Very nice piece from SJ Blog on Striped bass and ASMFC

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Self-serving? How so, I rarely fish for striped bass.

That explains why you are content believing the ASMFC is managing them well.

Originally Posted by MakoMike

I guess you are unaware that in most fisheries management its the scientists that set the ABCs and the "managers" really just try to figure out how to stay within those numbers.

You're about 20 years behind the times in your attitudes and thinking.

I have not seen any change in fishery management, other than that mandated by a judge, over the more than 20 years I have been concerned about it. I have seen continued depletion of most of the stocks of fish I would like to catch and I blame apologists like yourself for facilitating such mismanagement.

You also seem unaware that science is useless with bad data, and that science is subservient to real world data not the other way around. To pretend that fishery management is based on science is ridiculous. It is based on data collection that makes use of science to predict the outcomes using that data set.

When you have bad data, you have bad results. There has been an abundance of real world information indicating that the striped bass data being used to predict management outcomes has been bad for the last 10 years. The ASMFC has chosen not to believe it for political and economic reasons......not "scientific" ones.

We just see things differently. Your perspective is that the fact that the striped bass SSB has not totally collapsed is proof the management has been OK. The fact that striped bass recreational catch is far below what the main user group wants does not matter. The ASMFC has done their job and killed every last "extra" fish out there. Now if they would just do the same for BSB everything would be grand.

To each their own, but why so many gloating posts from you about it on a board dedicated to striped bass fishing if you don't fish for bass anymore?

[afterhours]

This ones for you mike....

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

I have not seen any change in fishery management, other than that mandated by a judge, over the more than 20 years I have been concerned about it.

Then you weren't paying attention:

Originally Posted by 16 U.S.C. 1851 as amended in 1996

98-623

(1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.

[Sea Dangles]

I do give credit to MakoMike for his efforts to actually participate in the fishery management. As Numby is demonstrating it is a thankless job for the most part,and it can be particularly difficult when an educated and frustrated angler minimizes your efforts regardless of your intentions.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

I'll accept that. But I am past the point where anything done for striped bass will have any effect in my remaining lifetime. The fish I want to catch in the years I have left are out there swimming now, and disappearing by the millions of lbs each year.

Yes, I'm plenty bitter about it. Yes, my bitterness is ineffectual, but I make no apology for it.

Anybody who thinks the striped bass fishery has been well managed since the last collapse does not share any perspective I admire. Indeed, we all would have likely been better off if such a person had stayed out of fishery management.

[Sea Dangles]

I appreciate your perspective and I am hopeful the "management" improves in time. George,perhaps you should be grateful to the fishery and all the great memories it has provided you. Like most things,it will never be the same as it was.If somebody with your passion and smarts had chosen to dedicate a career to the fishery management perhaps things would be different.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I do give credit to MakoMike for his efforts to actually participate in the fishery management. As Numby is demonstrating it is a thankless job for the most part,and it can be particularly difficult when an educated and frustrated angler minimizes your efforts regardless of your intentions.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

Thanks, I needed that.

[numbskull]

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.

Originally Posted by numbskull

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all user groups.

Originally Posted by numbskull

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

The Scientists control the catch, its really that simple. The Science & statistical committees set the ABC, ACLs etc. The rest of the management structure has to abide by their determinations, no if ands or buts about it. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all .

Gee, Mike, it says it in your quote of the law above. The bit about optimizing yield specifically for the United States' [B] fishing industry [B].

I apologize for using such an unreliable source, however.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

Gee, Mike, it says it in your quote of the law above. The bit about optimizing yield specifically for the United States' [B] fishing industry [B].

I apologize for using such an unreliable source, however.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "fishing industry" includes both commercial and recreational fishing. IOW it includes your local tackle shop as well as your local fishmonger.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The "fishing industry" includes both commercial and recreational fishing. IOW it includes your local tackle shop as well as your local fishmonger.

Right, Mike (finally), the law caters specifically to those with an economic (i.e., commercial) interest in the fishery. It ignores entirely those of us with a recreational interest in the fishery. You can be very sure that phrasing was inserted under the lobbying pressure of economically interested parties while us recreational schmucks worked our usual jobs oblivious to the screwing we were getting (although obviously the act was concerned with far bigger issues than striped bass and recreational fishermen). A real good argument for gamefish status it seems.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.
.

No, Mike, my recollections are correct and I am sure you know it.

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 that forced the MSA reauthorization of 1996 (just like with the more recent 2006 reauthorization) was entirely the result of legal action and legislative pressure by the Pew trust and other environmental orginizations. The fishing industry fought it tooth and nail until the fisheries were so damaged they had nothing left to lose. You go look it up. The US Judicary site has a nice summary if you are so interested.......which I'm sure you're not (I'd link it for you but don't know how from an iPad).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device