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

[DZ]

I'll be at the RI hearing.

DZ

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Supporting an increase because of the science, or because of your wallet?

right there is the reason why nothing will ever get done....

Ron has a valid reason for wanting an increase and you have a valid reason for a decrease.......but instead of working together for a common goal.....people get nasty.

[MAKAI]

Republican meet Democrat
Democrat meet Republican.

Ah there's the rub.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

If people want to buy it someone has to sell it !

I think people also use that mentality as justification for the manufacture of Meth.

I hope your kids aren't going to be taking up the family business. At some point, the comms will run out of a product to sell. Who's going to pay them for Charters when there aren't any bass left to catch?

[JohnR]

See you there Dennis


We really need a good turnout to these meetings.

Originally Posted by MAKAI

Republican meet Democrat
Democrat meet Republican.

Ah there's the rub.

Do you mean like an oil and water thing? Or Democrats are for reductions and republicans are for exploitations? Dunno, couldn't figure it out

[The Dad Fisherman]

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

[Redsoxticket]

Can someone donate a nice plug to be given away as a lottery for all S-B attendees even raider ron.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

I'd support an increase if there was any reliable science. However, the science does not demonstrate that the striped bass population is thriving enough to take on a large increase of pressure from Comms. Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).

When issues with regards to regulation come up on these forums, the majority of commercials that post basically have a position of "cut the recs and increase our quota" - just look at the tuna thread or the thread about the SF bill.

Hell, even the damn proposal by ASMFC re-enforces my above point:

The proposal to increase the coastal commercial quota is intended to improve equality between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors.

There are two ways to improve the equality - reduce the rec limits or increase the comm quota. One of those methods is beneficial to the long-term health of the fish population and the other is demonstrative of the ways ASMFC is an impotent regulation body and continually buckles to pressure from the commercial sector.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).

My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.

[Rockfish9]

I'll be at the NH one.. I've been a guest speaker there, it's easy to get to...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.

What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Oil companies are trying to shoot down clean air and alternative energy initiatives across the country while providing misinformation to the general public. Should I be sympathetic to the oil companies desire to make more money and strike down other industries, as opposed to thinking that they are merely trying to increase their own wealth at the expense of the general public?

[BasicPatrick]

Many commercial guys are opposed to this insane proposal.

Sure, a myopic one year look at the data indicates a small increase will not reduce spawning stock biomass but that view ignores two important ASMFC reports.

ASMFC managers have been informed by scientists that fishing mortality is higher than currently calculated due to poaching and a new (f) or fishing mortality number is being developed.

The managers have also heard presentations that natural mortality is higher than currently being calculated due to the disease mycobacteriosis being detected in the coastal spawning stock and Hudson and Deleware river stocks.

Managers are quietly talking about a fishing reduction when the updated mortality numbers come in but the State of NY pushed the short term viewpoint.

Any Charter Boat or other buisness that testifies for a commercial increase should be boycotted. Why give money or refer money to those willing to risk the future of our fish. Hit them in the wallet is what I say.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, .

That is what is important to them....do you run your business to make money or are you a not-for-profit organization? That is their means to make money, they are good at it and they depend on it. Walking into a meeting with the attitude that they are raping a resource is not going to accomplish anything.

not for nothing but the science on both sides of the argument pretty much sucks so who do you listen to....

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Is it because the resource is struggling or because its a resource you have a personal interest in that makes it worth protecting.

some would argue that the plight of the plover is a resource worth protecting

If people go into these meetings playing the blame game...both sides get pissed, and any credible arguments they have, become meaningless.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Any Charter Boat or other buisness that testifies for a commercial increase should be boycotted. Why give money or refer money to those willing to risk the future of our fish. Hit them in the wallet is what I say.

BP, You and I have butted heads on a few occasions but I could not agree more with the above comment. Groups that support a commercial increase are either demonstrating their selfishness or completely out of their mind.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That is what is important to them....do you run your business to make money or are you a not-for-profit organization? That is their means to make money, they are good at it and they depend on it. Walking into a meeting with the attitude that they are raping a resource is not going to accomplish anything.

Nope. My business doesn't involve exploiting a natural resource or anyone for that matter. It involves win-win situations for all parties involved - they get high quality service, I get paid. On the other hand, those that support an increase to the quotas are, in my opinion, merely looking to further exploit a resource that is potentially on the verge of a crash for slightly more money in the short term - a situation that is eventually a lose-lose for everyone when they are out of business due to a lack of fish.

not for nothing but the science on both sides of the argument pretty much sucks so who do you listen to....

I completely agree and have never contested that. My contempt is with people of the opinion that because there is little reliable science demonstrating the stocks are at risk, that means quotas can be increased even though there is as much a lack supporting their position. There's far more risk in having a quota that is too low, than there is of having one that is too high.

Is it because the resource is struggling or because its a resource you have a personal interest in that makes it worth protecting.

some would argue that the plight of the plover is a resource worth protecting

If people go into these meetings playing the blame game...both sides get pissed, and any credible arguments they have, become meaningless.

My position is because I believe the resource is struggling. As I've stated before, with healthy stocks and effective regulation, I'd support commercial fishing. Unfortunately, ASMFC sucks... plain and simple. The stocks do not show obvious signs of health and the regulatory body consistently demonstrates their incompetence.

And don't get me started on the plovers. The plight of that species is a demonstration of Darwinism, not over-exploitation.

[JohnR]

Come on, that's it? Nobody else feel they can show up for one one of these meetings?

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Come on, that's it? Nobody else feel they can show up for one one of these meetings?

Why do you think that is John???? Its because that there are Way More people on this board selling bass both boat and surf during the com season. Times are tough, not everyone can afford to drop a few hundred bucks a trip to go fishing on a regular basis, they need to sell fish to at least offset expenses, or fish damn hard and make a few bucks to get ahead during the comm season...

Now before the JohnnyD's, Makai's,Numbskull's, and the Sandmans jump all over me, I in no way support this bill... I dont think there is a need to raise the Comm quota and I myself am not for this bill. I though dont rely 100% to make a living from being on the water... However, I dont think raising the Mass comm quota will make much of a difference because honestly, I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference. The Black Market for striped bass Im sure is well over 1.1 million pounds in some states during a season... Who is killing those fish, just Comm Guys??? Common....

[DaveS]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

... I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference.

Hey Kenny, if these New England guys would see the amount of slob fish killed in a 6 mile stretch in Monmouth Cty NJ during a good May or June week, they would crap their pants.

[Back Beach]

Pretty sure the Mass quota has increased nearly every year since the moratorium ended. Why all the fuss now? Isn't Mass authorized to take up to 2 million pounds if they see it fit? If anything, Mass has stayed pretty conservative with regard to commercial pressure.

I would, however, end the out of state licenses so us poor Taxachusetts residents have a bigger piece of our own pie to eat....don't forget the sales tax holiday this coming weekend, either...now is the perfect time to buy that expensive piece of fishing gear you've longed for but needed just a little nudge...

[StriperZ]

To those of you attending meetings, thanks for doing that, If they had Maryland hearings, I would be all over it. Maryland just does whatever they wish to and then hire the professional justifier to fend off those of us with common sense. They don't do 'public comment' or 'will of the people' well here. Usually we just get a 'thank you for writing' form letter.

If the commercial and recreational catches need to have equity, then how about making a keeper slot for recreational fishing and reduce the take to one per day.

Also ask them why the two fisheries need to have equity to increase the catch rather than find equity by decreasing the catch.

How many of us really need to take more than 1 fish per day? One fish a week or every 4-5 days is about my take.

[eelskimmer]

Crap, I went thru all this in 1976-1981 with Stripers Unlimited.
Then there was a proven problem and at every meeting I attended
(at Boston Aquarium et.al.) arguing for sanity, the
commercials in large attendance pooh-poohed the
loss as poor statistics, natural cause or taking food
out of the mouths of their babies.
Why do we have to go over this all again. Take a
look at the latest issue of Surfcasters Journal
for confessions of a poacher. The commercial limit
is a fiction, wrapped in a mystery and coated with
statistics.
I will be at the meeting in Dedham and will speak
against any such nonsense. Recreationals have to
register and pay a license next year as part of a
program to measure their limits. Until we have
more info from this program hold all changes.
This is a blatant attempt to grandfather in quotas for
commercials before the recreational licensing begins.
See youse there. I will be wearing my MSBA shirt.

[JohnR]

[QUOTE=CowHunter;787846]Why do you think that is John???? Its because that there are Way More people on this board selling bass both boat and surf during the com season. [quote]

I'd be shocked if 10% here were selling commercially - and I don't have a problem with it - within reason. I have a lot of friends and fellow anglers that are licensed commercial shore and boat, different states. If the stocks were in better shape, I'd consider getting a license myself.

What's at stake:

The proposal to increase the coastal commercial quota is intended to improve equality between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors. Although Amendment 6 established management programs for both fisheries based on the same target fishing mortality rate, the implementation of state-specific quotas for coastal commercial harvest (and not for recreational harvest) has prevented the commercial and recreational fisheries from responding equally to changes in striped bass population size. Since 2003, coastal commercial harvest has decreased by 3.6 percent, while recreational harvest has increased by 13.7 percent. Under the option, the Board would select a percent increase to be applied to the coastal commercial allocations assigned in Amendment 6.

So while Rec fishing might be up since 2003 the general consensus is that it has long since peaked and is in decline. With Commercial harvests off slightly over that same time period, why would we want to INCREASE the take?

Personally, I'm for reduction on both Rec & Commercial harvest - not elimination.

[QUOTE=CowHunter;787846]I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference. The Black Market for striped bass Im sure is well over 1.1 million pounds in some states during a season... Who is killing those fish, just Comm Guys??? Common.... [quote]

So because the real damage is being done down south we should ignore it? Or allow it to do even more real damage? Because the black market is for say 1.1 million pounds we should ignore it?

Sheeit, we might as well open the EEZ while we're at ignoring the other things.

[jmac]

I agree with Kenny on this issue; I'm fine, for the present time, with the commercial quota the way it is (I have fished commercially since 1972, thru the good and the bad). My issue is that the rec people do not realize how many fish they kill during the season. As I said, I have been on the water for close to 40 years, and I don't EVER remember seeing this many people fishing for bass exclusively....each year, as fishing has gotten better, more people fish for them....look at the charter boat industry, even headboats regularly fish for striped bass these days. Back in the beginning of the lean years (late 70's, early 80's) charter boats fished for bluefish regularly, tuna most of the late summer and fluke, cod....they were only 3 or 4 boats at the Point (Judith) who fished bass regularly. Striped Bass is now a mainstay of the charter industry...as Kenny said, see what goes on down south of us (NJ, and Maryland, Virginia in the winter); that is what is effecting the population.

The coastwide commercial quota has been static for more than a few years; the recreational catch has increased exponentially with the increase in biomass for the last several years...anyone (Rec or Comm) who denies that is living in a fantasy world.
It gets very tiring to constantly hear how the commercial fisherman is killing all the bass when I have only been allowed to use the same amount of quota each year....I only catch more if some other areas don't have fish, but I do....at the end of the day X amount of fish are landed and subtracted from the alloted quota (be it MA or RI or NY)...

Now, reduce the recreational bag limit to 1 fish per day (as it was back when fish were everywhere, sic 1990's, early 2000's)...then see who squawks....

[CowHunter]

[QUOTE=JohnR;787869][QUOTE=CowHunter;787846]Why do you think that is John???? Its because that there are Way More people on this board selling bass both boat and surf during the com season. [quote]

I'd be shocked if 10% here were selling commercially - and I don't have a problem with it - within reason. I have a lot of friends and fellow anglers that are licensed commercial shore and boat, different states. If the stocks were in better shape, I'd consider getting a license myself.

What's at stake:

So while Rec fishing might be up since 2003 the general consensus is that it has long since peaked and is in decline. With Commercial harvests off slightly over that same time period, why would we want to INCREASE the take?

Personally, I'm for reduction on both Rec & Commercial harvest - not elimination.

[QUOTE=CowHunter;787846]I dont think many on here get it, the real damage to striped bass is done well south of Mass and its not by Comms. 1.1 million pounds is probably killed on a weekly basis in some of these areas, kind of a joke. Cut the Rec catch to 1 fish at 34-36" coastwide and it WILL make a difference. The Black Market for striped bass Im sure is well over 1.1 million pounds in some states during a season... Who is killing those fish, just Comm Guys??? Common....

So because the real damage is being done down south we should ignore it? Or allow it to do even more real damage? Because the black market is for say 1.1 million pounds we should ignore it?

Sheeit, we might as well open the EEZ while we're at ignoring the other things.

I dont think anybody is here ignoring the issues, hell Ive been pretty outspoken about alot of the issues especially protecting the EEZ... It is in all our best interest to protect the fishery as best we can. I may not do 360 days a year but I do about 150 trips a season for striped bass in several states from Mass to NC and have seen change of migrational patterns, water temp changes YOY, fish setting up in different areas, and most important the bait situation. I'm sorry if the fish dont show up in the same areas as they did in past years but they do need the right conditions. And Im sorry that the fish arent stacked on the beach in every spot that people surfcast.... Guys on here that bitch and whine that there are no striped bass around honestly dont have a clue about the fishery and its just a waste of time discussing the issue with them, if only they knew the potential out there....(By the way I am really glad they dont know) I Do not think the fishery is on the verge of collapse if guys are running out there doing 30, 40, 50, 200 + fish a trip, Sorry.... You know there does have to be a balance of Bass and bait... The big bodies of fish are going to where the bait is to sustain them, plain and simple... Best of luck in the 2010 season! As for me, been the best year for big fish with 5 50's and a 67.4 boated on my boat. By the way Team Reel Deal Got another board fish yesterday... Not bitchin' just fishin....

As far as just 10 % on here with com license, I really dont know what the numbers are, but nearly all that I talk to on this board sell bass...

[Clammer]

&&&&&&&& around & around ?>?>?>?>?

[CowHunter]

Originally Posted by Clammer

&&&&&&&& around & around ?>?>?>?>?

It is a merry go round!!!!

Look at how many guys are attending this meeting... 5 a day??? How many on this site??? Some of the others don't see a problem and the rest are selling Bass!!

[JohnR]

JMAC and Cowhunter - now you can come to the meetings then and take the position that I'm advocating : NOT to increase the commercial quota. I'm not saying end comm fishing. The purpose of this meeting is to take public input on whether or not there should be a quota INCREASE. So in that it then it appears we're in agreement.

My regular position with regard to the overall stocks it to cut rec & comm back by a third which is better for the fish. And protect the forage fish.

[Adam_777]

I'm working on getting my son a ride to football so I can go.The bill is nonsense.RI

[Clammer]

A777

THIS ISN,T A RI proposal ...this is higher up .federal or someplace .,.,

[ivanputski]

I'm 90% certain I'll make it that night

[Adam_777]

Let me get this right.The increase would be for

1.RI 3,662 lbs
2.MD 2164 lbs
3. NY 232,767 lbs

Total of 238,593 lbs of bass on top of the already 7,341,207 lbs total between the two.Making the new total 7,579,800 lbs.

3,806,275 for both rec and comm.

Can someone tell me how they guesstimate the rec numbers in the first place.