LAST CHANCE TO BE HEARD ON NEW STRIPER MANAGEMENT PLAN

[Onshore]

Your last chance to state your views on Striped Bass management has gone by and you weren't there.

The public hearings have been held from Maine to So. Carolina. Those of us who represent our states on the Striped Bass Advisory Panel will meet on the 18th. And pass on our recommendations to the Management Board on the 19th. The last chance for you, the fishermen, to be heard will be December 19th.

All up and down the coast at public meetings in all the states, the overall feeling was that Amendment Six should be crafted to protect the larger spawning Stripers. Despite that, there is a push on to maintain the status quo and make no changes.

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center has sent two reports to Congress on the status of the Striped Bass fisheries in recent years. While both reports stated that the overall biomass was at near record proportions; they issued warnings too. Both reports advised that the current management plan forced anglers and commercial fishermen to zero in on the big Stripers. The big females that must be protected to maintain this great fishery we are enjoying are being killed too soon. Both reports warned that that trend could ultimately cause two things to happen- a reduction in spawning ability which will cause a reduction in the overall numbers of fish. And second, an overall smaller average size of the fish.

Whatever your position; if you can spend a day in Warwick, RI on December 19th.; please do so and let the managers know what you want your striped bass fishery to be like for the next five years. This is your last chance to be heard. Just take the TF Green Airport exit from I-95, take Post Road and look for the Sheraton Providence Airport Hotel at 1850 Post Rd.

Bill Hubbard

[Bassmaster]

only 143 views and 16 votes:mad:

[Onshore]

Originally posted by Bassmaster
only 143 views and 16 votes:mad:

Oh, well. I guess even if 99% don't give a s__t; at least 1% cared enough to push the button and declare it.

[AlderBrookFarm]

Maybe it's because they don't understand how they will be protected?

[Onshore]

Well, it's kind of late for anyone to find outnow. If they had read the Public Information Document that was available for two months before the public hearings, or read CCA's publication,
"An Anglers'Guide to Amendment 6" it was pretty well spelled out how to protect the bigger fish. It was also discussed at the public hearings.

Now the barn door is locked and next Thursday, the horse may turn up stolen.

[mumichog]

Well Bill, I for one greatly applaud your efforts to raise some interest in what will be a landmark decision by ASMFC. I am not surprised by the lack of response but it makes me very sad.

Three years ago when I joined this board I was enraged by the indifference of recreational anglers and the condescending, arrogance of the local commercials. I started too many flameouts here and on FFSW with mostly derision to show for it. Some very sound members asked me to back off and think more broadly about striped bass management - so I have. To my dismay the isssue of management remains nearly invisible. If not for the work of people like you, Bill, and the organized but not widely supported efforts of the CCA the comm's would just steamroll the ASMFC.

Anyone with doubts of the excessive impact of the commercial interest need only compare the Objectives section of Amendment 6 with the Allocation Options listed in the intro. Of the options listed only one offers keeping the status quo allocation, the other six offer increasing percentages of commercial take. The Objectives sound great - more fish, bigger fish, biomass of bait and prey, but the options seem to have landed from another planet - the commercial one orbiting us everyday we're out on the water.

Very few anglers realize this is going to be a 5 year plan - another ploy of the comm's to target their "efforts" more consistently disguised as a nod to rec's that everyone should agree on a longterm plan for the benefit of the fish. I'm picking on the commercial interest? Well, beyond the netting of bass south of NE, Mass. comm's alone take over 55,000 keeper size fish very year - while fewer than a couple hundred comm's make their living off the striper. Multiply by five years. Everyone should do the math.

If you go to the ASMFC website and look around you'll quickly discover that virtually every fish/shellfish that swims in the north Atlantic is targeted by comm's. Many are in dire straights. The striper was saved from this doom however we've yet to see the full potential of them unburdened by a relentless minority of commercial interests. But why not leave just one fish to pure recreational interests and why don't we rec's stand up and say catching and releasing is more important than slots and dozens of fillets in the freezer? My guess is we will again, when it's too late.

Fish On,
Dave

[Onshore]

Thanks, Dave. When I posted this here and on a couple other forums, I didn't really expect much more response than I got.

You are absolutely right. The problem is, if the commercials get their way, this will not be a five year plan, we will be lucky to have 2-3 years before we go back to playing catchup.

I read yesterday that the Chesapeake Young-of-Year
survey was very poor. For the past many years it has been high, averaging over .11. This year it's down under .04. The overall biomass of Stripers has been gradually reducing. The low YOY results may be a further indication of the same thing.

After four years of direct involvement with Striped bass management; I guess I've become a cynic. I just don't see recreational fishermen becoming concerned unless there is a crises. I'm off the advisory panel after this week's meetings and going to fish more.

[Bob Parsons]

Yes the commercial guys have their agenda. They want to make a profitable living. You can't blame them. They are regulated and their "keeper" has be larger than a recreatioal's "keeper". So far just a neutral statement.

What burns me more is the attitude of many of the typical (opinion, as definition of typical) recreational angler. The ones that abuse the fish they catch. The ones that show complete disregard for the regulations, taking shorts and/or more than one fish. Yes commercial guys can harvest more that one fish at a time, but there are many, many more recreational fisherman. You have seen lining the canal, clustered around various creeks,jetties and beaches. You have seen fleets of them hovering over schools for fish out in the bay or sound. Problem they don't care what goes on at these meetings since they will do what they want regardless of what regulations are in place. There is no accountability for them to honor these regulations.

So what have we.... the commercials reducing the number of big fish that we (the sportfisherman) would like to see reach trophy size. The recreational fisherman that through a variety of actions reduces the smaller fish so we have fewer fish to grow big for the commercials to take.

Any one that expresses a concern in any shape or manner about these situations is not what I view as a typical fisherman. That includes those of you that release most of your "keeper" size fish but keep an occasional "one for the grill" You guys are on a higher plane and I applaud you in your efforts for concern and conservation.

[big_steve]

I am an avid recreational fisherman, I am one of those that "line the canal". I am very happy to take home my "one fish a day over 28 inches" and even support "no higrading".
Why does a person need to take more than 1 fish home a day?
An 8 pound, 28" keeper will feed 4 people for one meal easily.
A 25 pound, 42 inch fish will provide 3 or 4 meals and the rack and head can be made into chowder to provide another couple meals (I should be able to catch another decent one in the 3 or 4 days between "catching the big one").
Commercial guys, with their big expensive boats and custom gear can take 40 fish over 34 inches 3 days a week, thats 120 (potential) fish a week compaired to my (potential) 7 fish.
So now if amendment 6 passes I'll have to throw back the "big fish" that I've been hoping to hook into all year long!
And the commercial guy can hop in his boat and "harvest" and make money off of a public resource?

Maybe I'll hang up my surf and conventional rods, stow my plugs, buy a boat, a commercial and bass licence, get some wire line rigs, a few tube and worm rigs, some bunker spoons and umbrella rigs or some eels, go out into Cape Cod Bay/Race Point/Chatham and "kill em" every 3 days and make me a pile of dough!!

What is the ratio of "commercial" to "recreational" fishermen. 10% of the fishermen get 90% of the fish. So 10% of the "commercial fishermen" are making big money (off of a public resource). Sounds like a terrible "deal" for the "little guy" (the recreational angler).

Really, as a dedicated recreational fisherman, I dont see the "resource" being evenly shared.
Am I crying--124-3 ya probably, but I love fishing, always have, always will. A niwit, standing on the edge of the canal hoping to actually catch a fish of a lifetime (or any fish for that matter), should be able to take that fish home (if he/she so desire). Thats what makes life worth living and America so great (imho)
Standing at the edge of the Sea, rod in hand, hoping to catch a 50 pounder is one of lifes great expectations (for me at least).
Everyone needs "a dream" (or two). Being able to catch a big bass from the edge of the sea is one of my dreams.
Hooking a big fish (and actually landing it) is one of lifes greatest "highs" (for me at least). Please don't take my dream away.

http://www.stripermike.com/images/nitetugs.JPG

Thats not me, but he might as well be:cool:

[Onshore]

Quote( So now if amendment 6 passes I'll have to throw back the "big fish" that I've been hoping to hook into all year long!
And the commercial guy can hop in his boat and "harvest" and make money off of a public resource?) quote



Steve: Where did you get the idea that Amendment 6 is going to change your fishing. So far as I know, Massachusetts plans to keep it's current 1 fish @ >28" and would even like to add a second fish >40" for recreational fishermen.

Actually, recreational fishermen, coastwise are taking about 2 fish for every one landed by commercials.

[Bob Parsons]

I'd love to catch a 50# fish, Of course if it were common then we would problbly be crying about the absences of 60-70 # fish. One thing for sure, I don't need to take that fish home.

Commercai stripers run a wide gamet in terms of equipment. From shore fisherman with beach buggies, to guys in small tin boats and on up, Of course the more expense the boat the lower the profit margin when fish are reluctant to be caught.

hrmm commercial fisherier -rod and reel only- quota- fish from 32"-36' - any fish that make it past this range get the chance to grow to be trophy fish. rec can only keep one trophy a season.

[Onshore]

I just received the information packet FedEx from ASMFC for tomorrow's Striped Bass Advisory Panel meeting and Thursday's S.B. Management Board meeting. Of particular interest is the "SAW Working Document D-1" which cites the latest catch statistics. This is the scientific report on which enactment of Amendment 6 will be based. It states, as follows as to Catch:

Total Catch in numbers, including landings and discards dropped 14% from 5.04 million in 2000 to 4.3 million in 2001. This is slightly above the 1996-2000 average of 3.9 million. Recreational fisheries accounted for 71% of the total 2001catch, 46% of which was landings and 25% was discards. Commercial fisheries accounted for 29% of the total 2001 catch, 22% of which was landings and 7% discards.

There is much more in the two page report, but it is interesting to note the highest percentage of recreational landings came from NJ @28%, MD@19%, VA@15%, MA@14% and NY@9%. The remaining states accounted for 4% or less of total landings.

On the commercial side, Maryland accounted for 57% followed by VA@16%, PRFC@9%, NY@6%. The remaining states each accounted for 4% or less

Interesting........

BH

[Bob Parsons]

statistics.

Statistics are so much fun. They can be manipulated to support so many views.

Those are very interesting numbers. I'd be interested in which of those states allow the netting of striped bass for the commercials.

The numbers for recreational groups could only be estimates since so many recreational fishermen never get their catch reported.

[Onshore]

Bob:

The states that allow netting at this time are RI, NY,DE, PA , MD, VA,NC,SC & PRFC. Only ME, NH, CT and NJ have no commercial season.

Your right about the Rec. numbers too. Most states don't have a SW license, so don't even know how many of us are fishing recreationally, let along what we catch. No matter how they refine the statastical analysis for Rec. catch, it's still just refined smoke and mirrors, in my opinion.

BH

:rolleyes:

[Bob Parsons]

Thanks.

Interesting that the 800,000# that the mass comm guys are allowed even when combined with other states is less then 4%. If that is correct, Marylands take is incredible.

[Mattb]

I just read over at stripersonline.com that the ASMFC has voted to keep F=.30.

I guess maybe the weren't listening?

[SaltyBoy]

steve, that is a beautiful striper!

[tuna-wishin']

Bob,

You're onto a great idea: commercial bass killers take only a slot(say28-34 inches or whatever) and the larger fish keep on swimmin'until they find a dishonest commercial or one of my flies or live macks. I'm just gonna turn 'em loose anyhow.

[Onshore]

AT WARWICK, RI YESTERDAY, THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION VOTED TO INCREASE THE COASTAL COMMERCIAL FISHERIES QUOTAS FOR STRIPED BASS IN THE STATES OF MA, RI, NY, DE, MD, VA, PRFC, NC AND SC. Only the commissioners from Maine and New Hampshire voted against the increases.

AT THE SAME MEETING THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO ADOPT ANY OF THE PROPOSED STEPS TO PROTECT LARGE SPAWING STRIPED BASS. Only the commissioners from New Hampshire and Maine, New York and Connecticut voted for measures to protect the big spawners.

[Mark Cahill]

Don't know if you guys saw this letter(in pdf format):

Paul Diodati's letter from the DMF site (http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dmf/MarineFisheriesNotices/ASMFCComment102402.pdf)

[Onshore]

Originally posted by Mark Cahill
Don't know if you guys saw this letter(in pdf format):

Paul Diodati's letter from the DMF site (http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dmf/MarineFisheriesNotices/ASMFCComment102402.pdf)

Paul's letter was handed out to all who were at the ASMFC meeting in Warwick on 12/19

[CMP]

Was Paul's legitmate concern and support for eliminating the bogus and scientifically-baseless ban on SB fishing in the EEZ discussed and, if so, what was the outcome???

CMP

[Onshore]

Paul's bogus and non-justifiable reasons for opening the EEZ
were discussed and voted on three seperate times during the meeting and defeated each time by the commission.

[Onshore]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Onshore
Your last chance to state your views on Striped Bass management will be in Warwick, RI on December 19th. From 10 AM to 5 PM when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Striped Bass Management Board meets to accept and adopt Amendment 6. (Quote).


[B]NOW IT'S TOO LATE !!!

At Warwick RI yesterday, the ASMFC granted a 30% increase ito the coastal commercial fisheries of MA, RI, NY, DE, MD, VA, NC AND SC. In doing so, they decreed that any overage would be deducted from the coastal recreational fishery. Public hearing comment and the majority of the commissions Advisory Panel opposed these increases. Only the commissioners from Maine and New Hampshire opposed this measure.

While increasing the commercial quotas, the commission refused to accept any of the measures to protect large spawning Stripers. Those measures were proposed by it's own scientists and backed by the public hearing comments and it's advisory panel only the commissioners from Maine, New Hampshire, and New York voted to protect large bass.

Recreational anglers from New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and Maryland attended this meeting in significant numbers.

Anglers from other states were conspicuous by their absense.

[CMP]

There you go again, allowing baseless nonsense to rule your agenda, onshore. There is absolutely no legitmate reason to disallow sb fishing in the EEZ. It is a foolish rule that forces more pressure on inshore spots. I used a 40" striper as tuna bait one day last year (got a 560 fatty) after I caught it and a few others of similar size jigging for bait on the bottom in 300 feet of water 48 miles east of Monomoy. I'd do it again, too. Does that make me a criminal? The rule is stupid and I refuse to acknowledge it. There are a TON of people who fish sb in the EEZ and there is no reason for a ban from any scientific standpoint. There's part of the problem-you people who mindlessly cling to a rule for no reason, yet are willing to play F games instead of proposing intelligent, WORKABLE size restrictions. This fishery's management system is so farked up as to be laughable...

CMP

[Onshore]

Hey, CMP,

Maybe you've got it right. I think I shoiuld join you guys and push to open the EEZ. Then I can get a Mass. Commercial license and be able to kill more fish..........

BH

[mumichog]

- with a bright red ribbon and bow

File this under - you don't know what ya got 'til it's gone...

I just don't understand why when it comes to talking about the impact in NE of the MA and Atlantic commercial striped bass fishery people get on their tip-toes and try to sneak out of the discussion with some kind of reverential nod to the the local comm's. I 'll be clear myself -I want the entire striped bass commercial fishery closed, north to south, all of it, all year, all methods, everything.

I don't say this of ignorance or a lack of respect. My belief is the recreational striper fishery, which dwarfs the comm's many, many times over both in dollars generated and in shear numbers of participants, and thus is more important to many more people (whether for business or enjoyment) deserves a form of management that seeks only to improve the quality of the fishery, not to also maintain a certain size biomass so, at most, a few hundred people who earn a small portion of their living killing bass can maintain their lifestyle. If your inclination is toward a symapthetic view of the economics then feel for the TENS OF THOUSANDS of people affected adversely by the commercial catch - guides, bait sellers, tackle shop owners/employees, tackle manufacturers, boat, wader, float tube and kayak manufacturers; workers/owners at hotels, motels, restaraunts, package stores, food stores, marinas, gas stations, rental agencies, second home owners, ferry workers, taxi drivers, car rentals, gift shops, and all the people that supply all these other people.

55,000+ bass which average nearly 36" long are taken yearly from Mass. waters alone by a few hundred comm's. Think of that number. If they lined them up end to end along Route 3 you wouldn't pass them all until you drove from S. Boston to Plymouth. 32 miles of striped bass! Now that line may stretch another 10 miles nearly to Cape Cod! Oh yeah, the comm's wanted a longer length limit - it's good business. The bigger the fish, the fewer hours OTW it takes to fill their quota. That mentality has absolutely nothing to do with what we as recreational fishermen want so please don't buy their hollow conservation argument. (Any doubts? Simply note CMP's
preceding post where he blatantly flaunts his illegal EEZ fishing and derisively refers to fishery managers.) Comm's want efficiency - we want an ocean full of unlimited possibility. It ain't the same.

No doubt, the rec's kill many more bass than comm's but like I said, they out number the comm's by thousands to one!! I'm very disappointed that rec's didn't want to keep the limit at 36 inches - to me the higher the better. The better the fishing gets - there is no possible argument against that.

Go to the ASMFC website some time. You'll quickly see that virtually every significant fish/shellfish population has been exploited to the point where "recovery" needs to have been discussed in it's management history. This is not my opinion, go check it out for yourself. Comm's fish until there aren't anymore fish or the law makes them stop. Every significant (even insignificant, remember the elver debacle?) fish/shellfish species is under the need of protection in the form of regulatory management from commercial fishing, every one. Yet I'm labeled zealot because I ask for one, just one gamefish to be excluded from commercial taking. Absurd...

Well, the rec's just got 5 years of something they didn't want - fewer fish in the water. Less than the fact that the recreational fishery is grossly disregarded and under lobbied, this decision demonstrates the nearly unimaginable impact a very small industry, a mere fraction of the dollars generated by rec's, has on an enormously large population of recreational related interests. Let alone the impact on the fishery/ecosystem itself.

I may be a doomsayer but what do you think would happen if Mass was opened to netting stripers? Do you think the allegedly conservation minded comm's would rise up and insist the netting stop? If you think so, stay up late on the 25th and you'll see a man in a redsuit drop a 30% larger lump of coal in your stocking.

Merry Christmas,
Dave

[CMP]

Chog, that's the same old rhetoric you trot out every time stripers are discussed. Old crap. Recs outharvest and out by-kill comms by the tune of 4:1 and in your and onshore bizarre little world, it's the comms doing the damage. Yeah, there's a logic train we can all jump on.

Onshore, as usual and as has become customary with you anti-comm zealots, you make ASSumptions that are not relevant. I stated that charters from Hyannis to P-town make regular use of the EEZ in fishing for stripers. I also happen to know a number of commercial guys and a TON of rec guys who do the same. I'll ask you again, what is the scientific and/or biological justification for the EEZ ban? There is none. It has nothing to do with commercial or recreational use, but you, like the race-baiters in politics, always try to bring it back to that. That is not the issue. You have no legitimate answers, so you go r v. c. It is but, then again, so is the entire cca agenda. Merry Christmas...

CMP

[Onshore]

Hey, CMP,

Maybe you've got it right. I just got back from Newburyport looking for a berth for my boat in '03 so I can join you guys and push to open the EEZ. Then I can get a Mass. Commercial license and be able to kill more fish..........

BH

[Bob Parsons]

This is a topic that always gets certain people's dander up. I have edited a couple of posts due to vocabulary intent. Spelling a work differently to avoid the filters still makes the meaning clear as to what word your using and I can not allow that.

Thoughts: if people are catching stripers and keeping them in the eez zone then they should be reported.

I would be interested in the rational as to why the eez is closed to taking of stripers.

Stripers are migratory and are constantly passing in and out of the area.

If the regs. for commercial fish were changed to a longer length, then they would catch fewer fish during the season since the quota is based on weight, might that not be a good thing?

[Onshore]

Originally posted by Bob Parsons
This is a topic that always gets certain people's dander up. area.If the regs. for commercial fish were changed to a longer length, then they would catch fewer fish during the season since the quota is based on weight, might that not be a good thing?

The scientists have been telling us for three years that we are killing too many big spawners. Some even say that if we keep it up, we will "create" a stock of fish that will never attain 50-60 lb. size. Big bass spawn many more fry than small bass. Big bass have the genes required to create big bass. The last two reports to Congress by NMFS have pointed out the inordinate amount of large bass being taken out of the biomass and recommended steps be taken to divert that segment of the catch.

So, what do we do? Maybe we should kill more big fish to see if they are right, not that the vast majority of Rec anglers gives a dam..............

[Bob Parsons]

From my knowledge of genetics: If a fish has the genes to grow a certain size, it'll be passing on those genes from the time 3 years to a size larger than what is currently be taken, then that'll be 3 more years it is adding those genes to the gene pool.


I'm not promoting anything with this info just stating facts as I have learned from science classes I've attended.

[CMP]

The deafening silence you hear, Bob, with regard to your query on a "rationale" for the eez prohibition is due to the fact that there is none-never has been...

CMP

[David Churbuck]

pardon my ignorance. What does "EEZ" stand for and where does it begin and end?

[Onshore]

Originally posted by CMP
The deafening silence you hear, Bob, with regard to your query on a "rationale" for the eez prohibition is due to the fact that there is none-never has been...

CMP

I can only offer you some of the reasons given at the ASMFC meeting last Thursday for Commissioners not wishing to vote to request NOAA/Sec. Commerce to open the EEZ for Striped Bass Fishing. They were, not in any particular order:

1. Leave it as a sanctuary area for larger fish.

2. Because only 2-3 states have fishable areas within it,
while most do not.

3. Because states/feds. do not have manpower to enforce
in EEZ and CG is elsewhere since 10/ll

4. Because when asked in 2001, NMFS preferred not to
open it.

5. Because it gives an unfair advantage to folks with
larger boats who can reach it, compared to shore-bound or
small boat fishermen

6. Inability of law enforcement to keep commercial fishermen
from fishing waters off states with no commercial season

I don't know whether or not it should be, but I believe that ASMFC will ask NOAA/Sec.Commerce to open it eventually.

I agree with CMP and Rybo that there is no scientific nor biological reason to keep the EEZ closed. But then, there is no biological nor scientific reason to open it either or have I overlooked something???

BH

[Onshore]

Originally posted by Moderator
pardon my ignorance. What does "EEZ" stand for and where does it begin and end?

The EEZ statnds for Exclusive Economic Zone of a country, in this case the USA. It's also called the 200 mile limit. The waters within the EEZ are reserved for the citizens of the country involved-i.e.foreign vessels excluded from fishing within

It begins at the end of the so-called 3 mile limit of state territorial waters and extends offshore another 197 miles.
In the Northwest Atlantic, it does not always go out 200 miles but to where it intersects the Hague Line. The Hague Line is the boundary between Canadian and US waters as established by the World Court after both countries claimed waters out to 200 miles from their shores, back in the 1950's, to exclude massive foreign fishing fleets.