Seems to me that what we have here is a failure to communicate.
"Conservation" means different things to different people and lets not confuse "conservation" with "allocation" Allocation meaning how much each sector, commercial vs recreational gets to catch. Conservation to some at one end of the spectrum seems to mean having the maximum number of fish in the water that nature can sustain. At the other end of the spectrum it seems to mean having enough fish in the water so that they can be easily caught.
Neither is the basis for fishery management in this country!
Fishery management in this country is based on achieving and retaining a biomass (fish population) that is capable of providing the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). That is the most fish that can be caught year after year, and every year, without reducing the population of fish. The scientists come up with the figure for the biomass that will provide MSY. Then they do stock assessments which provide an estimate of the current biomass. Then the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) is estimated to either keep the biomass at MSY or rebuild it to the MSY biomass. The ABC is then adjusted by various factors to come up with the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) The regulations are then crafted using statistical models to meet the desired ACL.
The key take away for the purposes of this discussion is that the ACLs will be designed to keep the biomass at MSY. In the case of stripers the biomass is already above MSY, so there will be no tightening of the regulations. You can bitch and moan about it all you want, it won't affect national policy unless and until you get your Congressmen and Senators to change the rules of the game. Right now the ASMFC would be breaking the law to enact stricter regulation on stripers.
Threaded Mode