Mass. weighs tougher protections for striped bass
 

Look at that!!
http://www.bostonherald.com/business...osition=recent

20"??????????? They can't be serious?

I thought that strange too,maybe an accommodation to aquaculture?

If 20 inches is not a mis-print then those folks on on Beacon Hill really don't know their ass from their elbow!:smash:

Larry you seem surprised,those fargin ice holes don't have a clue especially that little guy Patrick :devil2:

Can't find the hearing notice. Anybody? I only posted the AP wire

Wow what is the reason behind this ?More info is needed.

Is this the reference to bill: H796, a bill introduced by Rep. Matthew Patrick to conserve wild striped bass by prohibiting the commercial sale in Massachusetts? Looks/reads like they intended a slot: 20 - 26 and greater than 40?

.....no instance shall any rule or regulation authorize the taking or possession of striped bass which are less than 20 inches in length or greater than 26 inches total length but less than 40 inches total length. It is unlawful to take or possess striped bass unless the fish are whole with head on and are between 20 and 26 inches total length or 40 inches and greater total length.

Note: this may not be the current language draft going before the House...

Like this will get passed. The comms will be all over it..

no ya missed it
 

they said "tagged by the grower"

so as to not to be confused with the wild fish caught (shorts)

but the $1000 dollar Fine,,,,,,,,,,60 days in jail....stuff
was thinking:
whats to stop someone from sticking a few short fish
in the bed of your truck out of revenge or whatever
a bloody hate crime

it would make the buddy system paramount
unless you have a vehicle that prevents this
or it's your word against theirs.

Interesting. Clearly states no commercial harvest and a Slot limit for Recs. The only thing missing is calling it a state gamefish - purely speculating that some that wrote the this would not want to call it a gamefish to give it some long term legitimacy.

Whenever the topic has come up, this is what most people have wanted. I don't believe changes like this in only one state is going to make any difference though.

If this passes through when would it become effective? Has anybody lived through a similar mandate like this? I've only fished within the current regulations but this is alot different and I don't know what to think. Seems ok for the conservation of the species but the Comms would be drastically affected by this. How many dollars are we talking about commercially per season in MA? Sorry for all the questions which may seem stupid to others more in tuned to this.:smash:

John were did you find that?

Bill

I think it would make a minuscule difference but not a big one.

I don't think the comm money on SB is a drop in the bucket compared to the rec dollar generation. Very few dedicated comm fishers make a sizeable dollar off it and the majority of SB comm fishers are generally recreational anyway. NOBODY can make an annual living off selling SB in Mass.

Personally I'm for tighter regs on both Recs & Comms, coastwide but not for eliminating the commercial take. Allocation isn't the issue.

In PRBuzz's post above

My info came via a Stripers Forever campaign to make the striper a game fish and block commercial fishing. Here is the info provided on economics:

According to a recent professionally produced economic study, the economic impacts of the recreational fishery in Massachusetts total to $1.2 billion compared to only $24 million for the commercial fishery 50 times greater.

The recreational fishery is responsible for 10,986 full time equivalent jobs many are full time compared to just 524 full time equivalent jobs for the commercial fishery.

The Commercial fishery runs only a few days each week for a couple of months in the summer, and no one depends on striped bass for a full time commercial fishing livelihood.

66% of all commercial permit holders, approximately 2,400 fishermen, hold the permit but report zero landings.

The quality of striped bass fishing is declining rapidly, and the commercial targeting of the 75,000 large, breeding-sized female stripers - many more with the illegal fishery - is extremely damaging to the resource.

Among the New England states, Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut have already designated striped bass as game fish. It is time for Massachusetts to join these other states in protecting wild striped bass and enhancing the recreational industry that so many in Massachusetts depend on.

Stripers Forever and its more than 3,000 Massachusetts members urge you to support this important legislation.



Fred Jennings Ph.D, Massachusetts State Chair of Stripers Forever

John, You're right. There is a possible benefit but it would be minuscule and not enough to make a marked benefit to the species' health.

I just can't see how strict guidelines in MA are going to help an animal that migrates all the way from VA.

Also, and this may be my misunderstanding of how the regs work, but won't this allow the commercial quota that would have gone to MA fisherman to be divvied amongst other commercial states?

As much as I want to see striped bass as a gamefish and a slot limit implemented... and I want that a lot.......this (i.e., Striper Forever's) economic argument is total garbage.

It is based on the ridiculous assumption that recreational fisherman would not spend their discretionary income on something else to enhance the quality of their lives if fishing were not an option. It also fails to account for the money saved by an increased food supply that includes striped bass...(more supply creates lower prices for all protein sources). Looked at that way, some level of commercial utilization almost always is necessary for a public resource to have maximal economic yield.

For unabashed selfish reasons I hope this bill passes, but if it does it will because one side's lies fooled more idiots than the other side's lies. Then again that seems to be the way our system works.

1 fish 20"-26" or over 40" is the same as Maine.

Mostly agree.

And if I wasn't fishing I would not be spending as much on things that generate sales tax to the state (PR0n after all is online - just kidding :rotf2: ) I can also guarantee what ever activity replaced fishing would probably cost my wallet (and my marriage) less and the state more because I would be a miserable SOB.

Like last November? StripersForever, more elitist loons trying to impose they're will on others using the gubmint. Think I'll go load another thousand rounds. It's coming!:rumble:

OX :btu: Good seeing you, err typing, crap, you know what I mean

I would like to see the slot size a little higher... like 28-34

That size slot is smack dab in the middle of the fish they are trying to protect. The 20-26" fish are going to have a much higher number of males -v - the almost exclusive only females in the 28-34 (really anything over 28). Protecting classes of fish in the 28-39" range is going to keep a lot more breeders open and available.

So what exactly causes such a drastic decline (read extinction) of the male species upon reaching the magical 28" length???? Always wondered that. (Do the females torture their males as much as humans do????)
And as for that slot I mentioned, it is because I get a little more jazz when the fish is say 34" as opposed to a low twenty inch fish, that's all....

Figured ;)

Why is the life expectancy for women 8 years more than men? How many licks to the center of a...

Don't know. The males don't get very big, the females do. Nearly every fish caught over 20#s is a she.

If Stripers Forever and their limited budget can get a fisheries issue passed by the Massachusetts Legislature, Just wait until the Pew Foundation, PETA, The Humane Society and every other Tree Hugging Anti-Fishing group with REAL Money comes into the picture.

They are licking their chops for a precedent like this to be set.

You can agree or disagree with their objective, but their means will be the entire fishing communities undoing.

Numb,

I doubt the food supply argument holds much water. There is not that much SB in the the total protein equation to amount to anything significant that would in turn effect price of other food. Besides, commercial demand could easily be met with farm raised fish.

This law would result in a substantial reduction of fish taken in MA and I support it. It is moving in the right direction of conservation. Going from 2 to 1 on recs (regardless of size) alone is huge. Taking the $ off the fishes head stops a lot of wrongful activity that we all know goes on and is unaccounted for. I support the game fish goal (along with a rec cut)l, it is the only way IMO to really cut through the crap and reduce the pressure on the fish.

Because the SB is largely a C&R activity among many (most?) recs now anyway, I don't think this will hurt the recs all that much nor the $ they bring into the economy.

I believe the $ recs wouldn't contribute if SB were completely halted is somewhat exaggerated but it is a huge number.
There is some real evidence that during the moratorium people didn't fish for SB nearly as often. Who knows what they did but they will probably do it again. My own personal observations during the moratorium was there were a lot fewer guys out fishing for bass in those years.
Given the reductions of Fluke, Seabass and now SB there could be a shift out of fishing altogether and into other activities...or maybe just go into the savings or pay off some debt. Further I strongly believe that higher fuel costs will aggravate the boating end of the equation as well. Lastly, I think having to buy a rec fishing lic will be "just one more thing" to stop a lot of newbies and familys from getting into sw fishing.

From my own personal (selfish)standpoint I strongly support gamefish move because there will not be the 60+ comm boats fishing day in and day out and day out at GH pounding the %$%$%$%$ out of the fish dumping tons of bunker and depleting the local stock as they take a healthy chunk of the quota from my backyard. (yes that means you RI guys too) I will tell you those fish off GH are like Pavlov's dogs..they are trained to come to the dinner bell which is rung every Sun, Tue, Wed and Thur.

I also believe (at least up my way) that stopping the comm fishing for bass will improve the bunker situation which is depleted with these bass guys taking thousands of bunker to support their comm bass habit.

I hope it passes but doubt it will. The comm guys have a strong voice in this state and they have filtered their way up the legislation tree like a bad disease. They usually get most of what they want. There is what I call the "NRA mentality" among comm fishermen. "I can't give up anything because the next thing you know you will be taking away my fishing rods" mentality. (referring to "can't give up armor piercing ammo and fully automatic weapons because the next thing you know we have to give up all our guns" thinking)

Here's the thinking behind a slot as I understand it and its based on some Ted Williams(not the baseball player, the writer) penned articles I've read.

The lower size on a slot limit allows meat fishers to reach their intended goal easier, which is to kill a fish to eat without having to sift through and release a bunch of sub legal fish in order to cull out a keeper. Williams cites lower fish mortality due to a decrease in bycatch mortality which comes from fewer fish being hooked. This is particularly true with charter operations who mostly get paid to put fish on the dock. Culling must occur under this scenario.
Lowering the daily bag to one fish makes excellent sense as the charter operators now can legallly take up to 28 fish per day all season if they desire. A one fish per day limit would cut this number to 14.

Implementing a 28"-40" slot allows for breeder fish to reproduce several times before being legal to harvest. Right now we hit them just as they are reaching thier spawning ability at 28".

I like the proposed plan as I believe the commercial striped bass fishery in Mass is a total farce. Although I've sold my share of fish over the years and still posess a license, its really just gas money most people are using the dead fish for, plain and simple.

I would, however, be entirely against a "no keep" law, which may eventually arise from this process. Keeping one for the table should always be a part of the equation.

Once the angler registry/fishing license reaches its full potential, the comms are going the way of the buffalo hunter. End of story. I think within 3 years this will be the case as the comms will face a much larger and organized opposition.