Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - View Single Post

schoolie monster · 02-04-2003, 12:38 PM

Can I address this rec take vs. comm take?

The rec take "SHOULD" be higher since recs make up well over 90% of the fishermen.

Why shouldn't it be that way???????

If striped bass our a resource to be shared, why should one individual be entitled to more than another? Lets not act like the two groups should be considered equal.

Let's say you have 10 fishermen. 9 recs, 1 comm. In Mass, on a given day during the season, the recreation "group" gets 9 fish, while the commercial "individual" gets 40 fish. On a given day out of season, the rec "group" gets 9 fish, the commercial individual gets 1. Can we paint this picture as unfair for the comms?

I am not against commercial fishing via rod & reel for striped bass.

But can we not defend commercial fishing interests by saying that recreational fishing is a bigger threat. Recs are the biggest group so obviously their take will be larger. Should a recreational angler be allowed to keep fewer fish so the comms can continue to harvest. There's only one number below 1 and that's zip. Is that fair?

When somone says that the rec take is higher, they are implying that the two groups should be even, despite the fact that the recreational group is overwhelmingly larger. When conservation measures come down, and a commercial fisherman points fingers at the rec side, they are implying that they personally are entitled to more of that resource than the next person.

This is my biggest point in the whole conservation vs. commercial fishing issue across any and all species. Why should a small group have the biggest affect on a public resource? If the fish are a "public" resource, than we should all have equal access to them.

You want to make things "FAIR" to everyone. One fish per person, per day. You wanna go sell your fish, fine. You wanna eat your fish, fine. You wanna release your fish, fine. That is fair. That is equitable for all parties.

I don't mind the comm vs. rec debate. I personally think that they can coexist. Let's reduce bycatch, stop obliterating the menhaden population, and improve the water quality, especially the Hudson River and the Chesapeake, where these fish spawn. Nobody benefits from these things. A company saves money by dumping toxic sludge into the river? 90% of the bunker population gets ground up into chicken feed or fertilizer? And lets stop harvesting spawners, preventing billions of eggs from being spawned.

02-04-2003, 12:38 PM	#32
schoolie monster Registered User Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 1,195	recreational take vs. commercial take Can I address this rec take vs. comm take? The rec take "SHOULD" be higher since recs make up well over 90% of the fishermen. Why shouldn't it be that way??????? If striped bass our a resource to be shared, why should one individual be entitled to more than another? Lets not act like the two groups should be considered equal. Let's say you have 10 fishermen. 9 recs, 1 comm. In Mass, on a given day during the season, the recreation "group" gets 9 fish, while the commercial "individual" gets 40 fish. On a given day out of season, the rec "group" gets 9 fish, the commercial individual gets 1. Can we paint this picture as unfair for the comms? I am not against commercial fishing via rod & reel for striped bass. But can we not defend commercial fishing interests by saying that recreational fishing is a bigger threat. Recs are the biggest group so obviously their take will be larger. Should a recreational angler be allowed to keep fewer fish so the comms can continue to harvest. There's only one number below 1 and that's zip. Is that fair? When somone says that the rec take is higher, they are implying that the two groups should be even, despite the fact that the recreational group is overwhelmingly larger. When conservation measures come down, and a commercial fisherman points fingers at the rec side, they are implying that they personally are entitled to more of that resource than the next person. This is my biggest point in the whole conservation vs. commercial fishing issue across any and all species. Why should a small group have the biggest affect on a public resource? If the fish are a "public" resource, than we should all have equal access to them. You want to make things "FAIR" to everyone. One fish per person, per day. You wanna go sell your fish, fine. You wanna eat your fish, fine. You wanna release your fish, fine. That is fair. That is equitable for all parties. I don't mind the comm vs. rec debate. I personally think that they can coexist. Let's reduce bycatch, stop obliterating the menhaden population, and improve the water quality, especially the Hudson River and the Chesapeake, where these fish spawn. Nobody benefits from these things. A company saves money by dumping toxic sludge into the river? 90% of the bunker population gets ground up into chicken feed or fertilizer? And lets stop harvesting spawners, preventing billions of eggs from being spawned.