Mass. weighs tougher protections for striped bass

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by numbskull

These are very good and valid points, Patrick, and clarify your reasoned objection to this bill.

It does raise some questions, however. If the recreational sector's quota is (appropriately for sure) reduced to 1 fish, is the commercial quota also likely to be adjusted (fairly or not) downward as well? How much? What consequences do you foresee if not?

If my guesss that there will be a need for a mortality reduction managment action to respond to scientific concerns that come out of the pending stock asessment update, then the norm is for an across the board reduction of fishing mortality...including the commercial quota will be reduced...unless I am missing an angle but I do not think so

As for stock mortality based on fish size, any proposal would have to reduce mortality to meet required targets, and any proposal could be made to work.......but would require the implementation of a season as is seen in other fisheries (not something most people seem anxious to happen).

There is no question seasons for many marine fish are coming to a management plan near all of us in the near future. For S-B I think we are a couple of management steps away from a season but eventualy that will be on the table as the next best management option.

I'm also having difficulty understanding how this bill will open all fishing to legislative regulation. Isn't it limited to Striped Bass alone? Isn't it already much easier and cheaper for the industrial fishing interests to influence regulations through political appointments to the ASMFC board? Isn't that what has been going on for years and led us to this point?

I'm going to try and answer this with a simple version of a very complex question. Reason one is that the legislation will set legal prescedent. Reason two is that once the legislature is involved in something it tends to clamin that turf for itself. Reason three is that once the lobbyists see that the legislature is willing to pass a fisheries regulatory action they will naturally see that as a new option to make advancement for their agenda and the flood gates of legislation, ammendments and the lot will be opened. WE do not need to be reminded that big buisness clearly can outspend all others on Beacon Hill and next in line will be the extreme greens wiht the rec and conservation minded amongst us being wayyyyyyyyy in the back of the line .

I would suggest that there is different track record with influencing political appointments as opposed vs passing legislation. We have passed very few pieces of legislation as opposed to influencing many political appointments.

Take the MA delegation to the ASMFC. We have three Comissioners. One is a legislator, one is a Governor appointee and MA DMF is the third. Last year we had a major gain (my opinion) from the rec/conservation angle. The Governor's appointee remains Bill Adler from MA Lobsterman's Assn, DMF is DMF, and until he lost his seat the legislative appointee had been Tony Verga from Gloucester who gave proxy to Vito Calamo who has always been a kill it all and sell it all commercial rep of the worst kind. When Tony Verga lost his seat a major effort at the state house between enviros and rec leaders got Rep. Sarah Peake from P-Town as our new ASMFC legislator. FYI...Rep Peake has regulary participated in her county league of sportsmans clubs for the past ten years and after two lunches with her I am can not tell you how important the gain we just made is for us.

My point is that at the ASMFC the rec commnity has a say and a shot at success. We have a decent (not great) track record at ASMFC but moving actions to the state house will clearly be a HUGE step backward.[/B]

Undoubtedly your ideal of increased recreational representation in our fishery management is the best option, but to date it has not worked. The industrial interests know and exploit that. What do you see that is now different and gives you confidence things will change in the future?

I do not see increased interest and that is why our best option is the current rulemaking process as oposed to the legislative process for fisheries management.

To continue a system that has failed and hope it will change may be noble, may feel right, but may also be wrong. To tear down a system that could work and replace it with one that may do worse is not necessarily better either. It comes down to opinion. That it has gotten this far is a sign of the trouble we face. I don't pretend to know an answer, just thinking out loud.

I agree we need serious improvements to fisheries managmeent but I also am absoutely certain involving the legislature is the completely wrong direction.

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I agree we need serious improvements to fisheries managmeent but I also am absoutely certain involving the legislature is the completely wrong direction.

If the legislation (Congress) hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

[DZ]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

If the legislation hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

Great point Mike.

JFI - It seems snook and redfish have been protected by legislative action in most Gulf of Mexico states. Rec anglers in that area have reaped the benefits. We tend to be a little "gun shy" up here in the NE.

DZ

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

If the legislation (Congress) hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION to be accurate...This is my point exactly...If one state gives up it's fish the other states will divide it up. Banning the commercial harvest in MA will only get VA, NJ and other states more commercial quota. This question has been asked and anwered many many times and no matter how SF spins the answer it is what it is.

The place to get improvemet in the S-B management Plan is the management body responsible for the overall management pland and that is ASMFC. Like it or not they manage Striped Bass.

If the SF Legislation is so good why are they always shopping it from State to State and have not passed it anywhere.

[Sea Dangles]

Let's not forget that a portion of the MA quota comes from fish caught in RI and CT.Lots of anglers willing to take their catch over the line to cash in.The night time is the right time.I don't think this is news to contender cop.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

The place to get improvemet in the S-B management Plan is the management body responsible for the overall management pland and that is ASMFC. Like it or not they manage Striped Bass.

Absolutely correct, but very possibly unrealistic. Since the ASMFC manages other stocks other than Striped Bass its representatives always include people who make a living from commercial fishing (of types other than striped bass) and marine fishery employees who work closely and are friendly with (and sympathetic to) the commercial industry. This is not wrong, commercial fishing provides food and benefit to the non-fishing public. These people, however, will naturally have a bias towards full utilization of a species.....to do otherwise represents a harmful waste from their perspective.

If the board were composed of people ONLY interested in striped bass there would be a chance for change. Unfortunately, I don't see that as very likely to happen. People who value striped bass most highly as a recreational resource will always be a minority on the ASMFC.....and its management decisions will continue to reflect that.

The ASMFC is a political creation. Changing the priority of striped bass management will likely require a political solution. If not, then a legal one driven by non-fishing interests will eventually happen (in my opinion).

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

If the SF Legislation is so good why are they always shopping it from State to State and have not passed it anywhere.

I don't agree with it, but I'm suggesting if your sentiments represent MSBA's stance (opposing it due to fear of the legislature being involved) then it doesn't make sense to me...its simply political posturing.

Opposing the bill due to the fact its not a solution to a perceived problem makes a little more sense to me. With either case you're opposing it (good), but there's got to be more meat on the bone, so to speak.

As an add on to the above, I would imagine the legislature doesn't want to be involved anyways.