[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

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!!!!

I'd welcome it!

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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).

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/Stripert...earing-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.

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 !