Increase Commercial Catch for Striped Bass? Or NOT? - Sign up here

[ivanputski]

The biggest mistake any of us can make based on this issue is to pick a side, and then argue it's validity... Do whatever it takes to preserve and protect the future of this fragile resource... I dont give a rats arse about the person who loves the taste of striped bass... They'll be tasting frozen fish sticks when the fishery collapses again... Do what's best for preserving the resource... period.

[DZ]

We tried to reduce recreational take in Rhode Island some years ago by asking our managers for a more conservative option. Our managers told us that AFMFC will take any savings and give it to other states/user groups. When AFMFC says "your permitted to take so much in your state" you have to come up with a figuere that equals an amount that they approve - any more they reject it - any less they take the savings and pass it to someone else. No leeway.

I would think that a majority of recs would approve of a more conservative take - an exception would possibly be the "for hire" industry but they are a small fraction of the rec number. But recreational take is not the issue here at these current meetings.

DZ

[jmac]

Were you on the water today ??? east passage ????

no.....haven't been in Bay since RI season....except bait....banging my head against the wall in MA...

[ivanputski]

Cow hunter... I dont know you, your profession, or your intent... and this is not meant as a jab... I mean it with no disrespect... but your avatar image speaks so much louder than anything you type in this forum... a picture is worth a thousand words... I've never removed that many breeders from circulation in my LIFETIME... never mind one tide... Like I said... no disrespect, but I can only stare at that image so many times before everything you type starts sounding like the teacher on Charlie Brown.

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

Cow hunter... I dont know you, your profession, or your intent... and this is not meant as a jab... I mean it with no disrespect... but your avatar image speaks so much louder than anything you type in this forum... a picture is worth a thousand words... I've never removed that many breeders from circulation in my LIFETIME... never mind one tide... Like I said... no disrespect, but I can only stare at that image so many times before everything you type starts sounding like the teacher on Charlie Brown.

No problem.... I dont want to claim Im somebody Im not... Yes I kill bass commercially, yes I charter, and yes I surfcast... I have fished all up and down the coast for years and I am just stating my observations and changes over the last few years. I am not one sided and am merely stating that things are well off balance....

[Adam_777]

Again how do they estimate rec kills when they never get reported ? I'm not saying the numbers are right or wrong.Just trying to figure out how they can possibly estimate how many fish the rec angler kills.I can't think of any possible equation that would hold any weight ? The numbers just don't add up.The managers need to rework the entire system again.I know quite a few rec bass fisherman that are lucky to take 1 or 2 a year.Nevermind 1-2 twice a day.I've never seen that.Not saying it never happens.

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by Adam_777

Again how do they estimate rec kills when they never get reported ? I'm not saying the numbers are right or wrong.Just trying to figure out how they can possibly estimate how many fish the rec angler kills.I can't think of any possible equation that would hold any weight ? The numbers just don't add up.The managers need to rework the entire system again.I know quite a few rec bass fisherman that are lucky to take 1 or 2 a year.Nevermind 1-2 twice a day.I've never seen that.Not saying it never happens.

I'm assuming they largely base it on the charter fleets catch that is reported, and I'm sure that the entire charter fleet isn't nowhere near the actual numbers.. Sometimes there are polls taken fro fisherman and averaged out... U think the guys doing the real numbers are being honest in catch numbers???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Down in VA and NC most of the fishing is done by boat.Not much in the way of inshore fishing.Recently the pattern has the fish way offshore and the captain can either risk going over the fence or catching squat.Not much of a risk down there. They fill dumpsters daily with racks of rocks.I guess my point is access is more difficult without a boat,therefore the rec impact is somewhat limited.

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Down in VA and NC most of the fishing is done by boat.Not much in the way of inshore fishing.Recently the pattern has the fish way offshore and the captain can either risk going over the fence or catching squat.Not much of a risk down there. They fill dumpsters daily with racks of rocks.I guess my point is access is more difficult without a boat,therefore the rec impact is somewhat limited.

No it is all considered recreational catch.... Nowhere do charter catches get counted towards a commercial quota.... The bulk of the biomass stages down there, is concentrated and easy pickins... That's why those dumpsters are loaded every day... Who's counting those fish????

[animal]

The rec catch will NEVER be tallied,even close to accurately.Even with the new licenses,say someone calls you at the end of the season,asks how you did?How many of you even know how many you've kept?
If you do know,will you answer honestly?
Most guys here seem to be for a 1 fish a day rec catch.These guys know that if they report lower numbers than they actually saw,maybe the regs would change towards that end.
On the other hand,you have noobs,and glory hounds,who,even though talking to a stranger,on the phone,that they will NEVER meet,will pad their numbers,and try to make themselves look like a killer.The system is effed,and will stay that way,in my opinion.

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by animal

The rec catch will NEVER be tallied,even close to accurately.Even with the new licenses,say someone calls you at the end of the season,asks how you did?How many of you even know how many you've kept?
If you do know,will you answer honestly?
Most guys here seem to be for a 1 fish a day rec catch.These guys know that if they report lower numbers than they actually saw,maybe the regs would change towards that end.
On the other hand,you have noobs,and glory hounds,who,even though talking to a stranger,on the phone,that they will NEVER meet,will pad their numbers,and try to make themselves look like a killer.The system is effed,and will stay that way,in my opinion.

Agreed it will never be tallied accurately... I think most people don't won't to be bothered with reporting their numbers though and the numbers reported will be much lower. People tend to be more lazy, forget, fall behind, and in the end don't report squat...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ivanputski]

"On paper they deserve to raise the com quota to balance out the com vs recreational catch.... "

Imagine you have 2 small children... they are having an argument because one of them somehow has ten 2-liter bottles of soda, while the other one has one... there are two ways to solve the problem to make it equitable... you could reduce the amount of soda that the little bastard with 10 bottle has, or you could give the other kid 9 more bottles to make it fair... Either one would make it more equitable, but as a RESPONSIBLE parent, which solution would take into account the well being of the kids and their health? No kid needs 10 damn bottles of soda. you follow?

I am strictly rec... reduce the rec take to balance it out.

[DZ]

[QUOTE=ivanputski;788213
I am strictly rec... reduce the rec take to balance it out.[/QUOTE]

Ivan,
Very good point. Realistically, that is exactly what should happen. If this passes each state that increases its commercial take should reduce its rec take proportionatly.

DZ

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

"On paper they deserve to raise the com quota to balance out the com vs recreational catch.... "

Imagine you have 2 small children... they are having an argument because one of them somehow has ten 2-liter bottles of soda, while the other one has one... there are two ways to solve the problem to make it equitable... you could reduce the amount of soda that the little bastard with 10 bottle has, or you could give the other kid 9 more bottles to make it fair... Either one would make it more equitable, but as a RESPONSIBLE parent, which solution would take into account the well being of the kids and their health? No kid needs 10 damn bottles of soda. you follow?

I am strictly rec... reduce the rec take to balance it out.

WHAT? WHY?

Who says the take has to be 50/50 ?
I don't get that
because I see it differently

There are x number of recreational fishermen, there are y number of comm. fishermen. Base the amounts on the proportion for example there are 10 times as many recs. as comms, so it gets split 10 to 1. how hard is that?

Unfortunately I can't attend tonights' meeting, I have an appt. at 6 that I already rescheduled once.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

WHAT? WHY?

Who says the take has to be 50/50 ?
I don't get that
because I see it differently

Exactly what I've been wondering.

A question I'd like to see answered tonight: "what is the justification for increasing the commercial quota as a means of equality instead of attempting to decrease the recreational take? And what is the science behind that justification?"

[ivanputski]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

WHAT? WHY?

Who says the take has to be 50/50 ?
I don't get that
because I see it differently

There are x number of recreational fishermen, there are y number of comm. fishermen. Base the amounts on the proportion for example there are 10 times as many recs. as comms, so it gets split 10 to 1. how hard is that?

Unfortunately I can't attend tonights' meeting, I have an appt. at 6 that I already rescheduled once.

The take doesnt have to be 50/50... the take should BE REDUCED ALL TOGETHER TO ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THE RESOURCE. It has nothing to do with whats fair, who deserves what, or who wants to take fish home for dinner OR profit... its about MAKING SURE WE HAVE FISH IN 10 YEARS... why is this point so difficult for so many to understand? Dont UP the take to make a certain group happy... LOWER it (rec daily limit) if equity is the goal... If there are no fish left, none of this will matter at all...

I'm done with this topic... it's like a conservative trying to convince a liberal to agree with them... Most of our minds are made up and refuse to change views regardless of the common sense right in front of us... I feel I've made my position known, for what it's worth... IT'S ABOUT TAKING STEPS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE STRIPED BASS TO ARGUE ABOUT 10 YEARS FROM NOW... Recreational take: 1 fish per day, any size.



*over and out*

[Raider Ronnie]

So what happened at this meeting ?
I could not make it. Wife's dad is in the hospital and I had to get boys to football tonight.

[MikeToole]

Only 33 people showed up. Everyone at the meeting spoke out against increasing the commercial harvest. Many also commented that they would support a decrease in the recreational harvest. Many based this on a lack of confidence in the fishery data, especially open data points related to mycobacteriosis and poaching.

Interesting point was that as much as 70% of the stripers from Chesapeake Bay may be infected with mycobacteriosis and that 75% of the stripers come from Chesapeake Bay. Research on the affects on bass has not been completed yet.

The data presented also showed a 20% decrease in the spawning biomass between the peak in 2005 and present numbers.

The presenter was focused on the point that while there has been a 20% decrease in the number of bass the numbers were still above the SSB Target and threshold number. so there was justification to increase the harvest. So I guess they figure it's OK to keep increasing the numbers until we actually drop below the SSB target number.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

The take doesnt have to be 50/50... the take should BE REDUCED ALL TOGETHER TO ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THE RESOURCE. It has nothing to do with whats fair, who deserves what, or who wants to take fish home for dinner OR profit... its about MAKING SURE WE HAVE FISH IN 10 YEARS... why is this point so difficult for so many to understand? Dont UP the take to make a certain group happy... LOWER it (rec daily limit) if equity is the goal... If there are no fish left, none of this will matter at all...

I'm done with this topic... it's like a conservative trying to convince a liberal to agree with them... Most of our minds are made up and refuse to change views regardless of the common sense right in front of us... I feel I've made my position known, for what it's worth... IT'S ABOUT TAKING STEPS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE STRIPED BASS TO ARGUE ABOUT 10 YEARS FROM NOW... Recreational take: 1 fish per day, any size.



*over and out*

no arguement here
I personally would be fine if striped bass was catch and release.

I guess nobody in power sees that the bass are on the brink of decline, and they are willing to wait until they are over the edge to do something about it. That is what I don't understand. Between bycatch,seals, polution and disease etc. the bass need less pressure not more.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

no arguement here
I personally would be fine if striped bass was catch and release.

I guess nobody in power sees that the bass are on the brink of decline, and they are willing to wait until they are over the edge to do something about it. That is what I don't understand. Between bycatch,seals, polution and disease etc. the bass need less pressure not more.

The mentality of ASMFC that I've always had and was re-enforced by the meeting last night is that they take a position of "our data does not show the striped bass is at an unrecoverable level so the harvest can be increased." There is no conservative approach to how they manage - if the data they have at this very moment doesn't show the bass at a trigger point or critical level (regardless of known mortality that isn't included in that data and would increase their reported mortality), then harvest can be increased.

One thing that irked me a little was the ASMFC Vision printed on the front page of the packet: "ASMFC Vision: Healthy, self-sustaining populations of all Atlantic coast fish species or successful restoration well in progress by the year 2015."
With all the data trending downward even before major mortality factors like poaching and myco are considered, even holding these meetings seems to be a huge contradiction of that Vision Statement.

[Slick Moedee]

I'll be at the NH meeting.

[Redsoxticket]

They want to increase the quota to establish equality. If that is the case then the recs should be allowed to sell their catch legally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

They want to increase the quota to establish equality. If that is the case then the recs should be allowed to sell their catch legally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As a recreational fisherman like the rest of us all are, except for a few weeks that we play commercial fishermen, all you need to do is pay 35 bucks for an individual striped bass license and you can sell fish over 34 inches.

See how simple that is.

[JohnnyD]

My favorite part of the meeting were the graphs that show the SSB is trending downward along with Abundance numbers. Those numbers don't take into account the mortality from myco or poaching, which ASMFC recognizes as issues that will cause an increase in mortality yet, these idiot fisheries managers still think it's acceptable to further increase the number of fish taken because the ASMFC models don't show the fish at trigger points for action.

Bureaucratic stupidity at its finest.


I did find it interesting that not a single commercial fisherman showed up to show support for the increase.

[ecduzitgood]

I was also surprised that there didn't seem to be any commercial fishermen present. I hope they don't know it's a done deal and the hearing was just to appear as though our input mattered.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

I was also surprised that there didn't seem to be any commercial fishermen present. I hope they don't know it's a done deal and the hearing was just to appear as though our input mattered.

Not many I talked to even knew about the meeting and to be honest I knew nothing of it till this tread was started.

[jmac]

I did find it interesting that not a single commercial fisherman showed up to show support for the increase.

......tuesday is a commercial day....probaly getting bait or sleeping....

[Thumper]

unfortunately i wont be able to make it tonight but my email went in this afternoon along with a snail mail copy

[afterhours]

turnout seemed light- about 30 or so i'd guess. all but one wanted status quo, one who favored increase owned a fish trap co. and stated stock was fully recovered...

[JakeF]

Gotta give the fish trap guy credit for having the balls to say his piece in the face of practically unanimous opposition. There were a few guys I had pegged for commercial fishermen before the meeting started who spoke out against the increase.