Sorry about my sloppy earlier post. I stated rec in in certain instances where comm should have been used.

I would like to add cod and pollock to the Hall of Shame of government and comm fishing success stories.

Ol PJ,
So you put scallopers, draggers, gillnetters and pinhookers, trap fishermen etc. all inthe same basket? No commercial is a good commercial and all recs are saints?
Spence & John,
Yes, recreational fishing for stiped bass generates more economic activity than commercial fishing. OTOH the recreational catch of stripers is more than double the commercial catch. If we are going to analyze it in strictly economic terms we have to measure economic acitivty per pound of fish, or something similar. Now how small would the rec. catch have to be before people would stop fishing for them? On the other side of the coin, will increasing the recreational catch result in more economic activity or is it maxed out already? It would take a major economic study to answer those questions and no ones really knows the answers right now. No one knows what the marginal econonomic aciticty will be for an additonal pound of stripes caught by either sector. So any speculating that increasing the recreational catch would be economically more beneficial than leaving the current catch with the commercials is just pure B.S.

It doesn't matter if recs aren't saints. I want the POWER. I don't want the coms and government to have it. What is so difficult about that concept. Why is there such a difference between NJ and NY recommended intake of Hudson River stripers? Because NY is commercial and NJ isn't. It's the same river. NY chooses to possibly poison their citizens in order to support the comms.

It's not about who is right or who is wrong it is about power.

OPJ,
I have a hot flash for you, there is no commercial striper fishing in the Hudson river. So its only your bias showing through.

Great thread and posts. After reading everything it seems like we're all, rec's and comm, are missing the real problem, the root of it all. It seems like if you get right down to it, there'd be plenty of Stripers to go around for both sides if certain restrictions were enforced or better yet created on the striped bass' feed. To many times I've seen poachers pulling 5 gallon bucket after bucket at hidden herring runs and if I'm not mistaken didn't Mass last year or the year before allow some Russian fleet to come in and take some un-goddly amount of herring and menhaden from our waters?? Sorry for not being as up on the politics as you fellas, but I thought I'd throw this out there as my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
Also, look at the decline on the length to weight ratio with regard to the Striper. It used to be and inch equaled a pound, not anymore and why? Is it less baitfish in the waters? Stress levels, poaching of young fish that havent had time to reproduce????

There's commericial fishing in NY smarty pants and I am biased. This is politics.

I thought all of the Hudson River was catch and release?????:confused: Could be I am wrong, anyone know for sure?:huh:

I striper a day over 18".

No commercial though right???:confused:

the economic impact of Recrational fishing for Striped Bass far exceeds that of Commercial fishing for Striped Bass. Bass for commercial fishing is not a staple bread winner but a time limited side game that few regular comms particpate in. Many of the "commercial" rod & reelers are in fact recs with the comm license for bass fishing. Also where it is rod & reel most often and not damaging to an ecosystem, I feel that it is not "bad" (comm striper fishing) as long as regulations are adhered to and that these regulations have built in triggers to protect the stocks should they decline. Again, the bigger issue is the forage fish... Also penaltys should be far stiffer for those that break the law - comm & rec.

Ol PJ - you want power? Did you get your meds in on time? You want power, so you want to be judge and jury and determine who gets allocation, right? WTH does that have to do with protecting the fish?

Both parties ruined the stocks the last time and both parties suffered thru moratoriums and regs til they came back. I remember being a kid on the Chesapeke filling buckets of "rock" because we didn't know any better and nobody else did either. Things should be alot different these days and the stock should not collapse due to over fishing - might due to health and lack of forage but not overfishing as the rules are in place already to protect that.

Hotfish - you're correct - forage fish are the red headed step child in this equation.

Well here we go again!! Every one fighting over who gets the fishing rights!!

There is good and bad on both sides!!

And as far DMF goes, they did a good job of getting the fish back!!
But they have no idea on how to keep it good!! They don't want to say no to the commercials and they don't want to say no the recreactional !!
But they need to adress some concerns and take acation!! They can't be concerned for eaither!! They need to think about the fishery and what is good for it!! Not for us!

And we Comm. and Rec. should shut up and thank god for what we now have!! Come toghter and find a middle ground, and see what we all can do toghter to keep the fishery alive and well.

Till this happens we will NEVER have a Great Fishery!! This goes for all fish! Not Just Bass.

I don't think anyone here ever speculated that there was a linear relationship between the rec quota and revenue generation. For sure there is a lower cut off where the rec industry would go entirely underground. There is also a high cut off where the rec market is maxed. The key here isn't increasing rec quotas, it's maintaining a healthy species to ensure the rec industry can be sustained. It's quite possible that max rec revenue would require lower rec quotas to be sustainable. I would have no issue with that.

If recs were near or at their max revenue capacity, and they were consuming a minority of the fish things may be different. But it's clear that the recs already consume the majority of the fish. So what's the economic impact of allowing a commercial harvest that must be tightly regulated to mitigate the potential risk?

To me it appears that the economic impact of commercial striper fishing is minimal and doesn't represent a significant value justification to warrant a commercial catch which has the potential to upset the recreational benefits.

-spence

Spence several points. First stipers forever, the organization behind the push to make stripers a game fish is entirely about increasing rec quotas. Their agenda is to eliminate commercial fishing so that the recs can kill more.
Secondly, whatever the economic impact of the commercial fishing, its incremental to the economic impact of the recreational fishery, and I seriously doubt that its minimal. If it truly were minimal why would recreational fishermen care about the few measley fish the commercials catch?
Third, although uncontrolled commercial catch might affect the recreational fishery, no one is advocating that. What we have now is a tightly controlled commercial fishery which is not affecting, and under the rules of the ASMFC can't affect the recreational fishery.
To me it doesn't make any sense and is unfair to make stripers a gamefish.

That certainly is a biased and spun opinion. Gamefish status would increase rec quotas as a % of the entire quota, but doesn't necessarily have any impact on the total number of fish killed.
The economic impact of both fisheries are only connected in that one could make the other unviable. Rec fisherman care about the commercial take because it has the potential to harm the entire rec industry. As we have discussed, this has a much greater economic impact.
It's not affecting the rec industry today because of extreme measures that have been required due to commercial excess. Granted we have learned a lot and manage much better than in the past, but until issues such as bycatch, poaching, upgrading, forage, pollution etc...are addressed, it's not as simple as a yearly take.

I do believe many of the current rules limit a commercial fisherman's ability to best fish the ocean. That's why I think we need more comprehensive eco minded management, which is a bit beyond the whole gamefish thing...but that's another story.

Oh, and as a footnote. I agree Stripers Forever does mislead people as a tactic. This is evident in the Capt. James White article in this months RISAA newsletter. I plan to write a response to the editor...

-spence

That could not be more false. Are you trying to say they want 3 fish a day in Mass at 28 inches. for the recreational angler. The limit is currently 2 aday I wish it was one. I love these conspiracy theories. You have to look at other states and look at the big picture. We all want better fishing for stripers. The big issue is not the numbers the comercials take I think its the political influence they have. The recreational angler has no voice in most of these discussions. For example I am completely against having a saltwater fishing liscence but most other states have them and the money can be used to benefit the recreat. I am an outsider not from the North East originally. I think the fishing here is the best in the world better than Alaska. I am totally amazed at how many people think a striper should not have gamefish status. I think alot of people take the striped bass for granted.

Spence,

Re;"It's not affecting the rec industry today because of extreme measures that have been required due to commercial excess. Granted we have learned a lot and manage much better than in the past, but until issues such as bycatch, poaching, upgrading, forage, pollution etc...are addressed, it's not as simple as a yearly take."

Just to point out he obvious, makeing them a game fish will have zero effect on bycatch, poaching, forage, pollution etc.

Care to elaborate on what these "extreme measures" are?

I agree, that's why I've repeated several times we need a more encompassing management strategy. But even with strict enforcement, all the above have a large impact.

By extreme measures I'm referring to the fishing restrictions put in place in the 80's. Like taking the commercial harvest down to nearly zero.

-spence

Spence,
Just to make sure I have this straight. You agree that all of the problems you listed wouldn't be affected by making sptripers a gamefish. You also agree that, though extreme measures were required in the 80s they are not required today. Have I got that right?

Then why the hell do want to make them a gamefish?

To protect from commercial encroachment. I don't believe the comms will be happy with a minimal quota if the stocks appear healthy. It would be too easy for the balance to be upset and for the recreational industry to be hurt.

On second thought I don't agree with what you had said above. Chances are game-fish status would help deter poaching, up grading as well are making protection measures easier to pass.

-spence

I am all for gamefish status 2 fish a day at 28" and no sale of bass. Just last year in Rhody a boat got caught with I forget how many lbs of illegally stripers. If it became a gamefish maybe things like this would not happen as often. I don't think there is a big demand on the open market for stripers anyways so why not end the selling of bass. It's not like you can buy it at the supermarket or your average restaurant.

I guess its time to weigh in here as a representative of Stripers Forever. Some folks, commercial fishermen, mostly, are quick to label the growing push for game fish status for stripers as simply a quota grab by the recreationals at the expense of the long suffering commercials. I will pay a reward from my own pocket to anyone who can find any statement or recommendation from Stripers Forever that the commercial quota be just dumped into the recreational basket.
In fact, here is the excerpt from our discussion of our fall fishing survey addressing that very issue:

Of the 341 surveys that we recorded, only 1 person wanted to shift the entire commercial catch into an increased public bag limit. On average, recreational fishermen wanted to put 75% of the current commercial quota into expanding the conservation buffer, rather than just switch those fish to recreational harvest as our detractors claim. We would add that we would save even more fish by stopping commercial fishing because the illegal cash sales of striped bass would dry up very quickly once commercial fishing was halted and the sale of all wild bass made illegal.

The entire survey is available on our website.
Stripers Forever, as an organization, is barely one year old. Our only goal is to end commercial fishing for stripers. There are other important factors threatening the health of the striper fishery, but none that will have the immediate beneficial impact of the removal of the price on the head of marone saxatilis (striped bass).
We have no "official" position on what the recreational bag limit should be. Most of our members seem to feel it should be lowered from current levels, and from a personal standpoint, I agree with that. We have no "official" position on the harvest of fish in mid-spawn, although I personally despise the practice. We have no "official" position on the over fishing of bunker in Chesapeake Bay, although I personally think it must be ended.
We took what looked to be an "official" position on the matter of opening the EEZ to striper fishing when we opposed it at NMFS scoping meetings. We opposed it because we want to end the commercial harvest of stripers altogether, not to enlarge the area in which they may be harvested. If stripers were already gamefish, we would not have opposed the opening of the EEZ to recreational anglers.
We recognize that there are abusive and illegal practices engaged in by recreational anglers as well as commercial fishermen, and we look forward to the increased pressure that will be brought to bear on both groups when gamefish status has been achieved.
Our definition of Gamefish for striped bass is :no commercial sales of wild striped bass. Period. The same deal as redfish get in the Gulf states and Florida. Aquaculture already produces 12 million pounds of striped bass (hybrid) and we've been assured by industry reps that they could double that production in a year. The total (reported) commercial catch in 2003 was less than 10 million pounds, although unreported sales and bycatch would make that number significantly higher.
So, someone from the other side will jump in here with NMFS numbers about how many fish are already killed by the recreational anglers and how few are killed by the comms, and all that crap about "user groups" yada, yada, yada. It's really pretty simple though. The interests of 3 million tax-paying recreational anglers versus the interests of a (very) few thousand commercial folks, most of them looking for beer, eel and gas money.
We see real problems developing with the fishery right now. Skinny fish....sick fish...fish locally abundant but totally absent in other spots. It feels like the late 70's to a lot of old hands. Let's hope we don't have to ride the striper elevator all the way to the bottom again this time.

DeputyDog
aka George Watson
Stripers Forever

Well said: I think the comparison to the redfish is a good point. Some people need to travel to other places in order to get a better view of conservaton. The redfish is legendary in the south but the striped bass is probably the greatest fish of them all because you dont need a boat to catch them plus the topwater element and the size. However the redfish is protected at a higher level. Does that make sense to anyone? Not me