|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
StriperTalk! All things Striper |
 |
08-15-2010, 11:30 PM
|
#1
|
Pete K.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,961
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
08-16-2010, 08:14 AM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,574
|
[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
|
DZ
Recreational Surfcaster
"Limit Your Kill - Don't Kill Your Limit"
Bi + Ne = SB 2
If you haven't heard of the Snowstorm Blitz of 1987 - you someday will.
|
|
|
08-16-2010, 09:48 AM
|
#3
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,126
|
Quote:
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.
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
08-16-2010, 03:19 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
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?"
|
|
|
|
08-16-2010, 06:51 PM
|
#5
|
Pete K.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,961
|
Quote:
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*
Last edited by ivanputski; 08-16-2010 at 07:41 PM..
|
|
|
|
08-16-2010, 08:21 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: On my boat
Posts: 9,703
|
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.
|
LETS GO BRANDON
|
|
|
08-16-2010, 08:47 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: N. H. Seacoast
Posts: 368
|
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.
Last edited by MikeToole; 08-16-2010 at 09:01 PM..
Reason: add additional info
|
|
|
|
08-17-2010, 08:29 AM
|
#8
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,126
|
Quote:
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.
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
08-17-2010, 09:09 AM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
08-17-2010, 10:51 AM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: N. H. Seacoast
Posts: 368
|
Should be noted that many on the ASMFC striper board are totally against this measure and have strongly supported a much more conservative approach. Ritchie White, the New Hampshire representative has been a very strong supporter of taking more conservative action. So I wouldn't pile them all in one heap. We should be recognizing and supporting these representative and looking to remove ones like the New York member who pushed for this change.
|
|
|
|
08-17-2010, 02:43 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Bedford, MA
Posts: 91
|
I'll be at the RI meeting tonight as well. If any of you are going who weren't at the MA meeting last night, please take a moment to read through my synopsis of last night's meeting in preparation.
http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...earing-ma.html
|
"For our discussion of surfcasting is no trifling matter, but is the way to conduct our lives….nobody untrained in fishing may enter my house." - Plato (c.428-c.348 BCE)
|
|
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 AM.
|
| |