To anyone involved with CCA
 

There is some information at the following link that you may be interested in...

http://www.flyfishsaltwaters.com/ubb...;f=12;t=000203

Mike Flaherty

Flatts, I think you have to expect some of these stances when you support a conservation group.

Conservation of striped bass doesn't mean forming a system that completely favors recreational fisherman who want to keep fish. If we want to oppose increases in commercial quotas, how can we support increases in recreational take and be taken seriously.

Supporting conservation and supporting recreational fishing interests are not the same thing.

And I think there would be support from alot of conservation minded rec fisherman for a saltwater license if the money was sure to go back into the resource... most people are probably pretty skeptical about that (me being one of them) and would therefore oppose it.

And your point about the EEZ opening sounds again like you are for for the opening since it will benefit you. How will opening the EEZ help conservation of striped bass as a resource? It won't. If its protecting some fish, that seems like a good thing.

I just don't think CCA's agenda is just protecting or enhancing the rights or wants of recreational fisherman. I think they are more about the conservation of the resource.

I'm not sure if the RFA might be something that focuses on boosting recreation fishing interests and that might be more of what you are looking for. I don't know much about them.

My personal opinion is if the fish are doing well, why not keep the measures in place that have allowed them to recover and flourish. Why chip away at that? There will always be forces working to open things back up to netting, increase quota, etc etc. That's why you need forces on the other side calling for gamefish status, more conservation, etc etc.

You need that balance in the political arena. That may be why you get comments like the one about a shortened season... that sounds more like political posturing to me though I would like to voice my concern to them that I as a member, would never support that.

Schoolie Monster,

Thank you for your reply. You bring up some good points.

Sure, I would expect such positions from extremist groups like PETA or The Ocean Conservancy. However, take a look at some of CCA's marketing literature and you will see that their target demographic is recreational anglers - particularly fly fishermen.

Actually, it sure can be. For example, my membership card for MSBA reads...

"Michael Flaherty is a member and observes all rules and by-laws of the Mass. Striped Bass Association which promotes good sportsmanship and upholds sound conservation practices and laws"

The key words here are "sound conservation measures". I don't know if you are a MSBA member or not but let me tell you that this creed is not just lip service. I have been, and continue to be, impressed with the way MSBA balances recreational fishing with conservation. Simply look at MSBA's position on the EEZ and then their position on the new striped bass regs that were proposed in April. Each time MSBA took a "middle of the road" position that sought first to ensure striped bass sustainability before recreational harvest.

Why not keep the measures in place that have allowed them to recover? Good question. The truth is that we are effectively keeping the same measures in place because we are still fishing at the same rate (F=.30) that has proven so successful during the rebuilding process.

See:
http://www.basspond.com/cgi-bin/ib/i...ct=ST;f=8;t=77

If we were to stay fishing at 1 fish @28'' and/or continue to keep the EEZ closed then we would be fishing at a rate lower than F=30 because there are so many more fish now as compared to even just last year. That may sound good from a knee-jerk conservation perspective (no offense intended) but the result is really a waste. Why? Because there are so many more breeding class fish available now that fisheries managers are concerned that spawning/nursury area can not handle them.

DMF explaination:
"Harvest rates established by Amendment 6 are well within limits that will sustain biomass levels. Given that the major spawning stocks continue to produce large year classes every two to three years, stock biomass will presumably continue to grow; perhaps reaching population sizes that are not healthy given the capacity of some nursing areas."

See Full Text and Charts:
http://www.basspond.com/cgi-bin/ib/i...ct=ST;f=8;t=59

What I'm trying to say is that conservation for the sake of conservation gets good PR but it is not always the best medicine. Be very leary when groups frame their argument with phrases like "There is no conservation benefit to this proposal".

In economic terms this is refered to as "fallacy of composition". Fallacy of composition occurs when one incorrectly attempts to generalize from a relationship that is true for each part, but is not true for the whole. For example, saving (i.e. conserving) a reasonable amount of your earnings is good right? I think so too but I'd be embarassed to show you my account. However, if everyone all of a sudden started to save a more extreme portion of their earnings then the economy could eventually end up tanking because consumer spending would go down proportionately and I could eventually be out of a job because no one would be buying my employer's products.

Likewise here. If we take reasonable conservation measures then we can have a healthy fishery. However, if we take an extreme measures then there many juvenile stripers could die befere ever finding a hook (even those hooks of C/R fishermen).

What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to conservation, beware, because too much of a good thing isn't good for anyone.