SK, perhaps some fish and another sunrise have cleared the cobwebs.The fact that Paul participates in the comm harvest makes no impact whatsoever.The recs who take home a few dinners a year are hurting the fishery much more.I urge everyone to enjoy their time on the water,it's the gift that keeps giving.
So far this year I've seen more bass in Cape Cod Bay than I've ever seen in my entire life. You can literally walk on the bass from Race Point to the Southwest corner to Peaked Hill.
My father did his annual trip last week down to Cuttyhunk / Elizabeths and struck out completely over 3 days.
Sounds to me like the bait is the problem. Not the bass. The 30# bass are a nuisance to people tuna fishing up here.
SK, perhaps some fish and another sunrise have cleared the cobwebs.The fact that Paul participates in the comm harvest makes no impact whatsoever.The recs who take home a few dinners a year are hurting the fishery much more.I urge everyone to enjoy their time on the water,it's the gift that keeps giving.
The Prof. and I had this Canal side talk...initiated by him incidentally as I slid my 29# er back in the water and he was doing likewise, with a close relative (and several others) which I photoed for him. So, all of this in jest and good humor.
However, the business is serious: The harvest and kill at present levels from all abuser groups is overboard excessive and the stress on this fishery is palpable. Individually, we must now take,harvest, and kill less than the regulations fish law presently legally allows. THEN, when it comes a time to act collectively, we can demand what we deserve: 95% of this accessible, public resource for 95% of the public who wants access to it!
I repeat, there is no room any more for a directed commerce and commercial fishing industry for this species. If any fishery deserves gamefish status, it is this one.
Act accordingly my fellow sleep deprived and marriage stressed partners.
Incidentally, I started this Thread being P.O.'d coming out of the Falmouth Grile restaurant here in Falmouth where they were illegally engaging in the commerce of serving "fresh, local waters, wild caught, striped bass", and I reported this to the DNR. So far, the DNR locally has rec'd no communication, notice or action followup on my complaint. How absolutely typical and predictable!
This is just great. Now, I risk the poisoning of my 90 year old wheelchair bound mother or myself when we return (it's Mom's favorite spot).
So far this year I've seen more bass in Cape Cod Bay than I've ever seen in my entire life. You can literally walk on the bass from Race Point to the Southwest corner to Peaked Hill.
My father did his annual trip last week down to Cuttyhunk / Elizabeths and struck out completely over 3 days.
Sounds to me like the bait is the problem. Not the bass. The 30# bass are a nuisance to people tuna fishing up here.
"Sounds to me like the bait is the problem. Not the bass. The 30# bass are a nuisance to people tuna fishing up here."[/QUOTE]
Andrew, you hit the nail on the head!
You ask me, most of these guys on this site (and other sites) sit on the computers and talk about fishing more than actually fishing.
Or if they do get off the computer and go, just because the fish are not in (shore) spots from the past they think there are no fish out there.
The Prof. and I had this Canal side talk...initiated by him incidentally as I slid my 29# er back in the water and he was doing likewise, with a close relative (and several others) which I photoed for him. So, all of this in jest and good humor.
However, the business is serious: The harvest and kill at present levels from all abuser groups is overboard excessive and the stress on this fishery is palpable. Individually, we must now take,harvest, and kill less than the regulations fish law presently legally allows. THEN, when it comes a time to act collectively, we can demand what we deserve: 95% of this accessible, public resource for 95% of the public who wants access to it!
I repeat, there is no room any more for a directed commerce and commercial fishing industry for this species. If any fishery deserves gamefish status, it is this one.
Act accordingly my fellow sleep deprived and marriage stressed partners.
My point,in case you missed it, is that any angler who chooses to participate in the commercial harvest of striped bass is not doing the species a disservice.As you know,quotas will be met regardless of his participation.Some choose to supplement their income or fuel fund by helping to meet the quota.The selfish pigs who choose to take 2 fish every time they catch are the ones killing the fishery.Until the laws have changed his participation makes zero impact.Please tell the collective masses how you plan to implement gamefish status for this regional treasure,or are you merely waxing poetic?The 95% part has me slightly perplexed also. What exactly do you mean by that?As for mom,do not burden her with the details,take her out for a growth hormone burger.
"
You ask me, most of these guys on this site (and other sites) sit on the computers and talk about fishing more than actually fishing.
Or if they do get off the computer and go, just because the fish are not in (shore) spots from the past they think there are no fish out there.
Sauerkraut fishes a lot.....and very, very hard.
There should be fish in here AND out there. When there is not there is a problem.
"Sounds to me like the bait is the problem. Not the bass. The 30# bass are a nuisance to people tuna fishing up here."
Andrew, you hit the nail on the head!
You ask me, most of these guys on this site (and other sites) sit on the computers and talk about fishing more than actually fishing.
Or if they do get off the computer and go, just because the fish are not in (shore) spots from the past they think there are no fish out there.[/QUOTE]
I think the bait is a huge part of the problem but working the bait AND reducing overall bass catch is what we need IMO.
Ronnie, some of us can only get out two days per week. Life and responsibility getting in the way and all
There should be fish in here AND out there. When there is not there is a problem.
This what I've been saying for quite some time. Whenever a post like SK's is made, inevitably, people say "Fish harder, The fish are out there, just not where you are looking". They don't get the big picture. When fish are absent from a lot of places they SHOULD be, there are most likely less fish in totality. The problem is not that no one is catching fish (yet) the problem is that A LOT of people who KNOW how to catch fish, and have been doing so for quite some time are finding it harder and harder to do so. SOMEONE somewhere will always be doing well, but when less people are doing well there is a problem.
And as far as "get out more", A lot of us have lives outside of fishing and really don't want to get divorced/unemployed for the sake of catching fish. And while "getting out more" will increase my catch. It will in no way INCREASE the fish out there to catch which is the root of the problem.
A lot of us have not decreased our fishing frequency, yet our success has gone down. The writing has been on the wall for a few years now, but few want to read it.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement -- Keith Benning
It always was that you could go elsewhere to find better fishing, but you could also always find some fishing on a resident population of fish without traveling.
When the resident populations of fish disappear it is a bad sign, even if remaining localized concentrations of fish still provide great success for those willing to travel.
Whether it is bait, overfishing, pollution, global warming, or all of the above does not really matter. Overfishing should be the one easiest to control. But it isn't.
Keep in mind also that for guys in middle age or further, if you plan to catch quality fish in your retirement years, those fish ought to be swimming out there (or be born very soon) right now. How is that looking for ya?
There should be fish in here AND out there. When there is not there is a problem.
yup, ran into him again this morning, fishing. BTW you didn't miss anything, but it was a nice morning to be out there, again
He was just busting me. I brought up the subject with him. I enjoy his opinion and perspective .
"A beach is a place where a man can feel he's the only soul in the world that's real"
[QUOTE=Sea Dangles;774313]My point,in case you missed it, is that any angler who chooses to participate in the commercial harvest of striped bass is not doing the species a disservice.As you know,quotas will be met regardless of his participation.
SD: No way will you get me to buy into the above rationalization...unless I could find a way to "go commercial" for the season, and report three or four thousand pounds of bogus striped bass I didn't catch or kill...so I could do a small, individual part to offset the mass under reporting and over the quota harvest presently taking place in the present existing commercial fishing industry.
The present, existing recreational fishing interests are not in any way responsible for the nightmare of enforecement failures and monitoring failures of striped bass harvest coastal wide. It is the existence of, and the commercial commerce in, a striped bass fishery which produces the individual, the restaurant, the fish buyer, who will break the law with impunity for the sake of the dollar $$$ greed.
The recreational striped bass public is now sensitized and savvy to the issue; as a result, the public (yourself included Mr. SD, I know), fish with restraint and we are surely self policing. I saw a Greek taking sh.. up at the Canal 5 days ago for killing two rubbery old breeders, 30 and 38 pounds, which "legally" he was "entitled" to do!
And the sh.. wasn't coming from me!
The commercial fishing industry defies any regulation much less self policing and self enforcement. And so the nightmare goes on. Are you with me or against me? Bonds.
Last edited by SAUERKRAUT; 06-18-2010 at 08:11 AM..
Reason: spelling
Your conclusions seem to be part fact part tooth fairy.I'm with you to an extent but I also deal in reality.I don't think you want to pay tax on thousands of pounds of bogus fish caught.Is there a black market?Yes there is.But that has zero impact on the quota.Which brings us back to reality,I don't think the state documents black market sales so the quota still will be met with or without anglerX participating.Which means any law abiding commercial angler has zero impact on the species so long as the current system is in place.I hope you understand my position.Back to the tooth fairy;if you think the recreational anglers are policing themselves you surely have to fish more in the daytime.From the immigrants filling white buckets with shorts to the aforementioned pigs who always take two.(do I recall a thread about an elderly angler friend you fish with at the canal describing just that ?)No, the recs are abusive for the most part. And that is putting it kindly.The two fish per outing at 28" is crippling the species,none of the numbers are accounted for,it is simply a nightmare as you suggest.I will say this;I have never seen as many striped bass in my life as I saw today.All day long,for acres and acres..I respectfully disagree SK,but I am not against you.I think if more anglers shared your passion the sport would benefit greatly.
[QUOTE=BasicPatrick;773789]Some thoughts:
I do want to correct the miguided assumption that a cut to one ifsh at 28" will cut the amount of the rec catch by 1/2. In fact it does not cut that catch by much at all.
patrick, please correct this for me, i guess i'm under that misguided assumption. i agree on the bait issue.
Some thoughts:
I do want to correct the miguided assumption that a cut to one ifsh at 28" will cut the amount of the rec catch by 1/2. In fact it does not cut that catch by much at all.
broken record.
one fish @ 36"
if 1 @ 28 doesn't cut it, I bet 1 @ 36" does...
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Last I checked if you cut the daily rec take from 2 fish at 28 inches a day to 1 fish at 28 inches a day (1 @ 34" would be better) that equates to a half???????No???? If I put up 2 fingers.......and then put down one of the fingers......then I have half as many fingers as I did before?????
Last I checked if you cut the daily rec take from 2 fish at 28 inches a day to 1 fish at 28 inches a day (1 @ 34" would be better) that equates to a half???????No???? If I put up 2 fingers.......and then put down one of the fingers......then I have half as many fingers as I did before?????
The problem is Larry, while you are trying to be funny, most people don't take 2 fish anyways, either don;t need or can't catch two. so dropping it from 1 to 2 at the same size reduces it by some % less than half.... up the size.
1 @ 36", keep the comm open but crack down on enforcement.
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Most of the people I see do in fact take all they are allowed every time they go out! You may not be seeing it but I do! I can gaurantee the folks slaying fish earlier in the week at a certain spot were all taking their limit!
Larry, I believe that the majority of the recreational take is attributed to assumed/estimated catch and release mortality.
That won't change even with a 1 fish limit.
Everyone has their "theories"! If you keep it at 1 fish......then that is ALL they will take.....legally! If you keep it at 2 fish......many will take them both....not all but many! If the limit is one I do not see how you could possibly not see that as making a difference????
Everyone has their "theories"! If you keep it at 1 fish......then that is ALL they will take.....legally! If you keep it at 2 fish......many will take them both....not all but many! If the limit is one I do not see how you could possibly not see that as making a difference????
Of course it makes a difference. But it does not reduce the recreational mortality by 1/2.
How is it possible this can even be a debate?One will REDUCE the rec impact dramatically.Don't forget that boaters also fall into the rec category,and they have an even better opportunity to skirt the regs.
I understand and agree with your guys point, but I think the actual effect is not as big as you think (although ANY reduction is good by me).
The actual mortality numbers for 2008 estimate 2.2 million fish were kept recreationally, and about 1 million fish (950,000) were released and died. Since many anglers do not catch 2 fish or keep 2 fish (and since the recreational community does not fish to a hard quota determined season), a reduction to a 1 fish limit would not automatically reduce the recreational kept number to 1.1 million. Rather it would probably be more like 1.5 million (a guess). The release mortality would increase a bit (@60,000 fish) since 8% of those extra 700,000 released fish would die.
That means dropping the recreational limit to one fish would reduce the total recreational kill from 3.2 million fish, to 2.5 million......a drop of about 20-25%. To reduce the recreational kill further would require a size limit increase as well.
Linear Mode
