One Scientist's Take On It

[numbskull]

Dave Ross. Professor Emeritus at WHOI. Smart, level headed guy.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...NION/904020333

[Slipknot]

Makes sense to me, when he puts it like that






I wonder if stripers have about a 50/50 ratio of males to females like we humans do.

[Flaptail]

Dave hit it right on the head. Who really knows!

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by Flaptail

Dave hit it right on the head. Who really knows!

Good point. Anecdotally speaking though, it sure doesn't feel or look like the late 70's early 80's with regard to fish abundance.

I'm just one eel slinging half breed Irish/Guinzo mofo from Franklin with an opinion though...

[MakoMike]

By that same logic the ultimate conservation strategy would be to stop ALL fishing for striped bass.

[Nebe]

coast wide slot please. smaller ones are safer to eat anyways..

[Flaptail]

Originally Posted by Nebe

coast wide slot please. smaller ones are safer to eat anyways..

Bingo! And tastier, kinda like the veal of fish flesh.

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by Flaptail

Bingo! And tastier, kinda like the veal of fish flesh.

Flap, you've been silent lately. Must be some sore mouthed salmonoids out there someplace.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Flaptail

Bingo! And tastier, kinda like the veal of fish flesh.

I'm hoping to find that out this summer.......Working in Maine now.....right on the water.

Just gotta figure out how to get them across state lines...

[WoodyCT]

Now that's what I'm talking about. Err on the side of conservation. Don't even take the chance of repeating the mistakes of the past.


Jon

[BasicPatrick]

Remember this day folks...trust me you will and for a very long time.

Can you guys be serious about fisheries management by legislation being a good thing.

Does someone have to remind you that the weakest political group of marine stakeholders is recreational fishers. We have zero that is absolutely no full time lobby at the MA State House and some of you think this is the place to improve fisheries management...oh yeah that is one hell of a good idea!!!

All I can think is someone needs a Detox!!!!

Ok...let's play it your way. The MA legislature is going to get into the fisheries management game. Let's think about what groups with significant influence on Beacon Hill might want to pass some fisheries management legislation now that this avenue has been opened.

You can pretty much bet on hundreds of bills introduced on all manner of fisheries issues. Every special interest group from whack jobs (Peta has a lobbyist in MA but rec fishers do not) to the extremely powerful MA commercial fishing lobby will start introducing legislation.

When the dust settles some groups with real clout on Beacon Hill such as the MA commercial fishing lobby will pass a few bills; some in the name of conservation. They might pass a bill to protect the amount of fish they can catch and sell so that all reductions in future harvest will have to come from the largest mortality source also known as recreational fishermen. Maybe the full time commercial lobby will protect the commercial fleet from those part time pesky tuna guys from selling rod and reel caught fish and leave the selling for fish to the conservation minded netters like it's done in Europe. Oh, Tuna are a Federal Species and can not be managed by MA you say...ahhh...I guess you forget MA has and does use it's right to limit landings but we will come back to that in a minute.

Are you getting it yet...Ok...lets go one step further and talk about a group with real clout and unlimited financial resources starting to pass fisheries legislation.

Anyone wanna bet that enviro money will now be aimed at passing some fisheries conservation bill that is based on politics and not the established management process. First up on that list will be to ban all fishing gear from the Stellwaggon Bank Marine Sanctuary...yeah yeah it's federal waters but lest we forget the State has the right to manage landings...did you see the pretty picture of the Right Whale with the lime green spreader bar on the cover of the new management plan book...no...you will.

Let's see Barnstable Harbor is already designated an area of critical concern. Maybe CLF or MA Audobon will fire up a bill to set that are aside for "conservation"...especially since all those flats are perfect bird habitat not to mention the recs have been screaming about the problems with sand lance (sand eels) for years.


Yeah Yeah, let's let the MA legislature manage fisheries.

[BasicPatrick]

Oh I get it now...

We are all supposed to know that even if the legislation passes in MA the ASMFC mangement plan will not change and the MA Commercial Quota will be given to other states.

Silly me...I get it now

Happy April Fools Day

[stiff tip]

WOW ....right on the head !!!! no comment......all i was going to say was the little ones taste better ...fillitnrelease....

[the point]

Originally Posted by Nebe

coast wide slot please. smaller ones are safer to eat anyways..

I've been saying this for a while now.

[emgred]

Slot Limits really helped Snook in Fla.
Coast wide Slot limits are (IMHO) what is needed!

[BasicPatrick]

I personally agree with a slot for S-B...not exactly as proposed.

I also agree there could be some improvement to the MA commercial regs.

I even welcome the debate over commerical fishing (although I am not in favor of the ban)

My Huge 2 problems with the bill is that first, the legislature is the wrong place for fisheries management on so many levels and second is that this is not being done by a management process that includes environmental impact and stock analysis aka science

[angler229]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

My Huge 2 problems with the bill is that first, the legislature is the wrong place for fisheries management on so many levels and second is that this is not being done by a management process that includes environmental impact and stock analysis aka science

I totally agree, you can not let legislature have a place in fisheries management, you're just asking for trouble there.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

My Huge 2 problems with the bill is that first, the legislature is the wrong place for fisheries management on so many levels and second is that this is not being done by a management process that includes environmental impact and stock analysis aka science

So just how, exactly, would you propose making striped bass a gamefish if, in fact, that is what the majority of fishermen in the state want?

Haven't legislatures in other states made this same decision? What bad has happened as a result?

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by numbskull

So just how, exactly, would you propose making striped bass a gamefish if, in fact, that is what the majority of fishermen in the state want? Haven't legislatures in other states made this same decision? What bad has happened as a result?

I do not think even close to half the fishermen want gamefish status of any kind and just for the record it's not jsut the fisherman's choice. fish are a public resource and here in the US all of the public get's a say...in theory anyway.

First of all to me...and the people in Florida that first created the term when used in fisheries management "Gamefish Status" means no harvest of any kind, commercial recreational etc.

That being said, to effect some of the measures in the bill, the road to take would depend on what measure you want to accomplish.

To stop the harvest of the MA Commercial quota
You would have to lobby the members of the ASMFC to initiate a managment action or initiate a rule making petition with all the data, science and research required or find a loophole to file a suit to force a change to the S-B Management Plan. I say this because even if MA passes a law and ends commercial asale of S-B, MA can either move those fish to the rec catch (as is done in New Jersey with the third or trophy fish program) or the ASMFC will redistribute those fish in future years. In theory a change would have to be made to the Atlantic S-B Management Plan to allow each state do what it wants with it's allocation of fish even if it means not harvest.

To get a slot limit in MA one would have to lobby either DMF or the MA Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission for a management action, once again if you want success you need to have the science etc in order. The process then goes on as normal with public hearings etc etc.

I will tell you that about 5 years ago when the 2 @ 28" was proposed, MSBA hosted a hearing on the issue. MSBA was the very lone voice calling for 1 @ 28" & 1 over 40" which is a slot that has a great deal of conservation value according to the analysis. For the record there were very few letters outside of our letter campaign supporting a slot of any kind. The VAST majority of anglers wanted 2 @ 28".

The particular slot in the SF bill is horrible when it comes to mortality. Think about it in simple terms. MA is already the largest S-B fishery. This bill will make it legal to take a lot of the fish at places like Buttermilk Bay, Scorton Creek and every bridge and estuary etc. Every ethnic, poor, young and all manner of fishers will easily be able to harvest a lot of what we now call "shorts". MA mortality will increase by hundreds or per cent...I didn't make that guess up...a member of the ASMFC S-B Technical committee did. The amount of short fish which will be HUGE is then extrapolated. The guesstimate is that we would be no more than three years from a coastwide problem because of the pre spawn removals.

I heard a voting member of the ASMFC talking at a lunch break at the last ASMFC meeting. His comment was that if the MA legislation passes then there truely will be Gamefish Status in a few years, probably no commercial harvest coastwide and 1 fish over 40" or so.

I know I am going way beyond your Question Numby...Bottom line is there are ways to tighten up the rules on S-B and this bill is far far from one of them.

Let's be honest here...SF knows the process and the only reason they are going this way is they could not get enough support to go through the traditional rulemaking process. The only ones to blame for that are all of the silent or internet only supporters that did not deliver when SF tried the regular process. The majority won then and will win again.

FYI...The bill is sponsored by Rep. Matt Patrick from Falmouth...Last night I was told by an officer of the Falmouth Fisherman's Association that Rep. Patrick has refused requests for meetings by both the Falmouth Fisherman's Assn. and the Falmouth Rod & Gun Club. He won't even meet with his own. I was also told paperwork was in process and a bank account is about to be opened for the committee to oppose his re election. He has hurt himself badly and the local clubs are pissssssssssed..

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I do not think even close to half the fishermen want gamefish status of any kind....

Curious statement and not likely an accurate perception. Sure, many recreational fishermen may have a vague sense that this is "unfair" or that it represents the first "foot in the door by the environmental Nazis", but if given a choice between watching their main recreational quarry be squandered by twisted, fuzzy, "science", biased fishery managers, and deep pocketed commercial interests (a point we seem to be quickly nearing), I'm pretty sure most would favor legislative action. You disagree?

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

.... and just for the record it's not just the fisherman's choice. fish are a public resource and here in the US all of the public gets a say...in theory anyway.

True of course, and the reason the proponents of this bill are using an economic argument (the validity of which is certainly open to debate) to drive it. Unfortunately very few people (myself included and the general public for sure) lack the economic sophistication to make an informed decision on this.

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I say this because even if MA passes a law and ends commercial sale of S-B, MA can either move those fish to the rec catch (as is done in New Jersey with the third or trophy fish program) or the ASMFC will redistribute those fish in future years.

Of course this overlooks the obvious fact that the ASMFC makes decisions by vote and if MA switches from their current commercially biased position to a recreationally biased position, the balance of ASMFC decisions for the entire eastern seaboard will shift accordingly. You disagree?

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Let's be honest here...SF knows the process and the only reason they are going this way is they could not get enough support to go through the traditional rulemaking process. The only ones to blame for that are all of the silent or internet only supporters that did not deliver when SF tried the regular process. The majority won then and will win again.

All true....except obviously the last sentence. The "majority" has never "won" anything with striped bass. The well connected, inside interests have "won", time and time again. It would appear that SF has decided to play their game this time around.....although I agree they will likely fail.

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

FYI...The bill is sponsored by Rep. Matt Patrick from Falmouth...Last night I was told by an officer of the Falmouth Fisherman's Association that Rep. Patrick has refused requests for meetings by both the Falmouth Fisherman's Assn. and the Falmouth Rod & Gun Club. He won't even meet with his own. I was also told paperwork was in process and a bank account is about to be opened for the committee to oppose his re election. He has hurt himself badly and the local clubs are pissssssssssed..

I live in Falmouth, Patrick, and can confidently say that neither club is particularly representative of the fishermen in town. I do not hear much discussion about this bill at all locally, but it does seem to have become a "hot issue" on the Vineyard (also part of Mr Patrick's district) and the sense I get is that the fishermen on the Vineyard are strongly behind it.

At the end of the day, win or lose, I think this bill will be a good thing for recreational fishermen in MA .....and ultimately for the fish as well.

[clambelly]

At the end of the day, win or lose, I think this bill will be a good thing for recreational fishermen in MA .....and ultimately for the fish as well.

And some people wonder where the term "fish grab" comes from...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by clambelly

And some people wonder where the term "fish grab" comes from...

Yeah, up to now the guys getting the most have always had it handed to them........for so long, in fact, that they consider it their right. Probably will take some getting used to.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by Nebe

coast wide slot please. smaller ones are safer to eat anyways..

Good luck getting that through the mid-atlantic, eh.
Let alone any fish swimming outside of 3 mi. is supposdedly unencumbered by any fishing pressure

[angler229]

Heres my take on this whole situation. Making striped bass a gamefish is going to accomplish very little if anything without a lot of other pieces falling into place beforehand. You need to look at the more serious issues facing the species. The two that concern me are the lack of baitfish from overfishing (which is effecting every predatory fish in the ocean), and the bycatch/poaching by draggers. First lets start with the baitfish issue if there is no bait, it will not matter if any one on the whole coast keeps a single fish. The population will not be able to grow if there is not a food source to support that growth. Now, the issues of bycatch by draggers. If you can get commercial fisherman to be honest with you, they will tell you 10,000lb tows of fish all 30lbs and up aren't uncommon. Now that is one tow by one boat just think how many fish large fish are killed by them throughout the year. Now this happens in the same places year a after year at the same time every year. So why aren't we fighting to get these areas closed down during these time periods. Basically, what I'm getting at is I think we are fighting the wrong battle in trying to stop the rod and reel commercial harvest of bass, and that their are much more concerning issues facing the species.

[Flaptail]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Remember this day folks...trust me you will and for a very long time.

Can you guys be serious about fisheries management by legislation being a good thing.

Does someone have to remind you that the weakest political group of marine stakeholders is recreational fishers. We have zero that is absolutely no full time lobby at the MA State House and some of you think this is the place to improve fisheries management...oh yeah that is one hell of a good idea!!!

All I can think is someone needs a Detox!!!!





Ok...let's play it your way. The MA legislature is going to get into the fisheries management game. Let's think about what groups with significant influence on Beacon Hill might want to pass some fisheries management legislation now that this avenue has been opened.

You can pretty much bet on hundreds of bills introduced on all manner of fisheries issues. Every special interest group from whack jobs (Peta has a lobbyist in MA but rec fishers do not) to the extremely powerful MA commercial fishing lobby will start introducing legislation.

When the dust settles some groups with real clout on Beacon Hill such as the MA commercial fishing lobby will pass a few bills; some in the name of conservation. They might pass a bill to protect the amount of fish they can catch and sell so that all reductions in future harvest will have to come from the largest mortality source also known as recreational fishermen. Maybe the full time commercial lobby will protect the commercial fleet from those part time pesky tuna guys from selling rod and reel caught fish and leave the selling for fish to the conservation minded netters like it's done in Europe. Oh, Tuna are a Federal Species and can not be managed by MA you say...ahhh...I guess you forget MA has and does use it's right to limit landings but we will come back to that in a minute.

Are you getting it yet...Ok...lets go one step further and talk about a group with real clout and unlimited financial resources starting to pass fisheries legislation.

Anyone wanna bet that enviro money will now be aimed at passing some fisheries conservation bill that is based on politics and not the established management process. First up on that list will be to ban all fishing gear from the Stellwaggon Bank Marine Sanctuary...yeah yeah it's federal waters but lest we forget the State has the right to manage landings...did you see the pretty picture of the Right Whale with the lime green spreader bar on the cover of the new management plan book...no...you will.

Let's see Barnstable Harbor is already designated an area of critical concern. Maybe CLF or MA Audobon will fire up a bill to set that are aside for "conservation"...especially since all those flats are perfect bird habitat not to mention the recs have been screaming about the problems with sand lance (sand eels) for years.


Yeah Yeah, let's let the MA legislature manage fisheries.

Sand Eels a problem? Not where I fish. Why don't organizations like the Mass Striped Bass Association with funds from their bank account and other sportsmans organizations fund a lobbyist full time on Beacon Hill? You guys all collect dues.

[Flaptail]

You know, I have thought long and hard over this and there are a few facts that need to be said:

1. How many fisherman made over, hmm say, 5 grand commercially harvesting stripers last year? How many made over a $1,000.00?
2. 99% of these "commercial" striper fisherman have real jobs and do this on vacation or week ends. A plumber is a plumber not a "commercial fisherman".
3. Striped bass are the most important game fish in the Northeast, between tackle sales, bait, gas, lodging, fishing shows/expos, clothing etc etc what are the real numbers in cash flow generated by that aspect as opposed to what a 2 month regulated season brings from the sale of wild harvested stripers? The higher number wins, end of story
4. As stated in my previous post, why don't these various clubs and organizations fund, collectively, professional lobbyists?
5.If you want to make bass a game fish fine with me, I don't sell them anyway (if I was going to sell any fish it would be bluefish at a $1.00 a pound, now that's easy money). What I want is a slot. 1 fish between 20 to 24 inches, the perfect table bass. Take a picture of all the others and keep one trophy if you must a year.
5. As a provision whatever article goes before the legislature must include the banning of taking any herring, menhaden or eels by anyone, commercial or sport fishing for thier use. You want to save the bass, save the bait that sustains it as it's primary sources of protein.
6.Also, add legislation to protect inshore water resources such as bays, inlets, marshes etc from run off from lawn care products, septic system leeching and storm drain and road way runoff.

You need professional lobbyists, not well intentioned sportsman. You need infusions of money, vast amounts of money because that is what turns the wheels of the lobbyist and legislative machine. You need public awareness. Not just to the sporting/fishing community but to everyone. The green movement is a perfect example. Kindergartners know what it means, we are inundated with the principle everywhere we go. Reusable bags at the shopping center etc.
You need to have everyperson who turns on a computer or television to see a 30 or 60 second spot promoting your cause.

It all boils down to money on both sides. If you want to win your fight(s) put up or shut up and then live with the consequences.

That is all. Now back to refinishing my kitchen cabinets.

[BassDawg]

THANKS to everyone for their informed and uninformed opinions,
as it is interesting and illuminating on many different levels.

i've done some reading of the data,
i've yet to crack open Dr Ross' tome,
i've listened and asked ??? of several surfcasters,
i've talked to some lobstermen and rod and reel comm's, and
i've even fired off some eletts to sum of our politicos regarding fisheries mngmt issues.

for me, what it boils down to is this:

we are facing a multi-headed beast here that will take a
collaborative effort to determine and many years to implement which incremental proactive mgmt measures will best MANAGE forage, species, and ocean. the pollution factor(pcb's, prescription drugs, mercury and led) must be addressed as well. however with specific regard to the changes in FM guidelines, my semi-informed opinion at this stage of the managing PROCESS, would favor the following and would be WITHOUT state legislative intervention, since that is truly a slippery slope:

for SB~~ a slot of 1@26"-36", and 1@55"+ with a Trophy Stamp system and only from Sept to Nov in MA, Oct to Dec in RI/CT/NJ/NY. you would have to buy a $25 stamp per season. the monies from the stamping program would go directly to scientific research and NOWHERE ELSE! there would be no COMM fishing for three years, period! i am NOT advocating a fish grab, i just would like to see how a MGMT choice like that would impact the fishery ITSELF without regard for lobbyists interests, financial agendas, political posturing and put the fish first for a change. idealistic, YES!! helpful or harmful???? we MAY never know, since it'll prolly never happen~~~~but it would be nice to at least have the shot at gathering THAT data someday???

for menhaden~~ a 3 year moratorium inside the 5 mile intercoastal zone. let Omega Protein freakin' plant SOY BEANS~~ for the Love of God ~~and give this VERY important FORAGE, FILTER FEEDER, DIFFERENCE MAKER a chance to prosper once again!!! and here is why,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

from the first menhaden landing numbers ever established, wasn't the abundance of bunker MUCH MORE abundant than today's currently "acceptable" numbers??? while i do not know the exact figures from back then, i have read about the days before reduction boat purse seining. i have never seen the Great Silver Balls of Menhaden~~what used to be acres of a living, thriving, super-effective "organism" unto itself and an infinitesimally important piece to the estuarine, oceanic, food cycle sytem~~~but i would like to someday.

has anyone ever correllated the numbers between(and i am sure it would have taken years to happen or coincide) two decades of unharnessed(or any at all) reduction boat fishing to the two decades of the hammering of the SB fishery simultaneously as if there was NO TOMORROW, which is OUR TODAY???

in other words, from the mid 60's to the mid 80's how many menhaden were decimated from the Atlantic Coastal Stock, or what was the difference in the ACStock count before purse seining leading up to the SB moratrium. likewise, from the mid 60's to the mid 80's how much of an impact on the migratory SB Stock was wreaked by the stacking of 30#-50# fish on the beaches and the rocks of the Striper Coast with the mindset, "we will never run out of these fish"? is there a correlation at all as to the effect that those types of managerial decisions had upon the crash then (the 80's) and from the direct result of those actions how it is effecting our SB fishery today??

strictly from an anecdotal perspective, it would make sense to me that if you EFF with the Creator's creation how Man sees fit, you are going to reap very negative results. and if you do it from a two-fold perspective, removing menhaden by the BILLIONS over 20 years and taking as many SB as was humanly possible over the same 20 year time frame you are gonna wind up with an effed-up fishery, nature saying WTF and screaming to be heard, and in a political place with menhaden where the interests of the ONE private enterprise holds hostage the well being of a forage species for the many. and since the two, forage and predator, are inextricably linked from an environmental and SB species perspective the interests of the MANY public domains are being squashed based solely on political postioning and maintaining the staus quo. by taking the unilatteral positions of "it's always been this way", "it ain't that effed up", and "there's still SOME pogies out there" we WILL NEVER return the Great Silver Balls of yesteryears. by shifting our thinking with menhaden to a "FIX the FORAGE" mantra and by implementing NEW and proactive Menhaden mngmt decisions we COULD see, in time, ridiculous amounts of SB Lahhhhhhge, belly-fillers, and dinks or "potentially" return to the Glory Days of The Striper Coast if we give them back their "super-food" and stop using it for our own selfish interests.

only NOW it IS different because our mindset HAS changed for the better with stripers. my point being, if we were ever to restore the ACStock Counts of Menhaden to its pre-purse seining numbers, with the current/more conservative SB fishery mgmt guidelines how amazing would our Striper Coast be???

the other thing that sticks in my craw about menhaden is this.

if Omega Protein was removed from the equation, then how quickly would the ASMFC move to enact a moratrium for ACMenhaden? i get why Menhaden does not get the same considerations as does river herring, alewife, sand worms, seals, plovers, sea turtles; because neither of them are being used by so many end product industries. still the menhaden's primary function, if allowed to remain in our ailing estuaries and depleting oceans and stripers' bellies without human extraction, is worth discovering isn't it? at some point we said no more whale oil/blubber, sealskin coats, nor elephant ivory. at what point do we give Menhaden a break and tell the reduction purse seiners to diversify?? i could give two flying flukes for Omega Protein and their connections to THE Bushes down in Houston and the ways in which they've had their way with OUR fishery. i want what's best for the whole picture and not just for NOW, but i want what's best for our children's, children's, children.

while i DO realize that many things must happen to get this fishery restored to primordial GREATNESS, and THAT may NEVER happen. still for me it IS WELL WORTH the shot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and most certainly not with a SHOT in the arm/across the bow from the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts ~however well-meaning the Rep Patrick may or may not mean his actions to be. just once from a political stance, can we not recall the intentions and voices of our Founding Fathers? can we not speak to the promises of Greatness? can we not err on the side of conservation as opposed to manifesting the destiny of the few?

HISTORY you say? i say tHIS STORY is in our hands and the legacy that WE leave ~whether noble or negligent, intended or ignorant, staid or stagnant~ begins in this day and need not repeat its horrific woes, but yearns to be rejuvinately rewritten.

[maddmatt]

bassdawg! i am not worthy.. Now THATS a rant!

[BassDawg]

thanks YOU, i THINK??