ASMFC Striped bass board winter meeting minutes

[sokinwet]

"No brainer"
"As for the quota, let the true commercials who depend on bass for a significant % of their income catch as much of that 1 million pounds, or whatever is eventually determined to be a sustainable quota, as they can based on whatever bag limit and minimum-maximum size limits the managers determine best protects the spawning stock biomass. Once it is reached they are done on bass for the year."

So I guess it's not about the "fish" it's about who you decide should profit from the fishery?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

So I guess it's not about the "fish" it's about who you decide should profit from the fishery?

It's about take. Cull out the licenses that aren't being used and there is less opportunity for abuse. We all know that there are people who utilize their commercial permit to keep more than 2 @ 28". I met a handful at the canal this past July.

Then, a reduced quota has less effect on the fishermen that are true commercial fishermen, as opposed to being utilized to fund a hobby and buy a new Tiagra 80.

[Sashamy]

well i hope you reported guys in June in the canal keeping more than two...cuz their license isn't good til July 12 in most cases!

om top of that there is no law against someone bringing home 30 to eat....during the season if they have a license and they are 34"

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Sashamy

well i hope you reported guys in June in the canal keeping more than two...cuz their license isn't good til July 12 in most cases!

om top of that there is no law against someone bringing home 30 to eat....during the season if they have a license and they are 34"

Bah. You're right - July.

I don't know a lot of details on the specific regs for comms. But I know I'd be pissed if I were a career fisherman and some weekend warrior is holding a license so that they can take extra fish home for their freezer.

I think this is the bloated portion of the quota which could be reduced without affecting the career fisherman and as such, a compromise is made - the quota is reduced and career fishermen aren't affected.

[Mr. Sandman]

Originally Posted by Sashamy

om top of that there is no law against someone bringing home 30 to eat....during the season if they have a license and they are 34"

Are you sure about this? I thought that those fish caught commercially had to be sold to registered dealer. Clearly, if you get stopped on the water with 30 fish on board, you will claim you are commercial fishing with the intent of selling the catch to a registered dealer, if you take them home and put them in your freezer you are not commercial fishing. At some point the story changed. I think there was a guy busted in RI a couple years ago at his home because of this.

Next time you get stopped with 20 or 30 fish on board, tell the officer...I am just going to take these home to eat and see what he says.

Do you know how the quota is computed? They add up all the pounds of fish that were sold to the registered dealers every few days. If you took 30 fish home, then, they never made it to the dealer and therefore are not part of the quota. I am sure this is not legal because it defeats the entire quota purpose.

There are too many gray areas that can not be policed and ways to extend the season by avoiding the quota in this fishery. This is just one of them that the comm's exploit.

Regulations should be about the fish and not about the fishermen. Again, game fish status is a big step toward fish protection in that it takes the user groups out of it as well as the bickering of who has the right to kill them. Is it perfect, no, but it provides a good amount of protection while they figure out how many fish there and what is causing the problems with the decline in population disease control and destruction of their food sources and habitat which will take a number of years IMO.