Increase Commercial Catch for Striped Bass? Or NOT? - Sign up here

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It's already started John .. All the signs are there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeh, I think so too.

[JohnR]

PLEASE, we can do better than this, right? I know more people that are going than voiced on this thread, but lets get more of a firm list please. We need to represent this better. IIRC, Rhode island is one of the states in favor of increasing the quota, therefore it is very important to make it known that a lot of fishers don't want increased commercial take.

RI: Tuesday night

JohnR
Afterhours
Piemma
Slow Eddie
Red Sox Ticket

MA: Monday night

JohnR (maybe)
Ecduzitgood
JohnnyD
Makai
Freebie

NH (September)

MikeToole
TDF


MA in support of increased quota:

Raider Ronnie

[DZ]

I'll be at the RI hearing.

DZ

[Back Beach]

Pretty sure the Mass quota has increased nearly every year since the moratorium ended. Why all the fuss now? Isn't Mass authorized to take up to 2 million pounds if they see it fit? If anything, Mass has stayed pretty conservative with regard to commercial pressure.

I would, however, end the out of state licenses so us poor Taxachusetts residents have a bigger piece of our own pie to eat....don't forget the sales tax holiday this coming weekend, either...now is the perfect time to buy that expensive piece of fishing gear you've longed for but needed just a little nudge...

[Rockfish9]

I'll be at the NH one.. I've been a guest speaker there, it's easy to get to...

[piemma]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Yeh, I think so too.

Some of us have been saying it for a few years now. Personally I killed 2 fish this year out of quite a few hundred I have caught. I am not against taking a bass for the table. I just am dead set against 28" 2 fish. There is no need to kill 2 fish a day. I don't care how F&%$#&*ing poor you say you are.

1 fish 36" or make it a game fish and strictly catch and release..

Which brings up a rather interesting question. I wonder how many of these "so called hardcore stripermen" would keep fishing, buying gear, boats, slips, etc, etc, if it were catch and release like in the 80s?

I remember in 89 thru 92, 3 of us would have Deep Hole all to ourselves on the midnight low tides. Couldn't keep anything so guys just stopped fishing. It was GREAT!!!!

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by piemma

Which brings up a rather interesting question. I wonder how many of these "so called hardcore stripermen" would keep fishing, buying gear, boats, slips, etc, etc, if it were catch and release like in the 80s?

I remember in 89 thru 92, 3 of us would have Deep Hole all to ourselves on the midnight low tides. Couldn't keep anything so guys just stopped fishing. It was GREAT!!!!

I'd welcome it!

[The Dad Fisherman]

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

I'd support an increase if there was any reliable science. However, the science does not demonstrate that the striped bass population is thriving enough to take on a large increase of pressure from Comms. Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).

When issues with regards to regulation come up on these forums, the majority of commercials that post basically have a position of "cut the recs and increase our quota" - just look at the tuna thread or the thread about the SF bill.

Hell, even the damn proposal by ASMFC re-enforces my above point:

The proposal to increase the coastal commercial quota is intended to improve equality between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors.

There are two ways to improve the equality - reduce the rec limits or increase the comm quota. One of those methods is beneficial to the long-term health of the fish population and the other is demonstrative of the ways ASMFC is an impotent regulation body and continually buckles to pressure from the commercial sector.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).

My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.

What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Oil companies are trying to shoot down clean air and alternative energy initiatives across the country while providing misinformation to the general public. Should I be sympathetic to the oil companies desire to make more money and strike down other industries, as opposed to thinking that they are merely trying to increase their own wealth at the expense of the general public?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, .

That is what is important to them....do you run your business to make money or are you a not-for-profit organization? That is their means to make money, they are good at it and they depend on it. Walking into a meeting with the attitude that they are raping a resource is not going to accomplish anything.

not for nothing but the science on both sides of the argument pretty much sucks so who do you listen to....

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Is it because the resource is struggling or because its a resource you have a personal interest in that makes it worth protecting.

some would argue that the plight of the plover is a resource worth protecting

If people go into these meetings playing the blame game...both sides get pissed, and any credible arguments they have, become meaningless.

[Redsoxticket]

Can someone donate a nice plug to be given away as a lottery for all S-B attendees even raider ron.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[BasicPatrick]

Many commercial guys are opposed to this insane proposal.

Sure, a myopic one year look at the data indicates a small increase will not reduce spawning stock biomass but that view ignores two important ASMFC reports.

ASMFC managers have been informed by scientists that fishing mortality is higher than currently calculated due to poaching and a new (f) or fishing mortality number is being developed.

The managers have also heard presentations that natural mortality is higher than currently being calculated due to the disease mycobacteriosis being detected in the coastal spawning stock and Hudson and Deleware river stocks.

Managers are quietly talking about a fishing reduction when the updated mortality numbers come in but the State of NY pushed the short term viewpoint.

Any Charter Boat or other buisness that testifies for a commercial increase should be boycotted. Why give money or refer money to those willing to risk the future of our fish. Hit them in the wallet is what I say.

[StriperZ]

To those of you attending meetings, thanks for doing that, If they had Maryland hearings, I would be all over it. Maryland just does whatever they wish to and then hire the professional justifier to fend off those of us with common sense. They don't do 'public comment' or 'will of the people' well here. Usually we just get a 'thank you for writing' form letter.

If the commercial and recreational catches need to have equity, then how about making a keeper slot for recreational fishing and reduce the take to one per day.

Also ask them why the two fisheries need to have equity to increase the catch rather than find equity by decreasing the catch.

How many of us really need to take more than 1 fish per day? One fish a week or every 4-5 days is about my take.

[jmac]

I agree with Kenny on this issue; I'm fine, for the present time, with the commercial quota the way it is (I have fished commercially since 1972, thru the good and the bad). My issue is that the rec people do not realize how many fish they kill during the season. As I said, I have been on the water for close to 40 years, and I don't EVER remember seeing this many people fishing for bass exclusively....each year, as fishing has gotten better, more people fish for them....look at the charter boat industry, even headboats regularly fish for striped bass these days. Back in the beginning of the lean years (late 70's, early 80's) charter boats fished for bluefish regularly, tuna most of the late summer and fluke, cod....they were only 3 or 4 boats at the Point (Judith) who fished bass regularly. Striped Bass is now a mainstay of the charter industry...as Kenny said, see what goes on down south of us (NJ, and Maryland, Virginia in the winter); that is what is effecting the population.

The coastwide commercial quota has been static for more than a few years; the recreational catch has increased exponentially with the increase in biomass for the last several years...anyone (Rec or Comm) who denies that is living in a fantasy world.
It gets very tiring to constantly hear how the commercial fisherman is killing all the bass when I have only been allowed to use the same amount of quota each year....I only catch more if some other areas don't have fish, but I do....at the end of the day X amount of fish are landed and subtracted from the alloted quota (be it MA or RI or NY)...

Now, reduce the recreational bag limit to 1 fish per day (as it was back when fish were everywhere, sic 1990's, early 2000's)...then see who squawks....

[Adam_777]

I'm working on getting my son a ride to football so I can go.The bill is nonsense.RI

[Clammer]

A777

THIS ISN,T A RI proposal ...this is higher up .federal or someplace .,.,

[ivanputski]

I'm 90% certain I'll make it that night

[Adam_777]

Let me get this right.The increase would be for

1.RI 3,662 lbs
2.MD 2164 lbs
3. NY 232,767 lbs

Total of 238,593 lbs of bass on top of the already 7,341,207 lbs total between the two.Making the new total 7,579,800 lbs.

3,806,275 for both rec and comm.

Can someone tell me how they guesstimate the rec numbers in the first place.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Adam_777

Can someone tell me how they guesstimate the rec numbers in the first place.

It sure seems like they apply the following technique:

[ivanputski]

If there is a discrepancy between the comm take and the recreational take, why not decrease the recreational take rather than up the comm quota to level it out??? Make the recreational limit 1 fish per day, any size... But upping the comm quota to simply be equitable with the bogus recreational figure doesnt make any sense... smells like some lobbying going on behind the scenes...

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

If there is a discrepancy between the comm take and the recreational take, why not decrease the recreational take rather than up the comm quota to level it out??? Make the recreational limit 1 fish per day, any size... But upping the comm quota to simply be equitable with the bogus recreational figure doesnt make any sense... smells like some lobbying going on behind the scenes...

Reduce the recreational take????? Recreational season doesnt close, you can go 7 days a week, 1,2,3,4,5 times a day, 12 months a year in some states as long as you dont have more than 2 fish in posession at anytime... Nobody counts those fish... Those rec kill numbers are way, way higher than anyone can estimate, they can never estimate em as they have no clue... The 1 fish a man would make the greatest difference, just think u do have to put a size limit on it...

[ivanputski]

I'm saying reduce the rec take by 50% by making it one fish per day instead of 2. Since it's never REALLY possible to accurately estimate the amount of fish joe-weekend takes, if 75% of anglers are honest and actually follow regs, than the 1 fish per day would reduce the amount taken by a large percentage... I feel I'm getting off topic though... the Point I am making is this :

you should never INCREASE a take (comm quota) in an attempt to equalize a discrepancy... If it is thought that the rec-angler takes more per year, then take steps to reduce that amount, not increase it to make everyone happy. the goal should be to decrease the total amount of the resource taken per season... on BOTH SIDES... Do what's best for the RESOURCE and it's future, not disgruntled categories of anglers... that is a no-brainer

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

I'm saying reduce the rec take by 50% by making it one fish per day instead of 2. Since it's never REALLY possible to accurately estimate the amount of fish joe-weekend takes, if 75% of anglers are honest and actually follow regs, than the 1 fish per day would reduce the amount taken by a large percentage... I feel I'm getting off topic though... the Point I am making is this :

you should never INCREASE a take (comm quota) in an attempt to equalize a discrepancy... If it is thought that the rec-angler takes more per year, then take steps to reduce that amount, not increase it to make everyone happy. the goal should be to decrease the total amount of the resource taken per season... on BOTH SIDES... Do what's best for the RESOURCE and it's future, not disgruntled categories of anglers... that is a no-brainer

I agree with you 100%.. The problem is that the Recs will never go for the 1 fish until its to late, If the com catch was increased to even 50% of the rec catch man would people be crying....

[MikeToole]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

I agree with you 100%.. The problem is that the Recs will never go for the 1 fish until its to late, If the com catch was increased to even 50% of the rec catch man would people be crying....

I agree with this but for a reason you will not like. Looking at this from another stand point why would a recreational fisherman agree to a one fish limit when others individuals are allowed to catch many more and make a profit from it. I agree that we need to reduce the recreational harvest but I think the only way it can actually happen is by either eliminating commercial fishing or greatly reducing the quota.

To say their is a "discrepancy" because recs catch is increasing while commercial is not, is meaningless and should not be part of the management process. Actually the recreational catch has not been increasing over the last five years, it has more or less been stable. Fisheries are to be managed in the best interest of the public. From a dollar standpoint for stripers the big money and jobs comes from recreational fishing. From the human standpoint millions of people get to enjoy recreational fishing for stripers bring family and friends together, even if only for one day. May sound corny but it's true.

We can keep say the fish are just in other areas or people do not know how to fish but doesn't match the ASMFC numbers. There has been about a 20%decrease in the spawning stock from 2004 to 2008.

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by MikeToole

I agree with this but for a reason you will not like. Looking at this from another stand point why would a recreational fisherman agree to a one fish limit when others individuals are allowed to catch many more and make a profit from it. I agree that we need to reduce the recreational harvest but I think the only way it can actually happen is by either eliminating commercial fishing or greatly reducing the quota.

To say their is a "discrepancy" because recs catch is increasing while commercial is not, is meaningless and should not be part of the management process. Actually the recreational catch has not been increasing over the last five years, it has more or less been stable. Fisheries are to be managed in the best interest of the public. From a dollar standpoint for stripers the big money and jobs comes from recreational fishing. From the human standpoint millions of people get to enjoy recreational fishing for stripers bring family and friends together, even if only for one day. May sound corny but it's true.

We can keep say the fish are just in other areas or people do not know how to fish but doesn't match the ASMFC numbers. There has been about a 20%decrease in the spawning stock from 2004 to 2008.

I really believe that even if you did get rid of the Comm fishing in Mass and RI the combined 1.3 million pounds will not make a difference. I know many will disagree....

[jmac]

I agree with this but for a reason you will not like. Looking at this from another stand point why would a recreational fisherman agree to a one fish limit when others individuals are allowed to catch many more and make a profit from it. I agree that we need to reduce the recreational harvest but I think the only way it can actually happen is by either eliminating commercial fishing or greatly reducing the quota.

To say their is a "discrepancy" because recs catch is increasing while commercial is not, is meaningless and should not be part of the management process. Actually the recreational catch has not been increasing over the last five years, it has more or less been stable. Fisheries are to be managed in the best interest of the public. From a dollar standpoint for stripers the big money and jobs comes from recreational fishing. From the human standpoint millions of people get to enjoy recreational fishing for stripers bring family and friends together, even if only for one day. May sound corny but it's true.

We can keep say the fish are just in other areas or people do not know how to fish but doesn't match the ASMFC numbers. There has been about a 20%decrease in the spawning stock from 2004 to 2008.

What happens to the general public, who do not fish, but love to eat fish, specifically striped bass? It has been a tradition for generations that specific sectors of the population (be they religious, ethnic, etc), have eaten striped bass. I know the argument always comes up about farm raised HYBRID striped bass....but it just doesn't pass muster compared to the real thing. So by caving in to the demands of the recreational fishery to have the whole fishery to themselves, you eliminate that portion of the population that does not have the means to catch it themselves.
And as you say, recreational fishing is a big cash cow...boats based on striper fishing, tackle based on striper fishing, quasi-commercial aspect of charter boat industry, etc....sounds pretty hypocritical to me that the commercial fisherman is the culprit to the supposed "downfall" of the striped bass....as always, it comes down to what's in it for me....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

I really believe that even if you did get rid of the Comm fishing in Mass and RI the combined 1.3 million pounds will not make a difference. I know many will disagree....

I disagree mostly because you aren't including the copious amounts of poaching in that number.

[ivanputski]

Many recreational fisherman are too shortsighted when it comes to their own favorite past time... I'm a rec. angler, and I would like to be catching bass 10 years from now.