixing the broken process. Talk to the club reps an have them contact the other clubs with whats wanted and needed to get this process doing as the MAJORITY wants and not the minority. I'm selfish I'd like there to still be catchable fish when I'm 90. Oh it's been very interesting the response when I asked how many comms paid taxes on the fish sold under their permits. Seems some of it doesn't jive with the catch numbers.

Yes Mike I've been on the phone and computer talkin with a load of people.

Yes, Chris, it would be fair....although I'm not sure I follow your agenda.

Using your example, however, then very definitely cost inflation driven by physician charges and test ordering behavior, of which I am certainly a part and a beneficary, is a major factor necessitating healthcare reform. That means my opinion on the matter is biased and worth challenging.

By the same token, anybody who has been supporting the management process that has
resulted in our current fishery mess, particularly while profiting from that process, is biased and worth challenging.

Enough said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember the 16" limit? I do. What was the science behind that?

So with the idea that the difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist is better informed. I'm trying to dig a little into how the data is gathered regarding the " science " numbers. Tub trawls, seine halls , etc.
From the looks of it rec numbers are derived from phone surveys and intercepts of people fishing.
Really ? Talk about looking at the world through a drinking straw.
No wonder it's at best a guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just remember this guys, when all is said and done the future of striped bass depends on one factor no one can control, the weather. Best the managers can hope for it keep the egg production up (maintain SSB) and pray for good weather.

everyone agrees the "science" has been crappy- until now. StripedBass have undergone the most extensive benchmark stock assessment in the history of fishery management-
is it a "perfect study"? no-

is a perfect study possible? I don't think so- between monetary constraints and the logistic impossibilities of being able to monitor the fishing public, (how many of you actually see another human when out fishing at night?) there are many reasons why the science is kinda $hitty.... so like it or not, these are the numbers that are available- anything else really is pure guesswork. accept it- this is what we got

I remember when they correlated the production to sunspot activity...really!