Mass. weighs tougher protections for striped bass

[sokinwet]

Hey Cowhunter...welcome back...again. Been trying to watch your back...with limited success.

Before and after the commercial season I rarely keep a fish unless it's a bleeder...and I have to argue with my 87 yr. old father over every throwback (old school...he still thinks 16" and it goes in the box...or to the pretty neighbor!) but the vast majority of the casual rec's I know are dying to catch that keeper and fillet away. I admit that's not many because virtually all my fishing friends fish commercially...I guess for all of us it's a "birds of a feather" thing!

"But again thats my opinion and it dont mean %$%$%$%$ because I dont have any scientific data to back it,"

I wish everyone would be this honest and would rely on those "with the data"

[MAKAI]

Speaking of "Data"
I have been all over the web looking at "scientific "research findings on the state of the atlantic striped bass population. The cumulative data from many various sources is so convoluted, how the hell does anyone really know what the real truth is. Use whatever suits your needs I guess.
I believe the true fate of bass lies in the ignorance of the failing nursery ecosystems.( Bob Pond use to harp on this years ago ) Got to replace what we keep somehow or all this trash talking is a mute point.
We'll all be plugging for sculpins.

No one wants to be told you may have to take a hit in your income. I wish I had a forum like this to voice my frustrations to the fact that for the last 2 years we have had to drop our prices almost 20% just to stay in business. It sucks, would have been therapeutic.

[Saltheart]

[QUOTE=CowHunter;729676]Saltheart, Im on the other end, most everybody I know keeps their fish.... Question for you, How many Rec Guys up and down the coast keep their catch and sell fish black market to cover expenses and so on???


I have no idea how many.

I know people do it.

I know nobody I fish with does this. I know that if I found out someone I fished with does this , they wouldn't fish with me anymore.

I'm all for the guy who does whatever he does within the rules and regulations. If a guy keeps 30 fish on a Com license because that's what the law says . I have no issue with him. I do have an issue with the law and those who make these laws allowing such a high limit but I have no issue at all with the guy who keeps and sells the legal limit.

[jmac]

The new Mass commercial regs for 2010 indicate all vessels will need to submit trip level reporting either by mail or electronically. Not sure about other states or charter ops though.
This may help alleviate some of the over runs in the quota as there will be a "real time" tally going versus waiting for the fish houses to submit thier data weekly or longer.

In RI, We are required to have a trip log on board, that must be filled every day; (Bass, Fluke, Scup, etc), where we sell, where we fish, etc. Those log book entries must be sent to RIDEM every quarter.

I believe next year in MA, catch reports must be submitted monthly.

Cowhunter, like you, I have a MA boat permit, bass endorsement, no charter endorsement(my fee is $380); my RI license is $275 with all the endorsements......

[BasicPatrick]

Those that attend the actual ASMFC S-B management board meetings know that there are some valid concerns coming from the scientists and that these concerns will most likely trigger a motality reduction in 2010/2011. Most with some knowledge are predicting a return to the 1 fish at 28" standard for the coastal migrating stock.

For those that like to state how such and such a state can take smaller fish please read up on the term conservation equivalency and get an understanding of how the Striped Bass Management Plan works with regard to mortality numbers. Also please note the scientific differences between the coastal migrating stock and the small local resident populations.

For those throwing slot limit and minimum size numbers around please quote the mortality reduction numbers that are related to your position and from what source you got them. If mortality reduction is the goal we should at least hear what gain you are claiming your numbers will produce.

The real issue the SF moles have this thread all convaluted and confused is to avoid the debate on should the state of MA get into setting fisheries regulations. Anyone that cares about fish from any perspective must answer this questions with a loud HELL NO!

These guys have you all argueing comm vs rec while they lobby hard for a bill that will devastate all fisheries once the lobby for the big business fleet gets their legislative machine working fisheries legislation. Anyone want to argue that big buisness does not beat all in the MA State House.

Does anyone think it is ironic that the largest boats in the state control most of the state funded piers in both Gloucester and New Bedford. Does anyone think the SF folks and their little movement are going to be here when the Midwater Trawl fleet lobbyist wants to target and sell everything they can catch in the name of conservation. These 20 boats and their Alaskan and Irish uber corporations will shut down every small commercial operation in every town on the coast. They will still dump mixed catch as being to dirty to sort for value and devastate the ocean but now they will do it with legislative approval.

Sorry SF, you guys like to blame your lack of fish in Maine o MA while omitting the fact that the combination of purse seiners and other fleets that are dead set on making sure there is more lobster bait for your unregulated trap numbers than is even possible to use have devastated your inshore bait supply to the point that the Striped Bass have left your shores.

If you want a comparison to your brilliant idea, please see the State of Virginia where all regulations must pass the legislature. Anyone want to know what state has the absolute worst fisheries conservation record on the whole coast. Could it be the home of Omega Protein. Bingo. Good job SF...way to make things better, copy the sucessful conservation system of Virginia.

I challenge SF to show up at ASMFC and lobby for regulation change like the rest of us do. Particpate in the system that brought back Striped Bass and continues to manage a fishery that is getting harder to manage by the day. Despite our imperfections, the democratic system of fisheries management continues to work, and will as long as fishermen show up.

The real problem is that this thread will generate more written input than testimony will be spoken at the next ASMFC S-B meeting.

If people only cared enough to show up at one meeting per year we would run management of all fisheries. If all this yap on the net was backed up by one paid membership to one rec advocacy group per person we would run management.

Come on guys...the SF bunch has you all missing the big picture. Don't be fooled.

[numbskull]

These are very good and valid points, Patrick, and clarify your reasoned objection to this bill.

It does raise some questions, however. If the recreational sector's quota is (appropriately for sure) reduced to 1 fish, is the commercial quota also likely to be adjusted (fairly or not) downward as well? How much? What consequences do you foresee if not?

As for stock mortality based on fish size, any proposal would have to reduce mortality to meet required targets, and any proposal could be made to work.......but would require the implementation of a season as is seen in other fisheries (not something most people seem anxious to happen).

I'm also having difficulty understanding how this bill will open all fishing to legislative regulation. Isn't it limited to Striped Bass alone? Isn't it already much easier and cheaper for the industrial fishing interests to influence regulations through political appointments to the ASMFC board? Isn't that what has been going on for years and led us to this point?

Undoubtedly your ideal of increased recreational representation in our fishery management is the best option, but to date it has not worked. The industrial interests know and exploit that. What do you see that is now different and gives you confidence things will change in the future?

To continue a system that has failed and hope it will change may be noble, may feel right, but may also be wrong. To tear down a system that could work and replace it with one that may do worse is not necessarily better either. It comes down to opinion. That it has gotten this far is a sign of the trouble we face. I don't pretend to know an answer, just thinking out loud.

[Doublerunner]

Hopefully the next asmfc meeting will not be in the middle of the day on a weekday.

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by Doublerunner

I take offense to your post. I bust my hump every day of my life. I own my own business and go in day after day after day even when I don't feel well. And I do not sit behind a desk and I have no inheritance. And I have not paid any one to put me on to fish. I surf fish at times when most are sleeping. I put in my time and don't expect any one to hand anything to me. And by the way my chevy pick up has 190,000 miles on it and is my only vehicle

Your argument basically states that since other states can still have commercial fishing and that other comm's break the law then it's okay for everyone to do that. Come on man, at least be responsible.

Rec's may catch more fish but they kill far fewer. I dare say that 100% of the fish caught commercially are killed. Recreational fishermen kill very few of their catch....maybe 10% nationwide. For me it's 0% as I release them all....but that's just me. Plus rec's provide much more $$ for the economy than do comm's.

Personally I don't want to see any one's livelihood taken away but I feel saving the stock is more important than a few dollars. And don't call me a treehugger 'cause I am not. But without steps being taken to save the species it will be lost and then nothing will be left for anybody and the comm's will just move on to another species for their clients.

And again, I re-iterate that this is just one step in the right direction. The other is to stop the dragging for menhaden

double runner

just because u release all your fish doesn't mean they all live. the mortality rate is about 8-10% for released fish.

also

if u add up all the lbs of fish caught and killed on the million plus trips recs make in mass each year + the 8 - 10 % mortality on released fish u'd come up with a far more dead lbs of fish than the 1 million lbs the comms take.

so

if u really wanted to protect the most fish u'd ban the recs and catch and release and just let the comm's fish. think of all the carbon savings too!

[beaver]

Don't attack me guys I'm just curious, and haven't read the other 240 something posts in this thread. Without protection could our bass population end up like our cod population has? Although cod have made a tiny comeback, and warming water temps have an effect on them moving further north or offshore, they were seriously over fished. It was only 20 or 30 years ago that they could be caught in the canal, from Hull Gut, and other shore places. Global warming, maybe, over fishing def.

I really have no facts though. As a kid growing up we would take the boat out, inside Boston Light and catch all the cod we could want, now, not so much. Just what I think. Don't want to take this thread off topic, just curious if that would ever happen. I wasn't alive for the moratorium, and I don't want to be alive for any moratorium.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by numbskull

These are very good and valid points, Patrick, and clarify your reasoned objection to this bill.

It does raise some questions, however. If the recreational sector's quota is (appropriately for sure) reduced to 1 fish, is the commercial quota also likely to be adjusted (fairly or not) downward as well? How much? What consequences do you foresee if not?

If my guesss that there will be a need for a mortality reduction managment action to respond to scientific concerns that come out of the pending stock asessment update, then the norm is for an across the board reduction of fishing mortality...including the commercial quota will be reduced...unless I am missing an angle but I do not think so

As for stock mortality based on fish size, any proposal would have to reduce mortality to meet required targets, and any proposal could be made to work.......but would require the implementation of a season as is seen in other fisheries (not something most people seem anxious to happen).

There is no question seasons for many marine fish are coming to a management plan near all of us in the near future. For S-B I think we are a couple of management steps away from a season but eventualy that will be on the table as the next best management option.

I'm also having difficulty understanding how this bill will open all fishing to legislative regulation. Isn't it limited to Striped Bass alone? Isn't it already much easier and cheaper for the industrial fishing interests to influence regulations through political appointments to the ASMFC board? Isn't that what has been going on for years and led us to this point?

I'm going to try and answer this with a simple version of a very complex question. Reason one is that the legislation will set legal prescedent. Reason two is that once the legislature is involved in something it tends to clamin that turf for itself. Reason three is that once the lobbyists see that the legislature is willing to pass a fisheries regulatory action they will naturally see that as a new option to make advancement for their agenda and the flood gates of legislation, ammendments and the lot will be opened. WE do not need to be reminded that big buisness clearly can outspend all others on Beacon Hill and next in line will be the extreme greens wiht the rec and conservation minded amongst us being wayyyyyyyyy in the back of the line .

I would suggest that there is different track record with influencing political appointments as opposed vs passing legislation. We have passed very few pieces of legislation as opposed to influencing many political appointments.

Take the MA delegation to the ASMFC. We have three Comissioners. One is a legislator, one is a Governor appointee and MA DMF is the third. Last year we had a major gain (my opinion) from the rec/conservation angle. The Governor's appointee remains Bill Adler from MA Lobsterman's Assn, DMF is DMF, and until he lost his seat the legislative appointee had been Tony Verga from Gloucester who gave proxy to Vito Calamo who has always been a kill it all and sell it all commercial rep of the worst kind. When Tony Verga lost his seat a major effort at the state house between enviros and rec leaders got Rep. Sarah Peake from P-Town as our new ASMFC legislator. FYI...Rep Peake has regulary participated in her county league of sportsmans clubs for the past ten years and after two lunches with her I am can not tell you how important the gain we just made is for us.

My point is that at the ASMFC the rec commnity has a say and a shot at success. We have a decent (not great) track record at ASMFC but moving actions to the state house will clearly be a HUGE step backward.[/B]

Undoubtedly your ideal of increased recreational representation in our fishery management is the best option, but to date it has not worked. The industrial interests know and exploit that. What do you see that is now different and gives you confidence things will change in the future?

I do not see increased interest and that is why our best option is the current rulemaking process as oposed to the legislative process for fisheries management.

To continue a system that has failed and hope it will change may be noble, may feel right, but may also be wrong. To tear down a system that could work and replace it with one that may do worse is not necessarily better either. It comes down to opinion. That it has gotten this far is a sign of the trouble we face. I don't pretend to know an answer, just thinking out loud.

I agree we need serious improvements to fisheries managmeent but I also am absoutely certain involving the legislature is the completely wrong direction.

[MikeToole]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I challenge SF to show up at ASMFC and lobby for regulation change like the rest of us do. Particpate in the system that brought back Striped Bass and continues to manage a fishery that is getting harder to manage by the day. Despite our imperfections, the democratic system of fisheries management continues to work, and will as long as fishermen show up.
.

Patrick, you still putting fish stink on your plugs?

I understand your point but I have to disagree with this. We are doing a terrible job managing the fisheries, especially on the east coast. The best we can seem to do is get a fish stock to cycle up from near depleted, to a number where they are just getting by in most cases. Stripers are a little different because of the high interest in them by recreational fisherman. If ASMFC would bite the bullet and do the right thing in the short term, we could greatly improve the amount of fish we take both commercially and recreationally. Look at cod, fluke, whiting, ling, weakfish and wolffish. Would you say we are doing a good job with any of these, let alone bait fish. The democratic process biggest failure is it's focus on the short term.

I don't make very many meetings because of my work. But I take the time to read the reports and minutes from the meetings. I write letters when I see request for input. But I don't think in the end it means much. ASMFC does not manage the fishery to maximize take, they manage it on the short term trying to make everyone happy.

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I agree we need serious improvements to fisheries managmeent but I also am absoutely certain involving the legislature is the completely wrong direction.

If the legislation (Congress) hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

[sokinwet]

"Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities."

Any individual or group can submit a bill to their legislator for introduction. Is that a system that makes more sense than scientific management of the resource?

"Without protection could our bass population end up like our cod population has? "
No protection? Size limits, bag limits, quotas, R&R harvest, etc.

[DZ]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

If the legislation hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

Great point Mike.

JFI - It seems snook and redfish have been protected by legislative action in most Gulf of Mexico states. Rec anglers in that area have reaped the benefits. We tend to be a little "gun shy" up here in the NE.

DZ

[inTHERAPY]

From what I think I know. Each state must have regulations approved by the asmfc for sb. Talks were introduced this year to roll-over the catch not caught this year to next years quota. This did not pass but was not without argument to do so. If you do not think an atlantic state will jump all over the asmfc asking to approve an increase in their share as a result of MA's conservation, I think you are dead wrong. The asmfc meeting on sb has already stated that the stocks are good and overfishing does not exist. So you put more fish out there.....

Why do want SF introducing legislation for us? Who's next, PETA? The Humane Society?

I do not think there is a person among us that can honestly say that the state of marine fisheries is in great shape, or that all the science is correct, but it is our reference point. Let's work within the framework we have to institute better policy.

[Doublerunner]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

double runner

just because u release all your fish doesn't mean they all live. the mortality rate is about 8-10% for released fish.

also

if u add up all the lbs of fish caught and killed on the million plus trips recs make in mass each year + the 8 - 10 % mortality on released fish u'd come up with a far more dead lbs of fish than the 1 million lbs the comms take.

so

if u really wanted to protect the most fish u'd ban the recs and catch and release and just let the comm's fish. think of all the carbon savings too!

Matt, it's a shared resource. I have said from the beginning I don't want to take away any one's livelihood but we all need to do our part.

Yes I understand there is a small mortality rate on released fish. This depends largely upon the angler. I don't chunk so 99% of my fish are lip hooked, with crushed barbs. Very easy to release. But not everyone is the same so that is something we need to look at. So at the very worst case I kill one out of every 10 fish I catch. How many out of 10 fish caught do the comm's or rec boats kill? And typically their fish are much larger than those caught from shore

Restrictions on charter boats and party boats as well as comm. as to size and quantity of fish kept

Increase in licensing costs across the board.

Also, fishing from shore, I have very limited access to the big cows that boats can get to so if I ever hooked onto that rare cow I'd probably let it go. It's not like I am pulling out a boat load of the big breeders every day.

Previous precedent indicates the comm's would be the 1st to be shut off, which by the way I don't want to see. However, if we all reduce our kills then there would be enough for everyone. So long as the system keeps getting abused and overused the declining numbers will continue until there is a moratorium and then everyone loses.

So, what do you want to see? A compromise and we all get to keep fishing or a moratorium?

For some reason everyone thinks I am against the comm's. I am for protecting the species and us all taking less to do so. No one group should bear all the burden but we also don't need to get rich off the resource either

[sokinwet]

A permit $ increase isn't really going to do much more than put a few more dollars in the states pocket at the expense of all fisherman be they full time or p.t. (cost of the permit is deductible under business expenses so the guys selling and paying their taxes get a little relief.) Yes, it may eliminate those guys who still hold a permit but don't fish commercially (no quota impact) and those who might be using the permit to take over their rec. limit, but I still can't believe that's a big number...especially if the price is up! I mean really..if you're doing it for food, 20 lb. x $3 buys you more groceries than a couple of fillets.

"So, what do you want to see? A compromise and we all get to keep fishing or a moratorium?"

I'm all in support of compromise but this bill is what's on the table and it's not about compromise.

[Mr. Sandman]

No compromise. Game fish or Complete moratorium.

[dannyplug1]

Why is a striped bass different than a migritory game bird like a duck or a goose? They are managed by the federal govt. Stripers should be managed by the federal govt and not at the mercy of states that are dominated by those who would kill each other over the last bass (not an original thought, It is a rehash of a paragraph in Dagnaults book eastern tides). Striped bass belong to all the people and should be a game fish. Or atleast there should be a slot limit. The commercials esp in Mass kill the fish with the best genes in terms of survival and egg production (30 fish is just not right)! Just like the deer hunter who allways goes for the big buck and ten years later wonders why their are no deer with nice racks. Knot head you took the best genes out of the population. I know this is a rambling poorly spelled post but I am enraged. I think the bass population is going the way of buffalo and we are to blame!

[CowHunter]

Why do some people insist that the commercials only target the biggest fish with thf best genes and so on???I know I want to get my 30 fish and get off the water, if they are 34" or bigger they go in the box... The bulk of the fish during the com season comes off the cape. I am willing to bet that the usual average on a com catchOn the cape is about 16-17lbs...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[sokinwet]

"(30 fish is just not right)"
What is hard to understand here...we're dealing with a quota ...a million pounds is a million pounds...one at a time or 30 at a time. The main purpose of the weekly 30/30/30/5 open days & quota was to spread the catch out for a longer period during the season to avoid flooding the market, depressing the price and to allow the market/buyers to plan for a consistent supply over a longer period. If we went to 10 a day it's just more time on the water and $$ in gas.....same million pounds.

[CowHunter]

People also have the misconeption that every single person with a com license is doing 30 fish every single day...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[sokinwet]

Lets just say that fishing the haba exclusively if they cut it to ten a day the Cape guys might be a little more impacted than me! When CCB goes off I always cringe and start planning my days with a little more urgency!

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

...and those who might be using the permit to take over their rec. limit,

FYI...Harvesting over a rec limit to take home is illegal..there is no commercial permit that makes that third fish legal in MA...the commercial harvested fish must be sold and counted on the quota without exception...anyone that tells you different is misinformed....this a HUGE problem and I would bet good money that we hear a rulemaking to fix this and some other issues in the MA system in the coming months

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

No compromise. Game fish or Complete moratorium.

Gamefish = No Harvest

Complete Moratorium = No Target

SF Legislation = Allocation Grab with almost no mortality reduction

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by Doublerunner

So, what do you want to see? A compromise and we all get to keep fishing or a moratorium?

Can I seriously ask what info you have the sugest the S-B management is anywhere near a moratorium? I really would like to hear a reference to a perr reviewed scientific document.

FYI...there are about a half dozen very automatic triggers for madatory conservation measures built into the pland and although I am by far not always happy with the maagement of S-B we are so very far from most of the triggers to even suggest a moratoruim is iminent is just insanity.

The current "turn of the crank" stock asessment update is likely to cause some conservation measures be enacted but this stock is still pretty healthy by any standard.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

If the legislation (Congress) hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION to be accurate...This is my point exactly...If one state gives up it's fish the other states will divide it up. Banning the commercial harvest in MA will only get VA, NJ and other states more commercial quota. This question has been asked and anwered many many times and no matter how SF spins the answer it is what it is.

The place to get improvemet in the S-B management Plan is the management body responsible for the overall management pland and that is ASMFC. Like it or not they manage Striped Bass.

If the SF Legislation is so good why are they always shopping it from State to State and have not passed it anywhere.

[Sea Dangles]

Let's not forget that a portion of the MA quota comes from fish caught in RI and CT.Lots of anglers willing to take their catch over the line to cash in.The night time is the right time.I don't think this is news to contender cop.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

The place to get improvemet in the S-B management Plan is the management body responsible for the overall management pland and that is ASMFC. Like it or not they manage Striped Bass.

Absolutely correct, but very possibly unrealistic. Since the ASMFC manages other stocks other than Striped Bass its representatives always include people who make a living from commercial fishing (of types other than striped bass) and marine fishery employees who work closely and are friendly with (and sympathetic to) the commercial industry. This is not wrong, commercial fishing provides food and benefit to the non-fishing public. These people, however, will naturally have a bias towards full utilization of a species.....to do otherwise represents a harmful waste from their perspective.

If the board were composed of people ONLY interested in striped bass there would be a chance for change. Unfortunately, I don't see that as very likely to happen. People who value striped bass most highly as a recreational resource will always be a minority on the ASMFC.....and its management decisions will continue to reflect that.

The ASMFC is a political creation. Changing the priority of striped bass management will likely require a political solution. If not, then a legal one driven by non-fishing interests will eventually happen (in my opinion).

[inTHERAPY]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

Why do some people insist that the commercials only target the biggest fish with thf best genes and so on???I know I want to get my 30 fish and get off the water, if they are 34" or bigger they go in the box... The bulk of the fish during the com season comes off the cape. I am willing to bet that the usual average on a com catchOn the cape is about 16-17lbs...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

shouldn't you be doing something a bit more productive?