Mass. weighs tougher protections for striped bass

[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.