Slightly off topic here..

Was there any talk of over fishing manhaden in the chesapeake?? The chesapeake is dying, the crabs are vanishing, the stripers are skinny and hardly anyone makes notice that there are less menhaden around...
If Omega protien layed off the menhaden, the bass would have food and would stop eating the crabs. Same stuf is happening in narragansett bay with smaller lobster and fluke harvests... the bass are eating them because there's too little bait in the water to support the bass colony.
but what do I know...:confused:

The chesapeake has a major problem with run off and nitrogen. The nitrogen is causing giant algal blooms. When the algae dies the process consumes the oxygen in the water and causes fish and invertebrate kills.

goosefish wrote
\

We know what you're saying Goose. Folks have a nasty habit of waiting too long, and then the road back is longer and tougher.
I hope it doesn't come to that. We've got some ideas that may speed the process along (gamefish status, not the decline of the fishery). We'll keep everyone informed as things develop.

George Watson wrote:
"The truth is those guys couldn't find their own a$$ with both hands."

Mr. Watson,

Herin lies my frustration with your group. You are so blinded by your "supposed one goal" of eliminating the commercial fishing of striped bass, and keeping the EEZ closed to recreational folks as well and who knows what else...

However, you are all about SPIN and not the truth. Mr. Burns is so quick to misrepresent (F=.40) the figures published at the EEZ hearing but...

1) He was wrong, as I have indicated that that the that the fugure was actually F=.35. Mr. Burns had the same information as myself (and anyone else attending the hearing). In other words, he knowingly mislead Capt. John Bunar

2) When I corrected Mr. Burns data, we were told by you, (a founding SF member) that 'OH well, NMFS has no clue anyway' (note: your real quote above used some other choice verbiage)

The bottom line here is that Stripers Forever can't have it both ways! The data has to be acceptable when it makes your case as well as when it does not. So which is it? Is the NMFS data acceptable or not?

Finally, now that I have the ear of a real live founder of Stripers Forever, please review the following graph and explain to me again why commercial fishing of striped bass is such a threat to the striped bass resource. As you know, I tried asking the same question on a flyfishing website and I was banned as a result.

Thanks in Advance,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

ya boyee :)

keep it up :)

Mike
I just finished a long (too long) reply to your last post, went to preview it, posted it instead, tried to get it back and managed to delete the whole bloody thing. Probably just as well.
You didn't answer my question about what meeting you attended in the last few days that gave you such a warm and fuzzy feeling about striperdom. I'm waiting.

You love to jump on something when you think it is a misstatement. NMSF said that we were fishing striped bass at levels below target and threshold. Now they say that large fish have been fished above target and close to threshold for 6 consecutive years, and, if the .35 number was truly 2002, (Anne Lange implied it was for 2003) than this past year will undoubtedly make it 7 years in a row, with the increases given to commercials and recs by Amendment 6. How about hopping on that little error?
The NMFS chart shows F of .39 for, you say, 2001. That's pretty close to 40% I'd say. Whether its for 2001 or 2002 is less important than the number itself and what it represents. The previous numbers were the ones used to justify the commercial increase under Amendment 6, as well as the increase given to recs in some states.
Our opposition to reopening the EEZ was because of our goal of eliminating commercial fishing for stripers, not allowing the effort to spread out. If we had already achieved our goal we would have been silent on the issue.

That graph is a no brainer:(maybe you need an explanation);
Superimpose onto that graph the number of recreational anglers who fish for stripers vs the number of commercial harvesters. Then tell me why the latter should get even a single fish. They're outnumbered 300 to 1. Then superimpose a chart on dollars generated by recs vs coms and, again, justify the comms getting any.
And, by the way, I will engage you only when provoked. Judging from the positive comments and new members at the College Park, Marlboro and Somerset shows, I don't need to waste my time with you. Judging from the traffic on your own website, many others seem to feel likewise.
DD

Time for football !

what is up with you folks ? :confused:

got some major poopie pants here :laughs: :laughs: :laughs:

well i can't see any good in opening the eez!
The comercial qouta is full in 3 to 4 weeks as it is! And then 28" fish?? How are you going to get these eez fish to port when the inshore fish is 34"?? This means all fish will have to be 28" and this is not right! We will fill the qouta in 2 weeks then! and we will be taking all the small fish before they ever have a chance to breed just once.
IMO we will be right were we started with a doomed fishery!! Never see Large fish again! They have done a great job bring back the fishery!! But for what? to just knock it right back down. We are just starting to see nice 50# all the time again and before long we will be seeing 60# and maybe someday see the 73 # record beat??
So if its not broke don't fix it!!

Macjoe,

The size limits will be enforced in the state where the fish are brought to.

In other words, if 2 Mass boats head to the EEZ, 1 rec and 1 com, then the rec boat could keep a couple 28'' fish for each angler, however, the commercial boat could still only bring back fish that are over 34''

Again, since the comercial fishery is bound by a hard quota, opening the EEZ would be a conservation neutral reg.

This was all stated at the EEZ scoping meetings which is why it is so important to attend them.

I hope this helps,
Mike Flaherty