Why is The Striped Bass Conservation Bill so hush hush?

[leptar]

Wow is all i can say if it passes...

House document # 245

It won't let me post the word document because it is in .docx format and saving it as something else makes a mess of the document.

Copy and paste will have to do...

SECTION 1. Section 110A of chapter 130 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 Official Edition, is herby amended by striking the section in its entirety and inserting in place thereof the following sentences:-
(a)Commercial harvesting and sale of wild striped bass shall be prohibited in the commonwealth. The director, with the approval of the marine fisheries advisory commission, shall adopt rules and regulations relative to the taking or possession of wild striped bass by recreational angling, provided that in no instance shall any rule or regulation authorize the taking or possession of striped bass which are less than 20 inches in length or greater than 26 inches total length but less than 40 inches total length. It is unlawful to take or possess striped bass unless the fish are whole with head on and are between 20 and 26 inches total length or 40 inches and greater total length.
(b)It is unlawful to take or possess more than one (1) striped bass each day.
(c)All aquaculture raised striped bass for sale in the commonwealth shall bear the tag of the grower or distributor of the fish.
(d)Whoever violates any rules or regulations made pursuant to this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars for each fish taken or possessed for the first violation, five hundred dollars for each fish taken or possessed for the second violation and for each subsequent violation shall be fined one thousand dollars for each fish taken or possessed or imprisoned not more than sixty days or both. No part of any fine imposed for the taking or possession of any striped bass in violation of any such regulation shall be remitted.
(e)
SECTION 2. The striped bass quota for commercial fishing provided to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission shall not be added to recreational fishing quotas. Said quota shall be set aside for conservation and the Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries shall use his best efforts in working with the Commission to see that the amount of this quota is not given to other states but remains the property of the Commonwealth to be used for conservation of striped bass.

[maddmatt]

damn liberals

[Slipknot]

he also put one up instituting salt water fishing licenses, another for health care trust.
I don't know why they'd allow us to kill bass before they get a chance to spawn

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

damn liberals

I'm an idiot...

[leptar]

From what i understand this is a done deal...

I just feel bad, not only for the commercial guys as i still have 2 family members that do this 24/7-365 a year, but for the 20-26" bass everyone will be allowed to keep..

and with 1 @ 40"+ kiss the stock good bye...

figure this... with extremely low #'s...

in any day in MA during the Striper season...
100,000 fishermen that keep fish fishing in MA a day
20-26" fish are so common so for the sake of argument
100,000 20-26" stripers a day are going to the table.
multiply that by 18 weeks or 126 days(again a low average)

12,600,000 20-26" fish are absolutely going to the table.

I read a report that showed an estimated 23,000,000 20-26" bass will be going to the table.

How many 40" fish will there be? who knows... with all the BS down South... netting, long lining from the beach, ect... How many 27-39" fish are going to get eaten by seals, released back "dead" gut hooked... Not at a $1,000 fine per fish... I will not chance it...

[leptar]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

No kidding. What the hell is the matter with people trying to conserve a decreasing fish population?

It's not about conservation here any more.. you want to conserve the fish then make it NO-TAKE. <PERIOD>

the only thing this amendment will do is guarantee the slaughter of this species.

Think about it for a minute.. how many throwbacks have you thrown back that went belly up? I can't even tell you a number of fish i have caught in the 34-38" range that inhaled plugs, eels into the gut/gills...

So now when this passes and i catch a 38" bass that inhaled a needlefish or what ever and it is guaranteed dead i must now throw it back. All day long you can slaughter 22-24" fish on sandworm/sea clam... now it's legal...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by leptar

It's not about conservation here any more.. you want to conserve the fish then make it NO-TAKE. <PERIOD>

the only thing this amendment will do is guarantee the slaughter of this species.

Think about it for a minute.. how many throwbacks have you thrown back that went belly up? I can't even tell you a number of fish i have caught in the 34-38" range that inhaled plugs, eels into the gut/gills...

So now when this passes and i catch a 38" bass that inhaled a needlefish or what ever and it is guaranteed dead i must now throw it back. All day long you can slaughter 22-24" fish on sandworm/sea clam... now it's legal...

Son-of-A..... That's what I get for being on S-B.com while working.

I skimmed through and read the bill basically as 1 fish 26-40". Taking into consideration that females don't reach sexual maturity until they're between age 4-8, fish taken towards the latter part of that age range probably haven't bred yet.

I'd be curious what kind of "scientific research" is backing regulations like this. Or do they think that taking the commercial guys out of the picture in just one state of the 8-10 states you can find Stripers, they'll solve all the problems the stock faces?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

he also put one up instituting salt water fishing licenses, another for health care trust.
I don't know why they'd allow us to kill bass before they get a chance to spawn

Although I have a science background, I am not a fisheries expert. I will give you my best explanation based on my limited knowledge...

by have the slot between 20 and 26, the population of fish that size is reduced with the intent of taking some pressure off of the forage fish. This is supposed to allow the remaining fish to grow bigger, faster and reproduce more as they will be healthier/better fed. Also,some fish may breed a few times by 26".

The 27-40 fish are now off limits, have less competition from schoolies and should serve as a healthy breeding stock to replenish the smaller fish. It is easy to replenish lots of 20-26" fish. It is harder and takes longer to replace the 38" fish.

The above 40"? Most likely it is to again reduce pressure on bait and allow for trophies to be kept.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by leptar

It's not about conservation here any more.. you want to conserve the fish then make it NO-TAKE. <PERIOD>

the only thing this amendment will do is guarantee the slaughter of this species.

So now when this passes and i catch a 38" bass that inhaled a needlefish or what ever and it is guaranteed dead i must now throw it back. All day long you can slaughter 22-24" fish on sandworm/sea clam... now it's legal...

I am pretty sure 1 fish at this slot would be better for the health of the population than current regs, all other factors aside. Also, at this point if you catch a 27" fish that inhaled a needlefish and is dead you would need to throw it back. I would guess there isn;t any solid data on it, but coastwide there are probably more 27" fish caught and fatally injured than 38" fish.

I am not saying this bill is the answer, trying to be objective about what I think the reasoning behind it might be.

Also, no take would not necessarily be the best for conservation if there wasn't no take of all forage fish. If the population is too big it collapses. The population needs to be balanced to be healthy

[MakoMike]

One thing to consider is that if this bill passes it will take MA out-of-compliance with the ASMFC fishery management plan which provides a minimum size of 28 inches. The net result of that could well be a total shutdown of the fishery in MA.

[Sweetwater]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Although I have a science background, I am not a fisheries expert. I will give you my best explanation based on my limited knowledge...

by have the slot between 20 and 26, the population of fish that size is reduced with the intent of taking some pressure off of the forage fish. This is supposed to allow the remaining fish to grow bigger, faster and reproduce more as they will be healthier/better fed. Also,some fish may breed a few times by 26".

The 27-40 fish are now off limits, have less competition from schoolies and should serve as a healthy breeding stock to replenish the smaller fish. It is easy to replenish lots of 20-26" fish. It is harder and takes longer to replace the 38" fish.

The above 40"? Most likely it is to again reduce pressure on bait and allow for trophies to be kept.

I tend to agree with Zimmy (but I'm not a fisheries expert either). One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of striped bass over 34" (or so) are female. By allowing the 20"-26" slot, the mix is more likely to include an equal proportion of males to females; whereas, the over 28" requirement will tend to unevenly impact females as the fish get progressively larger.

The new ruling would leaves a big, protect slot of 27"-40" fish in the spawning population and would curtail the disproportionate mortality of female bass.

[DZ]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

One thing to consider is that if this bill passes it will take MA out-of-compliance with the ASMFC fishery management plan which provides a minimum size of 28 inches. The net result of that could well be a total shutdown of the fishery in MA.

Mike,
What might happen is they would ask for a "conservation equivelancy". I believe that is what Rhode Island fish trap operators did that last year so they could drop to a 26" fish. They gave up a few thousand ponds to be able to drop the size limit.

Mass could make the numbers work.

DZ

[MikeToole]

The purpose of the slot limit is to allow for taking more males and to protect a larger number of females so that they can reach breeder age. If you go down into the Southern striper states they already have a 18-28 inch slot or a 20-26 inch slot, two fish per day. Most of these states have seasons to protect fish larger then 28".

I have no real idea of how many more fish would be caught with a 20-26" slot for 1 fish a day, but I do not think the difference would hurt the fishery as much as you might think. If a fair percentage of the fish killed are males and a reduction in the number of larger fish killed occurs, in the end the fishery may make out.

Right now 8 of the 14 states allow commercial fishing for stripers. If Mass stops commercial striper fishing this will balance out the states at 7 to 7. This could end up playing very large in the ASMFC.

[BassDawg]

leptar, you ARE joking, right?

do the math on 2 per day on the low end of the slot times yer x number of anglers in MA, and then figure in 2 per day on the over 40" slot. there is no way in hale this does not kill LESS fish by the simple reason that 2 is twice 1.

more importantly, this will protect millions of commercially caught stripers per year. why didn't yer numbers offset the millions of stripers that the comm's can no longer take?

i LOVE the idea and am hopeful that the ASMFC will follow suit and do something proactive to Fix the Forage. i must say that 1@36"+ seems a bit more feasible and a better protection of the species. i will take this though and it seems like a good place to start,,,,,,,,,,

[leptar]

BassDawg, not joking...

Tell me if i am wrong,and this is what i thought to be true when i started this.
1,100,000 lbs of stripers more or less is what MA comm's are allowed to take for 2009.
If Ma abolished the Striper fishery all together the other states do take a split share of that 1,100,000 lbs since it is all regulated by the feds?

So really Ma comms miss out and the commercial fishing is just extended in other states to make the market quota...

[animal]

To my understanding Leptar,you are correct.

[MikeToole]

No, that is not a sure thing or even close to being a sure thing. Mass will have to work out a new agreement with the ASMFC due to the slot limit. For 2009 Mass owns their commercial quote and it is highly unlikely that the ASMFC will try to give that to another state in 2009. Plus now you will be looking at a 7 7 split on states that do or don't allow commercial fishing. It is highly likely that the Mass quota will not be given to another state. I think what you will actually be seeing is the end of commercial fishing for stripers if Mass ends it because I think NY would soon fall in line.

[BassDawg]

Originally Posted by leptar

BassDawg, not joking...

Tell me if i am wrong,and this is what i thought to be true when i started this.
1,100,000 lbs of stripers more or less is what MA comm's are allowed to take for 2009.
If Ma abolished the Striper fishery all together the other states do take a split share of that 1,100,000 lbs since it is all regulated by the feds?

So really Ma comms miss out and the commercial fishing is just extended in other states to make the market quota...

i am aware of that possibility,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

but it still reflects on the MA take, right?
just trying to hep ya arrive at better numbers, bro!

and i DO agree that we are looking at the overall state of the migratory stocks; still yet a slot, a reduction IN HALF of the daily allowable kill for MA, and stiffer fines SHOULD go a long way towards protecting our beloved prey!!

not trying to ruffle any feathers, my fine feathered friend.

[BassDawg]

Originally Posted by MikeToole

No, that is not a sure thing or even close to being a sure thing. Mass will have to work out a new agreement with the ASMFC due to the slot limit. For 2009 Mass owns their commercial quote and it is highly unlikely that the ASMFC will try to give that to another state in 2009. Plus now you will be looking at a 7 7 split on states that do or don't allow commercial fishing. It is highly likely that the Mass quota will not be given to another state. I think what you will actually be seeing is the end of commercial fishing for stripers if Mass ends it because I think NY would soon fall in line.

!!!BRAVO!!!

[BasicPatrick]

Has anybody making comments on the science related to this bill actually talked to a scientist that works with stock asessment programs?

Can anyone state directly what the new "f" rate will be?

The Mass Striped Bass Assn will be soon be releasing a position on the bill that includes analysis of the science behind the bill.

The bill will not slip by quietly by any means...in MA the next step is a hearing.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Has anybody making comments on the science related to this bill actually talked to a scientist that works with stock asessment programs?

Can anyone state directly what the new "f" rate will be?

The Mass Striped Bass Assn will be soon be releasing a position on the bill that includes analysis of the science behind the bill.

The bill will not slip by quietly by any means...in MA the next step is a hearing.

I spoke with a friend who is an emeritus scientist from WHOI. He was at a meeting with the scientists in charge of stock assessment and obtained a very chagrinned admission from them that their current stock estimates were probably wildly inaccurate and that the real number might well be less than 1/2 of what they are choosing to use for management decisions. There is also the issue of increased natural mortality in MA waters related to the burgeoning seal population.

So is MSBA in favor of maintaining the current maximum use of the resource, or reducing pressure on the population by some other means?

[BasicPatrick]

Numby, I am not really sure what you are asking, nor do I see how resource "use" (which I assume you mean fishing mortality) is related to this bill.

It is clear that this bill will increase fishing mortality.

My question and my point is to have an intellegent informed discussion we need details on analysis not I think of you think.

We all should consider the merits of the Bill, not the emotions of the bill.

1. If MA eliminates it's commercial fishery it can not keep those fish without harvest. Sure, MA could do what Jersey has done and add a third fish to the recreational take, but it can not hold these fish in reserve. The management plan will give that quota to another state.

So let's discuss this element of the Bill, what do we do???

[davisd]

Maybe Patrick will let us know when we will be discussing this subject. So any of you guys on here that want to understand it better can attend the meeting. They are very informative and believe me Patrick does a good job on informing.

[numbskull]

I don't have a preconceived notion about this, other than that I think the population data is wrong and has probably been buffed to present the most favorable possible estimate because of political pressures and commercial bias on the board.

I would hope MSBA's experienced fisherman recognize the same issue and are interested in addressing it. To do so every idea should be considered on its own merit. Why, for instance, assume MA must give up any of its quota it chooses to use for conservation purposes? Why assume the recreational catch can not be limited by other means such as adjusting the slot limit or establishing a season (not that that is likely to be popular). And why prioritize the quantity of the fishery as opposed to the quality of the fishery?

I don't have a strong opinion regarding this bill........though I think it is ill conceived and poorly timed.....and very unlikely to pass. From a purely selfish standpoint I hope it does pass, after which the recreational limit would likely need to be severely curtailed to keep mortality below current levels (you get what you ask for) and a court case if necessary could ensue (probably backed by the Conservation Law Foundation) to establish a state's right NOT to kill fish if they so choose........which I suspect would be successful and ultimately save some decent fish for me to target over the waning years of my life.

[l.i.fish.in.vt]

why not let the commercial qouta stay as it is and have the recreational be a catch and release only fishery?

[striprman]

Originally Posted by l.i.fish.in.vt

why not let the commercial qouta stay as it is and have the recreational be a catch and release only fishery?

Because, I want a fish for the bbq, the one I caught

[MikeToole]

Yes, I have talked to scientist/researchers on this topic, plus done a lot of reading, but not specifically on this bill. Many of them are very supportive of using slot limits and are starting to see a real weakening fishery.

Main point to remember is that Mass can stop commercial fishing on it's own but to change to a slot fish would require ASMFC approval in the end. When they bring forward the slot limit the first thing that will be required is to determine the affect. At that time the science that Patrick is questioning will be applied. The results could vary but increasing above the current kill numbers is very unlikely. The slot size could change, there could be seasons associated with the slot, part or all of the commercial quota could be moved to the recreational fisherman and so on. So while the law may have some flaws associated with the slot limit, it is a good starting point.

Comments that the commercial quota will be turned over to the other states are backwards looking comments. Presently NH has a commercial quota that it does not use and NJ has a quota that it can use towards increasing recreational catch. But that is todays quota distribution process, but like everything it is subjected to change. Getting Mass out of the striper commercial fishing column can not be over stated in it's importance. ASMFC has been looking at making major changes to the stripe bass regulations. At the Feb ASMFC meeting there was a vote to put forward on an addendum to increase the commercial quota by as much as 25%. It failed on a tie vote with Mass voting in support of increasing the quota. What we need are more Richie Whites on the stripe bass management board. Take some time to read the report from the last meeting.

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocument...ardMinutes.pdf

No, I am not against commercial fishing as a whole. People talk about job losses associated with commercial fishing for stripers but everyone needs to remember that the real job market associated with stripers comes from recreational fishing. The value of having a quality recreational outlet for the public can never be overstated.

[inTHERAPY]

Originally Posted by leptar

From what i understand this is a done deal...

I just feel bad, not only for the commercial guys as i still have 2 family members that do this 24/7-365 a year, but for the 20-26" bass everyone will be allowed to keep..

and with 1 @ 40"+ kiss the stock good bye...

figure this... with extremely low #'s...

in any day in MA during the Striper season...
100,000 fishermen that keep fish fishing in MA a day
20-26" fish are so common so for the sake of argument
100,000 20-26" stripers a day are going to the table.
multiply that by 18 weeks or 126 days(again a low average)

12,600,000 20-26" fish are absolutely going to the table.

I read a report that showed an estimated 23,000,000 20-26" bass will be going to the table.

How many 40" fish will there be? who knows... with all the BS down South... netting, long lining from the beach, ect... How many 27-39" fish are going to get eaten by seals, released back "dead" gut hooked... Not at a $1,000 fine per fish... I will not chance it...

Please, fill us in on "from what you understand this is a done deal.."
IMO this effort is a pee poor way to start conserving the resource. Commercial allocation in MA is what 1:29 of total catch. 1:4 of the MA landings. 1200 commercials, 650,000 recs. As written this bill is nothing more than an resource allocation grab. SF propoganda bs.

[leptar]

Originally Posted by inTHERAPY

Please, fill us in on "from what you understand this is a done deal.."
IMO this effort is a pee poor way to start conserving the resource. Commercial allocation in MA is what 1:29 of total catch. 1:4 of the MA landings. 1200 commercials, 650,000 recs. As written this bill is nothing more than an resource allocation grab. SF propoganda bs.

I was told there are more representatives supporting this "amendment". That this bill was something that many in office feel as a positive motion towards conservation. I am awaiting for some information from the ASFMC regarding what they will do if MA does decide to make striped bass a no take on the commercial side. What happens to the quota...

[BasicPatrick]

Ask MA DMF as well...it would be interesting to see if what you get for an answer matches what I got....hmmmmmm

Still doing my homework on this one.