Quote:
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
Threaded Mode