New rules

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by tlapinski

I am not trying to fight or say that I am in any way for or against it, but I haven't been able to figure out how gamefish status alone is the saving grace when 90% of annual harvest is attributed to the recreational sector. I see this fix thrown around a lot, but unless I am missing something the math simply doesn't add up.

If game fish status prevents anything other than an illegal harvest, doesn't that in and of itself help protect the breeders and also narrow the focus of enforcement? All you need to do is look at the success FL has had and I can't see a negative to game fish status, other than the commercials who probably can't make a living off stripers at this point anyway.

[tlapinski]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If game fish status prevents anything other than an illegal harvest, doesn't that in and of itself help protect the breeders and also narrow the focus of enforcement? All you need to do is look at the success FL has had and I can't see a negative to game fish status, other than the commercials who probably can't make a living off stripers at this point anyway.

Again, not totally opposed just still not seeing the math here. So you end commercial (which, by the way, I have never been a part of) then you add a full 10% more fish back into the sea. Sure that's great, but are we just 10% off of having an ocean filled with bass? No, not in the least. Keep in mind that poaching is not commercial and it is not recreational as it's not accounted for in any way, shape or form as the ASMFC sates they have no way to calculate it.

As for the Florida comparison, it's like comparing apples to pineapples; sure they're both fruit (or maybe vegetables, I'm not sure what a pineapple really is )and both have the word apple in them, but how they grow, reproduce, are harvested and so on is very different.