Mass. weighs tougher protections for striped bass

[big jay]

If Stripers Forever and their limited budget can get a fisheries issue passed by the Massachusetts Legislature, Just wait until the Pew Foundation, PETA, The Humane Society and every other Tree Hugging Anti-Fishing group with REAL Money comes into the picture.

They are licking their chops for a precedent like this to be set.

You can agree or disagree with their objective, but their means will be the entire fishing communities undoing.

[Mr. Sandman]

Numb,

I doubt the food supply argument holds much water. There is not that much SB in the the total protein equation to amount to anything significant that would in turn effect price of other food. Besides, commercial demand could easily be met with farm raised fish.

This law would result in a substantial reduction of fish taken in MA and I support it. It is moving in the right direction of conservation. Going from 2 to 1 on recs (regardless of size) alone is huge. Taking the $ off the fishes head stops a lot of wrongful activity that we all know goes on and is unaccounted for. I support the game fish goal (along with a rec cut)l, it is the only way IMO to really cut through the crap and reduce the pressure on the fish.

Because the SB is largely a C&R activity among many (most?) recs now anyway, I don't think this will hurt the recs all that much nor the $ they bring into the economy.

I believe the $ recs wouldn't contribute if SB were completely halted is somewhat exaggerated but it is a huge number.
There is some real evidence that during the moratorium people didn't fish for SB nearly as often. Who knows what they did but they will probably do it again. My own personal observations during the moratorium was there were a lot fewer guys out fishing for bass in those years.
Given the reductions of Fluke, Seabass and now SB there could be a shift out of fishing altogether and into other activities...or maybe just go into the savings or pay off some debt. Further I strongly believe that higher fuel costs will aggravate the boating end of the equation as well. Lastly, I think having to buy a rec fishing lic will be "just one more thing" to stop a lot of newbies and familys from getting into sw fishing.

From my own personal (selfish)standpoint I strongly support gamefish move because there will not be the 60+ comm boats fishing day in and day out and day out at GH pounding the %$%$%$%$ out of the fish dumping tons of bunker and depleting the local stock as they take a healthy chunk of the quota from my backyard. (yes that means you RI guys too) I will tell you those fish off GH are like Pavlov's dogs..they are trained to come to the dinner bell which is rung every Sun, Tue, Wed and Thur.

I also believe (at least up my way) that stopping the comm fishing for bass will improve the bunker situation which is depleted with these bass guys taking thousands of bunker to support their comm bass habit.

I hope it passes but doubt it will. The comm guys have a strong voice in this state and they have filtered their way up the legislation tree like a bad disease. They usually get most of what they want. There is what I call the "NRA mentality" among comm fishermen. "I can't give up anything because the next thing you know you will be taking away my fishing rods" mentality. (referring to "can't give up armor piercing ammo and fully automatic weapons because the next thing you know we have to give up all our guns" thinking)

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The comm guys have a strong voice in this state and they have filtered their way up the legislation tree like a bad disease. They usually get most of what they want. There is what I call the "NRA mentality" among comm fishermen. "I can't give up anything because the next thing you know you will be taking away my fishing rods" mentality. (referring to "can't give up armor piercing ammo and fully automatic weapons because the next thing you know we have to give up all our guns" thinking)

Once the angler registry/fishing license reaches its full potential, the comms are going the way of the buffalo hunter. End of story. I think within 3 years this will be the case as the comms will face a much larger and organized opposition.

[luds]

I would love to see the 40" slot raised to 45" or 47". Basically a trophy allowance. Leave the 20lb to high 30lb fish alone to breed. If a bass makes it to the high 30's I'd like to see them be given the chance to reproduce more if they survived that long. My own selficiousness kicks in at 40lb. A possible free Van Staal is to good to pass up and I get a rush out of trying to drag a 40 to my truck unnoticed.

[Rockfish9]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

One the angler registry/fishing license reaches its full potential, the comms are going the way of the buffalo hunter. End of story. I think within 3 years this will be the case as the comms will face a much larger and organized opposition.

your are exactly correct.. it is the evolution of things....

I never thought i'd see it this way... maybe I'm tired of the fight...

As youngster(14) I sold school bass and trapped eels to sell (another fish in decline) I thought i'd sell fish forever,as a young man with 4 growing kids those fish bought all the "going back to school" clothes for my kids each fall... i havent sold ( except tuna) a fish ( bass or cod) since 2004....I've watched things change through the years, fishing out of Newbury port, we had several fish dealers to sell our fish to.. now all gone, the few remaining draggers have their own trucks and go to gloucester and Boston, a few local places try and buy bass, but it's more trouble than it is worth.. another freedom lost...

I trapped fur all my life from the time i was able to walk, I was a member of mass trappers and for years, we fought the good fight.. but money and ill informed people won out... Mass eventually ended all practical trapping...once again another freedom lost..

it's coming guy's, maybe not this year, but eventualy, you will no longer be able to sell bass in Mass....I never thought i couldn't hitch up my boat in dead winter and go cod fishing.. they took that away too.. Now the boat is covered and winterized in October..C&R and game fish status is inevitable..

Maryland had the right idea ( in theory) years ago allowing only the small fish to be harvested, thus saving the breeders... it makes perfect sense... I like the slot limit Idea witht the trophy clause.. thus you make a decision... do I want to eat it or catch a wall hanger...

Just one mans opinion that has spent most of his 53 years on this planet fishing, hunting and trapping... and watching it slowly go the way of the buffalo...

tight lines all
Roc..

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by Rockfish9

Maryland had the right idea ( in theory) years ago allowing only the small fish to be harvested, thus saving the breeders... it makes perfect sense... I like the slot limit Idea witht the trophy clause.. thus you make a decision... do I want to eat it or catch a wall hanger...

Maryland saves the breeders that make it into their waters to spawn. Virgina allows them to be slaughtered every winter/spring as they school up and stage to go up the Chessie. These are strictly rec boaters doing this.

NY closes the Hudson for the pre-spawn staging and the start of the spawn. I wish Virginia would do the same.

[Back Beach]

^

Instituting a slot limit as prescribed will in effect create a trophy fishery if other states follow suit, which is exactly what we all want, no? We're essentially instituting a 40" minimum size limit. Cutting the limit to one a day and lowering the bar on size equates to lower fishing pressure as well as lower discard mortality. People will give up sooner with a fish in the box as opposed to culling through shorts in order to get a keeper.

At worst, we're creating a neutral harvest/mortality picture for small fish by cutting the daily bag to one small fish a day and allowing our breeding stock repeated attempts to reproduce. Right now we're slaughtering the breeders as soon as they reach minimal breeding size.

Other states will eventually have to follow suit once pressure from the newly organized "recreational fisherman's" lobby is created through the federal registry and ensuing saltwater license. Its just a matter of time as the recs greatly outnumber the commercials. Recs aren't organized yet, but its coming and is as close to a done deal as one could ask for.

If all this stuff falls into place(and its likely it will) we'll be walking on the backs of large fish in 5-10 years.

[Raven]

i agree....

the larger the breeder...the more eggs get laid and hopefully fertilized

which makes more fingerlings to go on maturing......

but the odds are stacked WAY against them all the way
to a Monster sized bass.

[agsurfr]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

Numb,

I doubt the food supply argument holds much water. There is not that much SB in the the total protein equation to amount to anything significant that would in turn effect price of other food. Besides, commercial demand could easily be met with farm raised fish.

This law would result in a substantial reduction of fish taken in MA and I support it. It is moving in the right direction of conservation. Going from 2 to 1 on recs (regardless of size) alone is huge. Taking the $ off the fishes head stops a lot of wrongful activity that we all know goes on and is unaccounted for. I support the game fish goal (along with a rec cut)l, it is the only way IMO to really cut through the crap and reduce the pressure on the fish.

Because the SB is largely a C&R activity among many (most?) recs now anyway, I don't think this will hurt the recs all that much nor the $ they bring into the economy.

I believe the $ recs wouldn't contribute if SB were completely halted is somewhat exaggerated but it is a huge number.
There is some real evidence that during the moratorium people didn't fish for SB nearly as often. Who knows what they did but they will probably do it again. My own personal observations during the moratorium was there were a lot fewer guys out fishing for bass in those years.
Given the reductions of Fluke, Seabass and now SB there could be a shift out of fishing altogether and into other activities...or maybe just go into the savings or pay off some debt. Further I strongly believe that higher fuel costs will aggravate the boating end of the equation as well. Lastly, I think having to buy a rec fishing lic will be "just one more thing" to stop a lot of newbies and familys from getting into sw fishing.

From my own personal (selfish)standpoint I strongly support gamefish move because there will not be the 60+ comm boats fishing day in and day out and day out at GH pounding the %$%$%$%$ out of the fish dumping tons of bunker and depleting the local stock as they take a healthy chunk of the quota from my backyard. (yes that means you RI guys too) I will tell you those fish off GH are like Pavlov's dogs..they are trained to come to the dinner bell which is rung every Sun, Tue, Wed and Thur.

I also believe (at least up my way) that stopping the comm fishing for bass will improve the bunker situation which is depleted with these bass guys taking thousands of bunker to support their comm bass habit.

I hope it passes but doubt it will. The comm guys have a strong voice in this state and they have filtered their way up the legislation tree like a bad disease. They usually get most of what they want. There is what I call the "NRA mentality" among comm fishermen. "I can't give up anything because the next thing you know you will be taking away my fishing rods" mentality. (referring to "can't give up armor piercing ammo and fully automatic weapons because the next thing you know we have to give up all our guns" thinking)

Sandman,


Couldn't agree more about the fishing on MV. The use (I mean abuse) of the baitfish is huge too. We want to nurture the SB fishery, we better start thinking about their forage or the increasing lack of it.

Don'y know much about the bill, but I hope it passes.

Curious point, but it is my understanding that the CT legislature just voted to allow some percentage of unused quota from 1 year to roll over to the next for the Comms. Here's the perplexing bit, CT has no Comm fishery so they voted to let our neighbors to catch more of our fish. Can't really see how this benefits CT fishermen. Idiots...

Fair winds

ab