[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by numbskull

These are very good and valid points, Patrick, and clarify your reasoned objection to this bill.

It does raise some questions, however. If the recreational sector's quota is (appropriately for sure) reduced to 1 fish, is the commercial quota also likely to be adjusted (fairly or not) downward as well? How much? What consequences do you foresee if not?

If my guesss that there will be a need for a mortality reduction managment action to respond to scientific concerns that come out of the pending stock asessment update, then the norm is for an across the board reduction of fishing mortality...including the commercial quota will be reduced...unless I am missing an angle but I do not think so

As for stock mortality based on fish size, any proposal would have to reduce mortality to meet required targets, and any proposal could be made to work.......but would require the implementation of a season as is seen in other fisheries (not something most people seem anxious to happen).

There is no question seasons for many marine fish are coming to a management plan near all of us in the near future. For S-B I think we are a couple of management steps away from a season but eventualy that will be on the table as the next best management option.

I'm also having difficulty understanding how this bill will open all fishing to legislative regulation. Isn't it limited to Striped Bass alone? Isn't it already much easier and cheaper for the industrial fishing interests to influence regulations through political appointments to the ASMFC board? Isn't that what has been going on for years and led us to this point?

I'm going to try and answer this with a simple version of a very complex question. Reason one is that the legislation will set legal prescedent. Reason two is that once the legislature is involved in something it tends to clamin that turf for itself. Reason three is that once the lobbyists see that the legislature is willing to pass a fisheries regulatory action they will naturally see that as a new option to make advancement for their agenda and the flood gates of legislation, ammendments and the lot will be opened. WE do not need to be reminded that big buisness clearly can outspend all others on Beacon Hill and next in line will be the extreme greens wiht the rec and conservation minded amongst us being wayyyyyyyyy in the back of the line .

I would suggest that there is different track record with influencing political appointments as opposed vs passing legislation. We have passed very few pieces of legislation as opposed to influencing many political appointments.

Take the MA delegation to the ASMFC. We have three Comissioners. One is a legislator, one is a Governor appointee and MA DMF is the third. Last year we had a major gain (my opinion) from the rec/conservation angle. The Governor's appointee remains Bill Adler from MA Lobsterman's Assn, DMF is DMF, and until he lost his seat the legislative appointee had been Tony Verga from Gloucester who gave proxy to Vito Calamo who has always been a kill it all and sell it all commercial rep of the worst kind. When Tony Verga lost his seat a major effort at the state house between enviros and rec leaders got Rep. Sarah Peake from P-Town as our new ASMFC legislator. FYI...Rep Peake has regulary participated in her county league of sportsmans clubs for the past ten years and after two lunches with her I am can not tell you how important the gain we just made is for us.

My point is that at the ASMFC the rec commnity has a say and a shot at success. We have a decent (not great) track record at ASMFC but moving actions to the state house will clearly be a HUGE step backward.[/B]

Undoubtedly your ideal of increased recreational representation in our fishery management is the best option, but to date it has not worked. The industrial interests know and exploit that. What do you see that is now different and gives you confidence things will change in the future?

I do not see increased interest and that is why our best option is the current rulemaking process as oposed to the legislative process for fisheries management.

To continue a system that has failed and hope it will change may be noble, may feel right, but may also be wrong. To tear down a system that could work and replace it with one that may do worse is not necessarily better either. It comes down to opinion. That it has gotten this far is a sign of the trouble we face. I don't pretend to know an answer, just thinking out loud.

I agree we need serious improvements to fisheries managmeent but I also am absoutely certain involving the legislature is the completely wrong direction.