Sandman wrote:
" Not so, the qouta went up something like 42% last year and it went up the year before that...and they are seeking a larger quota this year as well as opening up more area to fish."
Sandman, I presume that you are referring to Massachusetts. In which case, it is my understanding that the commercial quota did go up last year but it was held constant for several years prior (about 6 straight years (or more) I think). What is your source for this information
Also, where have you read that commercial striped bass fishermen are looking for more quota for next year. I am not doubting you, I am just interested where you found this information.
Nonetheless, the commercial quota is a fraction of what recreational fishermen take.
DeputyDog wrote
2.) 40 fish a day. You must be referring to Massachusetts, which has a 40 fish per day limit for commercials. The only problem with that scenario is that 76% of commercial permit holders in Mass report selling no bass. None, not one, zilch, nada.
Those guys can still catch 40 a day (for personal use, don't ya know). I'm not saying they do, but that's a whole bunch of folks whose catch is not measured or estimated. So the commercial quota was filled by less that 25% of the licenced commercial fishermen. Would a rational person think that just maybe the commercial quota was exceeded? Yup.
DeputyDog, I recognize your above quote as the mind numbed rhetoric spoon fed from an article on the SF website titled "A Fraudulent Fishery" I find nothing "rational" or even reasonable about what Stripers Forever advocates. The reason why they have any support at all is bececause they target a very gullable demographic who are simply eternal pessimists that are easily pursuaded with fear and not facts.
Allow me to share some of a discussion that I had with SF president Brad Burns.
I wrote:
Quote:
Mr. Burns,
As you suggested, I read the your piece titled "A Fraudulent Fishery". May I suggest that you rename it to "A Fraudulent Premise". All you have done is correctly point out that there are many more folks who are licensed to catch striped bass commercially than there are who have actually sold them. You then leap to the conclusion that certainly this is evidence of illegal/under the table sales.
The truth is that it is not uncommon for there to be WAY too many fishermen in a any given fishery. For example, an article by The Boston Globe titled "Latest plan to reduce N.E. fishing fleet seen falling short", published on February 14, 2003 (page B3) reported the following...
************************************************** *********************
Congress is expected to finalize a new $10 million program to get New England fishermen out of the business, but the money will only retire a tiny fraction of the boats that analysts say need to leave the fishery forever.
National Marine Fisheries Service Director Bill Hogarth said yesterday that New England will only be able to support 300 to 400 boats to catch cod and other groundfish, even after the region's fish populations fully rebound. There are currently 1,700 boats that have permits to catch the bottom-dwelling fish, although many of the permit holders are not actively fishing now.
''Capacity is a major problem, I don't know how to stress that enough,'' said Hogarth. ''We need to solve it.''
************************************************** **********************
The same can be said of the commercial striped bass fishery in Massachusetts; there are too many folks chasing too few fish. This is because although there are loads of marketable striped bass available, their supply is artificially cut short by an imposed hard quota. The result is a market glut on day 1 when the commercial season opens straight through until it closes. As a result, many folks who buy a commercial striped bass license in the beginning of the season find that the opportunity cost does not make commercial fishing viable. In the end, less experienced fishermen don't even bother.
The commercial sector is all too well aware of this problem and you'll note that Mr. Abdow makes repeated mention of it at an Amendment 6 hearing. At a separate hearing in Braintree, MA this past April, many commercial folks were suggesting a variety of options to help fix the problem of a flooded market. The ideas ranged from lessening the number of days allowable to fish, to smaller bag limits, to actually kicking non-residents out of the MA comm fishery (determined illegal). Indeed, it was the commercial folks themselves calling for further restrictions on the fishery.
Now I don't doubt that a certain degree of illegal activity is going on in the striped bass commercial fishery. However, the bottom line here is that the high number of unused licenses means that fisheries managers are simply issuing too many licenses. Jumping to the conclusion that folks are illegally selling bass based via unused licenses is very irresponsible.
To be sure, the high number of licenses issued in a fishery that clearly can not support them is the fault of fisheries managers - the Mass. DMF in this case. However, to their credit, the DMF is now looking at ways to cut back on the number of licenses issued. The following is an excerpt from a DMF Press release on May 2, 2003...
************************************************** **********************
6) Emergency action (effective May 2, 2003) was taken to adopt a May 1, 2003 control date for the commercial striped bass fishery after which any person issued a new commercial fisherman’s permit endorsed for striped bass fishing will not be assured of future access to or participation in this fishery if a management regime is developed and implemented that limits the number of participants in this fishery.
See:
http://www.basspond.com/cgi-bin/ib/i...ct=ST;f=8;t=51
************************************************** **********************
|
Folks, in the time since SF has been formed, I have yet to see anyone from this group represent this organization in any capacity at any striped bass hearing - at least in Massachusetts. That's pretty sad when you consider all of the criticism that Stripers Forever has directed toward the Mass DMF and yet they don't have the courage to actually show up at public heaings to express their concerns face to face with those who write the regs. Rather, they offer nothing but pot-shots with misleading emails.
Doesn't SF have any members in Massachusetts who are willing to describe themselves as such in public and go on record as supporting and explaining what Stripers Forever advocates?
Even CCA has enough faith in their convictions to at least show up and make a statement. I often disagree with their message but at least I can respect them for taking the time to get involved where it really matters - at public hearings where folks can scrutinize positions face to face with those who are advocating them.
Then again, Stripers Forever is free and I suppose its members are getting what they are paying for.
Folks, before you send any donations to Stripers Forever, ask yourself, what does this group actually do other than maintain a website (at a cost of $4000 which is a rip off {who paid for that}) and send emails filled with misinformation?
Sure, SF claims that they are only interested in gamefish status for striped bass. But ask yourself, what does that mean. They want the EEZ to remain closed but a closed EEZ is closed to recreational fishermen as well as commercial fishermen. What else does federal gamefish status mean? It is my understanding that true gamefish status means catch/release ONLY. Is that where we are headed? I hope not.
I suggest to anyone truely interested in what is best for the striped bass resource that you get informed by actually attending any public hearing on striped bass. You will learn more information there than in any post on any internet website. But don't expect to see SF there, at least not in Massachusetts.
Then decide for yourself if commercial fishermen are the single greatest threat facing striped bass today. I think you will be surprised.
I know that it is blasphemy in many recreational circles to say the following but I believe that there is now and always has been plenty of room in the striped bass fishery for both recreational and commercial fishermen.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for more commercial quota but if recreational fishermen can take a reasonable number of fish (currently 2/day) and that figure does not exceed the target F rate, then I have no problem with commercial folks harvesting the difference. That's what sustainable fisheries are all about. Of course that goes both ways too though. In other words, if more recreational fishermen enter the fishery which results in a F rate that approaches the target rate, then I say commercial folks should still get the difference but it will of course be lessened.
The way I look at it, recreational fishing encompases EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO FISH, whereas commercial fishermen encompasses EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO SELL FISH. With regard to striped bass, I think there is room for everyone so long as "the public has first crack at the resource", as a local outdoor writer, Ed Nowak, puts it. By the public, I (and Mr. Nowak) am referring to those who are willing and able to go fishing and who may or may not take some home. Even when the commercial striped bass season closes, there is nothing that stops the same fishermen from enjoying a day out striped bass fishing - or even running a charter service for others to do so.
Later,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA