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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

damn liberals

I'm an idiot...

[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 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

[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

[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...

[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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by inTHERAPY

1200 commercials, 650,000 recs.

I gotta ask....where does this number come from.....That number seems astronomically high...

Your talking 10% of the state being recreational fisherman....

[intrepid24]

i'm pretty sure that figure was thrown out there by brad burns, pres. of stripers forever in conjunction w/ magamefishbill.org
there were some other projections and that did'nt seem realistic.
for instance 3,400 more jobs in MA if the bill goes through, and an 200 million $ increase in revenue in the state of MA if the bill passes.

[inTHERAPY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I gotta ask....where does this number come from.....That number seems astronomically high...

Your talking 10% of the state being recreational fisherman....

Here is a excerpt from http://www.mass.gov/czm/oceanmanagem...rdemogecon.pdf

"Over the past ten years, the state's recreational fishing industry has expanded enormously, and is now ranked as the second most valuable in the United States. The striped bass recreational fishery is widely regarded as the finest in the country, and draws participants from all over the country. Marine recreational anglers in Massachusetts spent about $850 million pursuing their sport in 19985. Over 900,000 people participated in the marine recreational fishery in 2002, including 560,000 of the Commonwealth’s citizens"

That's 2002! I can't locate that 650 number but I'll come across it again. The actual number I saw was 665,000.



Found it, an excerpt from http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellfleet...d-bass-fishing

A study sponsored by Stripers Forever estimates recreational fishing added 1.16 billion to state economy versus 24.2 million from commercial fishing (in 2003) and created 10,986 jobs to 524 in commercial fishing. Only 23 fishermen caught 6,000 pounds ($18,000 worth) of bass.
“So it’s not a commercial fishery,” Caldwell opined. “In Massachusetts there are 665,000 (striped bass) recreational fishermen, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and only 1,207 commercial fishermen reporting a catch.”

Granted all of those folks did not catch fish. The commercial catch in MA amounts to a hill of beans in the overall picture. Art

[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.

[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.

[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,,,,,,,,,,

[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.

[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

[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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

That being said there may be 600,000 fishing trips a year....but 600,000 different anglers...thats where I kind of find the number being hard to swallow.

and are they lumping in Sweetwater anglers and ice-fisherman into that total to justify the number.....in that case plenty of rec anglers that never had salt touch their line.

[DZ]

As often happens in threads like these there is often mis-information. Because of this I decided to contact SF to get some clarification. Info included below in brackets.

[The daily bag limit would be one fish, period. The bill does not say what size of fish CAN be harvested, but rather what size of fish CANNOT be harvested.

The slot would be determined by the department, but no fish could be smaller than 20 inches and no fish could be harvested between 26 and 40 inches. The department could have a tighter regulation than 20 through 26, for example 22 through 25, but it could not be more lenient than 20 through 26. Also, the department could make a larger minimum 42 or 44 or whatever, but it could not allow 38. If the fishery required it there could be only a fish of over 40 inches - or greater. The state might also decide instead to allow only a slot fish and complete hands off the larger ones.]


I suggest those that may want to see how the numbers are arrived at contact SF.

DZ

[leptar]

Ok just so we are on the same page...
We know that "scientific data" is based upon the input that "volunteers" and "paid" staff collect when they are armed with that pen and pad with a pocket lined with 1/2 melted candy..

We all know fishermen tell tales...

So even if 5% of the information collect is bullchit.. that in itself would be enough to over exaggerate any "published scientific data".

That is why i base my opinion on what i see and not what is read to me.

I got a reply from the ASFMC

Originally Posted by My Email response from ASFMC

"My understanding is that the bill (HD 245) indicates that the Massachusetts commercial striped bass quota would be set aside for conservation, rather than being given to MA recreational fishermen (such as through a mechanism similar to the recreational "bonus fish program" in NJ) or to fishermen (commercial or recreational) in other states. Also, there is currently no language in the Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan related to state transfer of commercial quota, nor do any states transfer any coastal commercial quota at this point. IF HD 245 were passed as law, and IF Massachusetts wanted to transfer its commercial quota to other states' commercial fishermen to catch (which seems contrary to the intent of the bill as I understand it), an addendum to the striped bass plan would be required to permit it. Should anything of this sort happen, there would be public hearings and a comment period, at which time I would suggest you and all concerned constituents provide comment.

Best regards,

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission"

[BassDawg]

AYYYYYY MEN!!

i agree with MOST of what Sandman is putting down,,,,,,,,,,,,,

especially 1 @36"+.

much easier to do and to enforce, unless
fishery mngmt requires the killing of the 20"-26" to augment
their fecundity ratios and better preserve the species, then so be it!
i DO KNOW that slots worked for the redfish in SW FL. cheaters and poachers included. no tolereance is key as well, poachers arew less likely to poach if they know they can lose their WHOLE kit and kiboodle; plus fines, and jailtime if needs be.

and as i and others have stated, ad nauseum, ALL of this IS MOOT

if we don't FIX THE FORAGE!!!! the two measures must go
hand in hand and must be supported by the science; yet, how can it
not be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems like a no brainer from where i'm typing??

[DZ]

Originally Posted by BassDawg

ALL of this IS MOOT

if we don't FIX THE FORAGE!!!!

Just for info - not saying the striper stock is crashing but... during the last crash in the 1980s forage had nothing to do with it.

DZ