Stripers Forever

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Haus

Is there one person in the entire world that makes their living commercial fishing striped bass?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My commercial striped bass fishing is included in my yearly income. It helps the local economy,it buys fuel, oil, dockage and some eateries around town.

It is not the commercial end of the striped bass fishery that is detrimental to the fishery. The commercial fishery last only 17-25 days before the qouta is reached. recreational fishing goes for 8 months. If anything you the recreational fishermen do more harm to the fishery.

If we want stripers for ever maybe it is time to limit the number of recreational fishermen along the New England coast and up and down the Atlantic. A lottery for a recreational striped bass license like they do for moose. There are just to many recreational fishermen for the species to maybe keep it sustainable. Recently along the Jersey coast there were a couple of hundred recs on the waters edge of the beach standing shoulder to shoulder fishing a striper blitz, reminds me of the groups of fishermen that once were able to snag for salmon.

[toaster816]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

My commercial striped bass fishing is included in my yearly income. It helps the local economy,it buys fuel, oil, dockage and some eateries around town.

It is not the commercial end of the striped bass fishery that is detrimental to the fishery. The commercial fishery last only 17-25 days before the qouta is reached. recreational fishing goes for 8 months. If anything you the recreational fishermen do more harm to the fishery.

If we want stripers for ever maybe it is time to limit the number of recreational fishermen along the New England coast and up and down the Atlantic. A lottery for a recreational striped bass license like they do for moose. There are just to many recreational fishermen for the species to maybe keep it sustainable. Recently along the Jersey coast there were a couple of hundred recs on the waters edge of the beach standing shoulder to shoulder fishing a striper blitz, reminds me of the groups of fishermen that once were able to snag for salmon.

There is a very large portion of recreational fisherman that practice something called catch and release. What percent of the comm's do that? Poor argument.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Recently along the Jersey coast there were a couple of hundred recs on the waters edge of the beach standing shoulder to shoulder fishing a striper blitz, .

Wow, look at how good the fishing gets when a state prohibits commercial utilization. Think of all the local economic benefit those guys created.

Nice example.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by numbskull

Wow, look at how good the fishing gets when a state prohibits commercial utilization. Think of all the local economic benefit those guys created.

Nice example.

The fish on there migration south facing the on slaught of recreational fishermen, has nothing to do about commercial fishing.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

The fish on there migration south facing the on slaught of recreational fishermen, has nothing to do about commercial fishing.

Sure it does.

200 guys in the picture each kill and keep 2 fish (not likely at all) and 400 fish are dead for the benefit of 200 guys.

20 commercial guys off Chatham catch and kill 20 bass each for profit (not at all UNlikely) and 400 bass are dead for the benefit of 20 guys.

So who is getting their fair share and which group does more to profit the community?

You do the math.

[MikeToole]

To me when a commercial fisherman say recreational fisherman are the problem and want all of the fish for themselves it is the most disingenuous of statement.

Recreational fisherman really means the general public. Anybody can go out and fish under the recreational regulation. Most commercial fisherman put on their recreational hat when the commercial season isn't open. The recreational fisherman/general public are being grant the right to catch a resource that belongs to the public.

Now in the case of the commercial fisherman they are being given a special privilege above what the general public gets. They can catch more of this public resource and also sell them for a profit.

So to me when the resource numbers decrease the first thing to do is eliminate any of the groups getting a special privilege. Then you go after the general public. I'm not saying the general public should have no limit. Just that when the general public limit drops to a number like two this is telling you there isn't enough of the resource to support commercial fishing.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by numbskull

Sure it does.

200 guys in the picture each kill and keep 2 fish (not likely at all) and 400 fish are dead for the benefit of 200 guys.

20 commercial guys off Chatham catch and kill 20 bass each for profit (not at all UNlikely) and 400 bass are dead for the benefit of 20 guys.

So who is getting their fair share and which group does more to profit the community?

You do the math.

If the 20 guys sell them to fish houses, who in turn sell them to the public and each makes a little money and pays taxes doesn't that really benefit more than the original 400? Maybe my economics class didn't really teach me correctly...

Just saying.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

If the 20 guys sell them to fish houses, who in turn sell them to the public and each makes a little money and pays taxes doesn't that really benefit more than the original 400? Maybe my economics class didn't really teach me correctly...

Just saying.

You are right, it didn't teach you correctly. Just saying.

A resource's value to the economy is not measured by the economic activity it generates. Buying fish at a fish store does not generate net economic value, since that money would be spent on some alternate food if the fish was not available. The net economic benefit if the alternate food costs the same is zero (if the fish is more expensive, as is usually the case, then the net economic benefit is negative).

The value of a national resource is measured by the net surplus (producer surplus and consumer surplus) it produces. This gets complicated, but basically the less I spend to catch or buy fish (i.e., use the fish for my needs), the more I have to spend on other needs.

This is why the usual economic garbage people post BOTH for or against commercial fishing is meaningless. That stuff (ie how much is spent) is called input-output analysis. It is useful for predicting what group of people in a region will benefit from a regulation change, but it has nothing to do with national economic value.

Any economic analysis that optimizes value of a resource, will always include some commercial activity. So if we are stupid enough to measure striped bass in a dollar value, commercial fishing makes sense. But striped bass, for most of us, have a different non-monetary value.....call it happiness value. Any analysis that optimizes that for the greatest number of people will favor gamefish status for striped bass.

There are numerous saltwater fish that can be caught and sold commercially. For the recreational community to ask for a single species that is protected for their use simply reflects normal people trying to optimize the happiness in their lives. That pursuit of happiness is a "god given right" according to our law. It does not require subservience to "economic value". Maybe you missed that in school?

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by numbskull

You are right, it didn't teach you correctly. Just saying.

A resource's value to the economy is not measured by the economic activity it generates. Buying fish at a fish store does not generate net economic value, since that money would be spent on some alternate food if the fish was not available. The net economic benefit if the alternate food costs the same is zero (if the fish is more expensive, as is usually the case, then the net economic benefit is negative).

The value of a national resource is measured by the net surplus (producer surplus and consumer surplus) it produces. This gets complicated, but basically the less I spend to catch or buy fish (i.e., use the fish for my needs), the more I have to spend on other needs.

This is why the usual economic garbage people post BOTH for or against commercial fishing is meaningless. That stuff (ie how much is spent) is called input-output analysis. It is useful for predicting what group of people in a region will benefit from a regulation change, but it has nothing to do with national economic value.

Any economic analysis that optimizes value of a resource, will always include some commercial activity. So if we are stupid enough to measure striped bass in a dollar value, commercial fishing makes sense. But striped bass, for most of us, have a different non-monetary value.....call it happiness value. Any analysis that optimizes that for the greatest number of people will favor gamefish status for striped bass.

There are numerous saltwater fish that can be caught and sold commercially. For the recreational community to ask for a single species that is protected for their use simply reflects normal people trying to optimize the happiness in their lives. That pursuit of happiness is a "god given right" according to our law. It does not require subservience to "economic value". Maybe you missed that in school?

Numby,

You are absolutely right. It is nice to discuss with someone who understands economics and how to properly perform an economic analysis rather than the self-serving seekers I typically talk to here on the Chesapeake (Where incidentally, striped bass can be caught commercially with very little effort of outlay--thus providing a significant economic return). However, "pursuit of happiness" is not the only reason to make a decision, just as economic considerations are not a sole reason. There has to be some balance. Unfortunately we live in a world where no one is willing to find balance. It is always easy to say that anyone can get a fishign rod and catch a striper if they want. However, that is not the case...unless our welfare program will now include paid bus trips and government issued fishing gear (now that's a program I'd like to run! "Sorry, Miss. You don't qualify for the 3 ounce darter but you can have a 1 ounce pencil"). Thus the answer lies somewhere in between. Not with gamefish status but with better allocation of the resources using sound science and proper public policy decisions...neither of which are likely to be available any time soon...but one can hope.

[toaster816]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

My commercial striped bass fishing is included in my yearly income. It helps the local economy,it buys fuel, oil, dockage and some eateries around town.
That isn't a great argument for the justification of fishing stripers commercially. Rec's can say they take home stripers to supplement their food and ease grocery costs. Equally frivolous.

It is not the commercial end of the striped bass fishery that is detrimental to the fishery. The commercial fishery last only 17-25 days before the qouta is reached. recreational fishing goes for 8 months. If anything you the recreational fishermen do more harm to the fishery.
In those 17 to 25 days what is the quota? I assume it is significant. Fish traps can catch a lot more bass in a tide than me and a few of my buddies with some dead eels.

If we want stripers for ever maybe it is time to limit the number of recreational fishermen along the New England coast and up and down the Atlantic. A lottery for a recreational striped bass license like they do for moose.
I wouldn't be opposed to limiting the recreational take with tags. I am willing to bet a large portion of recreational anglers wouldn't even take their yearly limit.

There are just to many recreational fishermen for the species to maybe keep it sustainable. Recently along the Jersey coast there were a couple of hundred recs on the waters edge of the beach standing shoulder to shoulder fishing a striper blitz, reminds me of the groups of fishermen that once were able to snag for salmon.
I still say the impact isn't as significant. These blitz's you see that draw the huge crowds don't happen every day of the year. Of those hundreds of rec's did every guy take two fish? I highly doubt it.

Do you think recreational fishing killed the blue fin stocks too?

[afterhours]

i believe the majority of rec fisherman favor vast reductions across the board and a high percentage practice responsible c&r........damned recs- they're ruining it for everyone . gamefish status now.

[toaster816]

It seems like a no brainer to make them a gamefish.

I would be interested to hear from other guys who fish them commercially and depend on that income as a means to justify the fishery. To pay for fuel, oil and dock fees is a horse shi t.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by toaster816

It seems like a no brainer to make them a gamefish.

I would be interested to hear from other guys who fish them commercially and depend on that income as a means to justify the fishery. To pay for fuel, oil and dock fees is a horse shi t.

Not everybody is as rich as you.

[toaster816]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Not everybody is as rich as you.

I am willing to bet my next measly paycheck I make less than you.