[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

This is extremely legit. The bill has been sponsored for over a year and you are hearing about it now because it made it to committee. Once the committee decides it is worthy of a vote in the house it will be in fact a bill.

Yes, certainly aware of the effort having been made and certainly aware that it was going in - this was the first I saw of it coming out.

Originally Posted by Jackbass

The commercial striped bass industry in Massachusetts is second in take only to Maryland. Eliminating the commercial market in MA and reducing the Rec take to one fish a day goes a long way in conserving the striped Bass. I am surprised this is news to everyone.

The commercial bass industry in Mass may take second to Maryland but the rec take up and down the coats is tremendous and way overshadows the commercial take. IMO, we need to focus more to reduce the size taken out of the pie to protect the fish, than to decide who's piece is how big.

We really should be having these groups working on what the pie eats. Anything that just reallocates to another usergroup (or state) is really politics and not in the interest of the fish.

I don't commercial fish, I have not, I don't now, and unless there is a massive overpopulation in the future (yeh right) I probably won't then. I do release 99% of what I catch.

Originally Posted by Jackbass

Stripers Forever is hardly an Elitist group. It is a group that is run by volunteers has and spends every dime it receives to conserve and protect the Striped Bass. To think the members of Stripers Forever are a bunch of Orvis Casting Land Rover Driving elitists is simply ignorant.

I don't fall in line behind SF because I don't think it is the right fight, Rovers, Orvis, or not - and I don't think I have ever said that and if I have - not in a long time, while sober, or being even remotely serious about fisheries management.

Originally Posted by CowHunter

And you have absolutley not a CLUE as to what the Rec take is state to state, NO CLUE whatsoever. Just blame it on the Mass com's....

Nope people don't know, and that poorly pushed through fed license is probably going to help refine those numbers. but who is this directed to??

Originally Posted by Canalman

Wow, First I've heard of this. It's about time!

He lives

Originally Posted by Canalman

John, that does proect the fish you're suggesting we protect

Somewhat. It would be nice to be able to go and protect specific year classes or even define based on guestimate of male to female, and 50 other factors, but there is enough problems getting people to know who much they can legal take when it is one or two fish. A slot would be harder (and worth it IMO). A variable slot could be better in fantasy land but it would never work.

Originally Posted by Canalman

Biggest problem I see with the commercial fishery is that the guys who are good are trained assassins. They can hover over a body of big fish and do some real damage. Bodies of fish are vulnerable to being wiped out if the fleet anchors up over their heads. If these guys take their 30 fish from a pod of 100, that's a third of a migrating or resident pod of fish that has likely been programmed (genetically) to run a certain route, breed a certain river. Take a third away--that's bad enough--but what about when the other 15 boats within binocular range come motoring over to drop their yo-yo's how many are left then?

I've seen some great hauls come into the commercial place near my house---seen many 50's and a 64 there. But they don't hold a candle to the thousands of 30's I've seen stiff and covered with crushed ice. It really does need to stop.

We should not support the Striper Cup either though... that list of pin winner is like Schindlers List for striped bass

A high percentage of the commercial guys DO NOT NEED TO BE FISHING TO SUSTAIN THEMSELVES ANYWAY. It's a double-paid vacation for them.

If we are to keep the commercial fishery alive, you should have to prove that commercial fishing makes up more that 50% of your yearly income.

-Dave

Agree 70%

Originally Posted by Back Beach

It does, provided there's enough fish passing through the slot size, which depends on what was born in previous years. If you get a large year class of fish born it makes sense to me the managers would have to anticipate the age/length and implement the slot accordingly for it to provide any real benefit.

If a 28"-40" slot gets implemented but the fish are all either too big/too small its a wasted effort. The slot also has to coincide with good year classes of fish in order to provide the highest yield of protected breeders.

Originally Posted by Canalman

Righth there with ya. Look at the year classes though, this would protect the 2001 class which was the biggest ever recorded.

-Dave

2001 - was the biggest this decade and in top 3 overall. And purely anecdotal, the first major spawn of the 93 year class. Have anything to do with it? Dunno. Not in fisheries management. Then next year sucked but IIRC that was a bad drought year or flood year screwing up the spawn.