flatts1
04-09-2003, 12:36 PM
Hello All,
I have been on the Stripers Forever mailing list for some time now. I originally saw the solicitation for people to join the mailing list on a message posted in this forum by a fellow calling himself "finatic".
See:
http://www.reel-time.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30414
I have had some questions/comments regarding the emails that I have received on this list. When I sent my remarks to the author of these messages, Bradford Burns, he replied that he didn't have time to debate them with me.
Fair enough I thought. He must be very busy with the launch of his new organization. However, I also asked him to pass my comments along to the rest of the email list in the intererst of constructive criticism and open debate. I hoped to get some answers from others involved in the group. He replied that Stripers Forever would distribute my message if they decided it was helpful to their mission. My message was never forwarded.
I was then directed to a thread on another website by a friend. At the time I thought that the thread I was referred to was effectively a de-facto place to discuss Stripers Forever positions given that several of the emails sent to the list were posted there.
I posted this same message (below) to that thread and I have yet to have any response to my questions/concerns from anyone involved with Stripers Forever.
I now return my direction to this forum since this is where I learned about the mailing list by "finatic" and I also notice that a huge SF logo is continuously posted by a fellow calling himself "rockfisherman". Are either of you directly involved with Stripers Forever? Is ANYONE on this forum directly involved with Stripers Forever?
If so, then my full message to Mr. Burns follows and I would greatly appreciate it if someone involved with Stripers Forever would respond. {probably best if read from the bottom up}
I apologize in advance for duplicating this post here. However, Mr. Burns informed me that the Striper Forever website will not include a discussion forum and there seems to be a Striper Forever presence on this site as well as the other site that I origianlly posted this message on. I sincerely would like to hear from at least one person directly involved with Stripers Forever who can answer my questions.
Thanks In Advance,
Mike Flaherty
================================================== ======================
Mr. Burns,
I have read your comments regarding questions put to you by an On The Water writer. I am a recreational fisherman in Massachusetts and I have a few questions and comments. As you indicated in a separate email to me, the Stripers Forever email list provides only a one-way communication to the members of the list. If I understand you correctly, you do welcome submissions to the Stripers Forever email distributions list. However, you will only forward messages that you feel are helpful to your mission. That said, I respectfully request that you accept and distribute this message to the Striper Forever email list in the spirit of constructive criticism and debate.
Best,
Mike Flaherty
BassPond.Com
P.S.
I am copying the On The Water writer who originally prompted this discussion.
================================================== ===========================================
1) You call for gamefish status of striped bass. It is my understanding that true gamefish status means that it is strictly a catch and release fishery. Are you advocating for this? I infer from your comments that you are not advocating for this ("the public could have some kind of modest bag limit ") but I just want to make sure. If you are not advocating for true gamefish status then I think it would be more productive/honest to frame your position as advocating simply for "zero commercial harvest of striped bass".
2) You are in favor of keeping the EEZ closed and you write...
"Additionally, I would add, it is the shore-based, or near shore fishermen that have historically targeted school sized stripers that have been left out of the striper’s recovery. And these anglers make up the vast majority of the fishing public. They, not the fat cats who can afford offshore boats, should be accommodated first."
To refresh everyone's memory, the EEZ closure was supposed to be temporary. However, it has become permanent (i.e. indefinite). In other words, the EEZ has effectively become a permanent MPA to all striper fishermen. By advocating that the EEZ should remain closed, are you saying that you support permanent Marine Reserves (no fish and/or no take zones) such as those advocated by The Ocean Conservancy?
Since the creation of the EEZ, there have been more and more fishermen each year fishing in less fishable space. As a result, the fishing pressure has UNNATURALLY INCREASED in the remaining fishable waters in and near the shore because everyone is bound to fishing within 3 miles of the coast.
I personally think that many recreational anglers have a knee jerk reaction when they discuss whether or not to open the EEZ. They think that it will amount to a free-for-all for commercial anglers. However, commercial anglers are bound by a quota and it will be reached one way or the other. Why not open the EEZ to spread out the fishing effort (out to 12 miles) and take pressure off the shores?
Indeed, DMF Director Paul Diodati has "championed" opening the EEZ. I personally believe that Mr. Diodati has clearly demonstrated his ability to manage striped bass in Massachusetts. The great fishing we have recently enjoyed is due, in no small part, to the policies he has implemented in our state. His position on the EEZ is well reasoned and I trust his judgment.
I don't own a boat. However it makes sense to me that if the EEZ is opened and others do head out to fish it, then it will leave more fish at the shore for me. So in the end, as a surf fisherman, I will be taking advantage of an open EEZ!
Also, I think it is unproductive for you to use class-envy in your argument for keeping the EEZ closed. I am not a "Fat Cat" but I do go out on a couple of charters each year. Who are you to tell me, or anyone else, that we shouldn't be allowed to fish the EEZ based on our means? This is a very socialist argument and, as an American, it honestly nauseates me.
I have included some selected quotes from Mr. Diodati below. I added the bold formatting. The full text of his comments may be found at...
http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dmf/MarineFisheriesNotices/ASMFCComment102402.pdf
Mr. Diodati writes:
"Some advocates for a continued closure of the EEZ argue that the closure
provides an important conservation measure needed to protect larger and
older striped bass. I do not think striped bass stocks need such protection,
but if they did we should determine with more technical scrutiny where
effective conservation should be practiced. MRFSS length frequency
information and tagging data show striped bass that aggregate farther from
shore are composed of mixed stocks of many age groups. In fact, mixing of
stocks and age groups is greater offshore than from any nearshore area.
Offshore waters are also colder and more saline than nearshore waters, a
condition that is associated with the lowest discard mortality rates. Young,
sexually immature fish, often originating from a single stock compose the
bulk of schools that are targeted in shallow coastal waters, bays, and
rivers where water quality conditions create the highest discard mortality
rates. Accordingly, any effective conservation-based closure of fishing
areas should focus on nearshore waters and rivers; such areas typically are
also more easily monitored and enforced for regulatory violations."
"Advocates of a continued EEZ closure also appear to link this closure with
curtailment of commercial fishing activity. But in fact an opening of the
EEZ would be a conservation-neutral measure with regards to commercial
fisheries since they are already restricted by quotas. In the case of
Massachusetts, our commercial quotas have been fully harvested without legal
access to the EEZ. True benefactors of lifting the moratorium would be
recreational fishery participants, especially anglers that fish from hired
vessels because it typically requires captains that have extensive knowledge
and experience to successfully prosecute the offshore fishery."
3) I totally agree with you regard to charter/party boats. I too look at them as rented platforms for recreational fishermen. This just seems like common sense to me and anything else would be unfair. I don't look at striped bass as "toys". I and my family look at them as dinner.
4) You mention that striped bass aquaculture could "replace the wild harvest overnight". While this may be true as far as capacity is concerned, aren't we really talking apples and oranges here. From what I have read, there is no comparison between the taste of a wild striped bass and one that is farm raised. One restaurant owner wrote this on a fishing website...
Farm raised is usually sold by the case of 25 that average about 4# a piece. They're cheap and they taste like crap!!! I used to be a bigwig at a very posh restaurant at the Cape; we sold hybrid striper all year long for $27. an entree, until the customers finally stopped buying it because it's so bad!!!
In principle, I have no problem with replacing market striped bass caught in the wild with those that are farm raised if the taste is reasonably the same. However, non-fishing tourists who visit coastal states should have access to "real" stripers on their plate just as I do as a resident who happens to fish for them.
Mr. Burns, I am on the fence on whether or not to give my full support to Stripers Forever. Protecting striped bass is a laudable goal but I just need to know exactly what it will mean to me as a recreational fisherman who likes to catch and eat them! I look foreword to your response.
================================================== ================================================== =========
-----Original Message-----
From: Bradford E. Burns [mailto:bigbass@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:25 PM
Subject: FW: Amendment 6
Stripers Forever – since you may see some of this in On the Water I am forwarding to you a thread that contains questions and answers for a story in On the Water. I was approached individually by Catherine Cramer to answer these questions. I’ve answered them personally, though, I tried to anticipate based on our CASE how Stripers Forever might have formally responded.
For the record, I don’t think it has been determined yet just how much SF will actually have to say about anything. My own personal vision is that just as we did on Amendment #6 – a rush job that I’m still proud of – SF will coordinate, encourage, and organize, but not speak often as an entity. SF has a fairly simple message, with a philosophy that I feel goes right to the roots of the personal freedoms that America is founded upon. We want to let the people speak, and we hope to have many thousands of them speaking. In the background SF will try to organize this movement to accomplish its goal.
Anyway, that said, anyone who doesn’t know me will definitely have a better idea of what I personally believe after reading this thread. Brad Burn
P.S. Go right to the end and come back up the page.
-----Original Message-----
From: Catherine Cramer [mailto:cramer@cape.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:46 PM
To: Bradford E. Burns
Subject: Re: Amendment 6
Mr. Burns: Thank you for the effort you put into your reply. This is a complicated, difficult situation, which requires thought to work through. And it's important to get people thinking, no matter what their position.
Thanks again.
Catherine Cramer
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradford E. Burns
To: Catherine Cramer
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: RE: Amendment 6
Catherine – okay, here goes.
1. Theoretically the EEZ is just like anywhere else, but in reality it’s closure has served as something of a sanctuary for striped bass that are subjected to a great deal of pressure throughout their inshore range. Also, landings in the EEZ will be tough to police, and may facilitate situations that “get around” the gamefish provisions in states that have laws protecting striped bass from commercial fishing. Since we are already harvesting striped bass at the maximum rate – and then some – why open more areas? Additionally, I would add, it is the shore-based, or near shore fishermen that have historically targeted school sized stripers that have been left out of the striper’s recovery. And these anglers make ;up the vast majority of the fishing public. They, not the fat cats who can afford offshore boats, should be accommodated first.
Paul Diodati, against the will of the vast majority of the Massachusetts fishing public has championed opening the EEZ. In fact were it not for his tireless championing of reopening the EEZ there would be no movement to do it. Why? For the same reason that I refer to in the previous sentence. He, and his department think it perfectly reasonable policy to manage striped bass for the benefit of a comparative handful of rod and reel commercials, and the devil with the 99% of striped bass fishermen who hardly know where the EEZ is.
2. Striped bass aquaculture already provides more pounds of striped bass than the entire commercial fishery coast wide including Chesapeake Bay. Production has risen steadily despite the seasonal glut of comparatively cheap fish provided by commercial fishing. If commercial striper fishing were to be stopped the farmed striper market would replace the wild harvest overnight. Just look at what Atlantic salmon farming has done for the fresh fish market. Every night America eats enough farmed salmon to deplete the entire wild population of North America. Clearly the future is in farm-raised fish. Oddly enough, continued commercial fishing for striped bass deprives, not provides consumers of striped bass to eat. And striped bass are grown in landlocked earthen ponds, so the pollution issues of coastal pen farms are not present in this industry. Wild stripers are known to suffer from micro bacteria problems, PCB contamination and other health threats. Because of regulations on aquaculture, these problems are not present in farm raised fish.
3. A charter boat is a platform on the water to take members of the public fishing. The sports aboard these boats should have no more or less rights – including size and bag limits – then folks fishing form shore or their own boats. Charter skippers should not be allowed to keep striped bass to sell, no one should.
4. A friend of mine was in the car when Paul Diodati’s predecessor Phil Coates stated that it was the economic argument for striped bass gamefish more than any other that left him cold. Frankly I understand that reasoning. Our wild resources should not be for sale to the highest bidder any more than the rest of our rights in a free society. To me this is also the essence of the gamefish argument. Currently Massachusetts stops most anglers from keeping any of the striped bass that they catch so that they can reserve a fat quota for commercial fishermen. This is a privatization of public property, and is a terrible social policy.
This all said, economics are very much on the side of recreational fishing for striped bass. The economics of recreational fishing are always given lip service, but in reality are totally disregarded by Massachusetts fisheries managers. This is because the commercial fishing industry has had such historical control of the state’s fisheries managers that those who would question the industry’s sovereignty never get near one of the top management jobs. It’s just momentum, the same thing that perpetuated market gunning, slavery, and delayed giving women the right to vote. It has to change.
5. The striped bass should be a gamefish all along the Atlantic coast. This does not mean that the fish should be a toy for rich folks. Nor does it mean that members of the public should take them home by the cooler full. Were it not for the large amount of fish taken commercially from both legal and illegal practices, the public could have some kind of modest bag limit that would allow someone other than highliners and charter boat fares to keep an occasional fish for the table, and at the same time the number of large, old fish would recover to more natural levels. Anglers throughout the fish’s range would then enjoy much better fishing, and therefore add to the quality of their lives. It may take years to accomplish, but it is the right way to go.
Catherine, as Bill knows I have been making these arguments for some time. They are what I believe, and I have never profited in any way from these positions – quite the contrary. I am one of the founders of Stripers Forever, and internet-based advocacy movement to end commercial fishing for wild striped bass. Brad Burns
From: Catherine Cramer [mailto:cramer@cape.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:45 AM
To: Bradford E. Burns
Subject: Re: Amendment 6
Mr. Burns: Thank you for your prompt and articulate reply. If you have time, could you please comment on these topics, as they relate to the approval of Amendment 6:
1.the opening of the EEZ
2.encouraging the development of striper ``farms''
3.the role of the charterboat
4.why the economic value of recreational fishing for striped bass, particularly in Massachusetts, is not more of a determining factor
5. the future of gamefish status for striped bass
Also, please tell me how you would like to be identified - officially as the president or founder of an organization, or simply as a recreational fisherman, etc.
Thanks again
Catherine Cramer
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradford E. Burns
To: Catherine Cramer
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:37 PM
Subject: RE: Amendment 6
Catherine – Amendment #6 is a great disappointment to me. But it was predictable. On virtually every decision made in the last 10 years regarding recreational versus commercial allocations of all species, the fishing public has gotten the short end of the stick. The fisheries managers are largely folks who have received their commissions with the approval of the commercial fishing industry, and pleasing them is their highest priority. This is especially evident and important with striped bass because it is the most important recreational saltwater species on the east coast.
You don’t have enough space to print all of my disagreements with the ASMFC striped bass philosophy. Here, though, are a few of my main gripes. The estimate of the overall recreational catch that is based on the MRFS data and the 8% hook and release mortality is highly inaccurate, and in serious conflict with more recent catch-and- release studies. The split reference point between the producer areas and coast is totally unfair and just designed to accommodate commercial interests from each jurisdiction at the expense of over 2,000,000 coastal recreational fishers - few of whom ever catch a striper that they can take home and eat. The concentration of fishing pressure that the high minimum sizes places on large stripers is depleting the number of older striped bass in the population; this hurts the quality of the fishery and is dangerous to the spawning population. The ASMFC makes no estimate at all of the known large, illegal, commercial catch which in my mind is a big problem.
Some of the recreational advocacy groups tried to argue against the absolutely obscene 42% commercial increase, but for a number of reasons – especially the undeniable commercial bias of the ASMFC managers – their arguments for a lower mortality rate fell on deaf ears. I believe, though, that just asking for a lower mortality rate won’t solve anything. Until the recreational community establishes the rights of private citizens to a personal share of our public fisheries resources this unfair treatment will continue. When it comes to striped bass the only answer is the complete elimination of all commercial striped bass fishing.
Brad Burns
-----Original Message-----
From: Catherine Cramer [mailto:cramer@cape.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 1:42 PM
To: bigbass@maine.rr.com
Subject: Amendment 6
Mr. Burns:
I am writing a column for On The Water magazine concerning Amendment 6 to the Striped Bass Management Plan. I am trying to collect a range of opinion on the recent approval of Amendment 6, and would appreciate hearing from you.
Thank you for your time.
Catherine Cramer
I have been on the Stripers Forever mailing list for some time now. I originally saw the solicitation for people to join the mailing list on a message posted in this forum by a fellow calling himself "finatic".
See:
http://www.reel-time.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30414
I have had some questions/comments regarding the emails that I have received on this list. When I sent my remarks to the author of these messages, Bradford Burns, he replied that he didn't have time to debate them with me.
Fair enough I thought. He must be very busy with the launch of his new organization. However, I also asked him to pass my comments along to the rest of the email list in the intererst of constructive criticism and open debate. I hoped to get some answers from others involved in the group. He replied that Stripers Forever would distribute my message if they decided it was helpful to their mission. My message was never forwarded.
I was then directed to a thread on another website by a friend. At the time I thought that the thread I was referred to was effectively a de-facto place to discuss Stripers Forever positions given that several of the emails sent to the list were posted there.
I posted this same message (below) to that thread and I have yet to have any response to my questions/concerns from anyone involved with Stripers Forever.
I now return my direction to this forum since this is where I learned about the mailing list by "finatic" and I also notice that a huge SF logo is continuously posted by a fellow calling himself "rockfisherman". Are either of you directly involved with Stripers Forever? Is ANYONE on this forum directly involved with Stripers Forever?
If so, then my full message to Mr. Burns follows and I would greatly appreciate it if someone involved with Stripers Forever would respond. {probably best if read from the bottom up}
I apologize in advance for duplicating this post here. However, Mr. Burns informed me that the Striper Forever website will not include a discussion forum and there seems to be a Striper Forever presence on this site as well as the other site that I origianlly posted this message on. I sincerely would like to hear from at least one person directly involved with Stripers Forever who can answer my questions.
Thanks In Advance,
Mike Flaherty
================================================== ======================
Mr. Burns,
I have read your comments regarding questions put to you by an On The Water writer. I am a recreational fisherman in Massachusetts and I have a few questions and comments. As you indicated in a separate email to me, the Stripers Forever email list provides only a one-way communication to the members of the list. If I understand you correctly, you do welcome submissions to the Stripers Forever email distributions list. However, you will only forward messages that you feel are helpful to your mission. That said, I respectfully request that you accept and distribute this message to the Striper Forever email list in the spirit of constructive criticism and debate.
Best,
Mike Flaherty
BassPond.Com
P.S.
I am copying the On The Water writer who originally prompted this discussion.
================================================== ===========================================
1) You call for gamefish status of striped bass. It is my understanding that true gamefish status means that it is strictly a catch and release fishery. Are you advocating for this? I infer from your comments that you are not advocating for this ("the public could have some kind of modest bag limit ") but I just want to make sure. If you are not advocating for true gamefish status then I think it would be more productive/honest to frame your position as advocating simply for "zero commercial harvest of striped bass".
2) You are in favor of keeping the EEZ closed and you write...
"Additionally, I would add, it is the shore-based, or near shore fishermen that have historically targeted school sized stripers that have been left out of the striper’s recovery. And these anglers make up the vast majority of the fishing public. They, not the fat cats who can afford offshore boats, should be accommodated first."
To refresh everyone's memory, the EEZ closure was supposed to be temporary. However, it has become permanent (i.e. indefinite). In other words, the EEZ has effectively become a permanent MPA to all striper fishermen. By advocating that the EEZ should remain closed, are you saying that you support permanent Marine Reserves (no fish and/or no take zones) such as those advocated by The Ocean Conservancy?
Since the creation of the EEZ, there have been more and more fishermen each year fishing in less fishable space. As a result, the fishing pressure has UNNATURALLY INCREASED in the remaining fishable waters in and near the shore because everyone is bound to fishing within 3 miles of the coast.
I personally think that many recreational anglers have a knee jerk reaction when they discuss whether or not to open the EEZ. They think that it will amount to a free-for-all for commercial anglers. However, commercial anglers are bound by a quota and it will be reached one way or the other. Why not open the EEZ to spread out the fishing effort (out to 12 miles) and take pressure off the shores?
Indeed, DMF Director Paul Diodati has "championed" opening the EEZ. I personally believe that Mr. Diodati has clearly demonstrated his ability to manage striped bass in Massachusetts. The great fishing we have recently enjoyed is due, in no small part, to the policies he has implemented in our state. His position on the EEZ is well reasoned and I trust his judgment.
I don't own a boat. However it makes sense to me that if the EEZ is opened and others do head out to fish it, then it will leave more fish at the shore for me. So in the end, as a surf fisherman, I will be taking advantage of an open EEZ!
Also, I think it is unproductive for you to use class-envy in your argument for keeping the EEZ closed. I am not a "Fat Cat" but I do go out on a couple of charters each year. Who are you to tell me, or anyone else, that we shouldn't be allowed to fish the EEZ based on our means? This is a very socialist argument and, as an American, it honestly nauseates me.
I have included some selected quotes from Mr. Diodati below. I added the bold formatting. The full text of his comments may be found at...
http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dmf/MarineFisheriesNotices/ASMFCComment102402.pdf
Mr. Diodati writes:
"Some advocates for a continued closure of the EEZ argue that the closure
provides an important conservation measure needed to protect larger and
older striped bass. I do not think striped bass stocks need such protection,
but if they did we should determine with more technical scrutiny where
effective conservation should be practiced. MRFSS length frequency
information and tagging data show striped bass that aggregate farther from
shore are composed of mixed stocks of many age groups. In fact, mixing of
stocks and age groups is greater offshore than from any nearshore area.
Offshore waters are also colder and more saline than nearshore waters, a
condition that is associated with the lowest discard mortality rates. Young,
sexually immature fish, often originating from a single stock compose the
bulk of schools that are targeted in shallow coastal waters, bays, and
rivers where water quality conditions create the highest discard mortality
rates. Accordingly, any effective conservation-based closure of fishing
areas should focus on nearshore waters and rivers; such areas typically are
also more easily monitored and enforced for regulatory violations."
"Advocates of a continued EEZ closure also appear to link this closure with
curtailment of commercial fishing activity. But in fact an opening of the
EEZ would be a conservation-neutral measure with regards to commercial
fisheries since they are already restricted by quotas. In the case of
Massachusetts, our commercial quotas have been fully harvested without legal
access to the EEZ. True benefactors of lifting the moratorium would be
recreational fishery participants, especially anglers that fish from hired
vessels because it typically requires captains that have extensive knowledge
and experience to successfully prosecute the offshore fishery."
3) I totally agree with you regard to charter/party boats. I too look at them as rented platforms for recreational fishermen. This just seems like common sense to me and anything else would be unfair. I don't look at striped bass as "toys". I and my family look at them as dinner.
4) You mention that striped bass aquaculture could "replace the wild harvest overnight". While this may be true as far as capacity is concerned, aren't we really talking apples and oranges here. From what I have read, there is no comparison between the taste of a wild striped bass and one that is farm raised. One restaurant owner wrote this on a fishing website...
Farm raised is usually sold by the case of 25 that average about 4# a piece. They're cheap and they taste like crap!!! I used to be a bigwig at a very posh restaurant at the Cape; we sold hybrid striper all year long for $27. an entree, until the customers finally stopped buying it because it's so bad!!!
In principle, I have no problem with replacing market striped bass caught in the wild with those that are farm raised if the taste is reasonably the same. However, non-fishing tourists who visit coastal states should have access to "real" stripers on their plate just as I do as a resident who happens to fish for them.
Mr. Burns, I am on the fence on whether or not to give my full support to Stripers Forever. Protecting striped bass is a laudable goal but I just need to know exactly what it will mean to me as a recreational fisherman who likes to catch and eat them! I look foreword to your response.
================================================== ================================================== =========
-----Original Message-----
From: Bradford E. Burns [mailto:bigbass@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:25 PM
Subject: FW: Amendment 6
Stripers Forever – since you may see some of this in On the Water I am forwarding to you a thread that contains questions and answers for a story in On the Water. I was approached individually by Catherine Cramer to answer these questions. I’ve answered them personally, though, I tried to anticipate based on our CASE how Stripers Forever might have formally responded.
For the record, I don’t think it has been determined yet just how much SF will actually have to say about anything. My own personal vision is that just as we did on Amendment #6 – a rush job that I’m still proud of – SF will coordinate, encourage, and organize, but not speak often as an entity. SF has a fairly simple message, with a philosophy that I feel goes right to the roots of the personal freedoms that America is founded upon. We want to let the people speak, and we hope to have many thousands of them speaking. In the background SF will try to organize this movement to accomplish its goal.
Anyway, that said, anyone who doesn’t know me will definitely have a better idea of what I personally believe after reading this thread. Brad Burn
P.S. Go right to the end and come back up the page.
-----Original Message-----
From: Catherine Cramer [mailto:cramer@cape.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:46 PM
To: Bradford E. Burns
Subject: Re: Amendment 6
Mr. Burns: Thank you for the effort you put into your reply. This is a complicated, difficult situation, which requires thought to work through. And it's important to get people thinking, no matter what their position.
Thanks again.
Catherine Cramer
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradford E. Burns
To: Catherine Cramer
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: RE: Amendment 6
Catherine – okay, here goes.
1. Theoretically the EEZ is just like anywhere else, but in reality it’s closure has served as something of a sanctuary for striped bass that are subjected to a great deal of pressure throughout their inshore range. Also, landings in the EEZ will be tough to police, and may facilitate situations that “get around” the gamefish provisions in states that have laws protecting striped bass from commercial fishing. Since we are already harvesting striped bass at the maximum rate – and then some – why open more areas? Additionally, I would add, it is the shore-based, or near shore fishermen that have historically targeted school sized stripers that have been left out of the striper’s recovery. And these anglers make ;up the vast majority of the fishing public. They, not the fat cats who can afford offshore boats, should be accommodated first.
Paul Diodati, against the will of the vast majority of the Massachusetts fishing public has championed opening the EEZ. In fact were it not for his tireless championing of reopening the EEZ there would be no movement to do it. Why? For the same reason that I refer to in the previous sentence. He, and his department think it perfectly reasonable policy to manage striped bass for the benefit of a comparative handful of rod and reel commercials, and the devil with the 99% of striped bass fishermen who hardly know where the EEZ is.
2. Striped bass aquaculture already provides more pounds of striped bass than the entire commercial fishery coast wide including Chesapeake Bay. Production has risen steadily despite the seasonal glut of comparatively cheap fish provided by commercial fishing. If commercial striper fishing were to be stopped the farmed striper market would replace the wild harvest overnight. Just look at what Atlantic salmon farming has done for the fresh fish market. Every night America eats enough farmed salmon to deplete the entire wild population of North America. Clearly the future is in farm-raised fish. Oddly enough, continued commercial fishing for striped bass deprives, not provides consumers of striped bass to eat. And striped bass are grown in landlocked earthen ponds, so the pollution issues of coastal pen farms are not present in this industry. Wild stripers are known to suffer from micro bacteria problems, PCB contamination and other health threats. Because of regulations on aquaculture, these problems are not present in farm raised fish.
3. A charter boat is a platform on the water to take members of the public fishing. The sports aboard these boats should have no more or less rights – including size and bag limits – then folks fishing form shore or their own boats. Charter skippers should not be allowed to keep striped bass to sell, no one should.
4. A friend of mine was in the car when Paul Diodati’s predecessor Phil Coates stated that it was the economic argument for striped bass gamefish more than any other that left him cold. Frankly I understand that reasoning. Our wild resources should not be for sale to the highest bidder any more than the rest of our rights in a free society. To me this is also the essence of the gamefish argument. Currently Massachusetts stops most anglers from keeping any of the striped bass that they catch so that they can reserve a fat quota for commercial fishermen. This is a privatization of public property, and is a terrible social policy.
This all said, economics are very much on the side of recreational fishing for striped bass. The economics of recreational fishing are always given lip service, but in reality are totally disregarded by Massachusetts fisheries managers. This is because the commercial fishing industry has had such historical control of the state’s fisheries managers that those who would question the industry’s sovereignty never get near one of the top management jobs. It’s just momentum, the same thing that perpetuated market gunning, slavery, and delayed giving women the right to vote. It has to change.
5. The striped bass should be a gamefish all along the Atlantic coast. This does not mean that the fish should be a toy for rich folks. Nor does it mean that members of the public should take them home by the cooler full. Were it not for the large amount of fish taken commercially from both legal and illegal practices, the public could have some kind of modest bag limit that would allow someone other than highliners and charter boat fares to keep an occasional fish for the table, and at the same time the number of large, old fish would recover to more natural levels. Anglers throughout the fish’s range would then enjoy much better fishing, and therefore add to the quality of their lives. It may take years to accomplish, but it is the right way to go.
Catherine, as Bill knows I have been making these arguments for some time. They are what I believe, and I have never profited in any way from these positions – quite the contrary. I am one of the founders of Stripers Forever, and internet-based advocacy movement to end commercial fishing for wild striped bass. Brad Burns
From: Catherine Cramer [mailto:cramer@cape.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:45 AM
To: Bradford E. Burns
Subject: Re: Amendment 6
Mr. Burns: Thank you for your prompt and articulate reply. If you have time, could you please comment on these topics, as they relate to the approval of Amendment 6:
1.the opening of the EEZ
2.encouraging the development of striper ``farms''
3.the role of the charterboat
4.why the economic value of recreational fishing for striped bass, particularly in Massachusetts, is not more of a determining factor
5. the future of gamefish status for striped bass
Also, please tell me how you would like to be identified - officially as the president or founder of an organization, or simply as a recreational fisherman, etc.
Thanks again
Catherine Cramer
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradford E. Burns
To: Catherine Cramer
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:37 PM
Subject: RE: Amendment 6
Catherine – Amendment #6 is a great disappointment to me. But it was predictable. On virtually every decision made in the last 10 years regarding recreational versus commercial allocations of all species, the fishing public has gotten the short end of the stick. The fisheries managers are largely folks who have received their commissions with the approval of the commercial fishing industry, and pleasing them is their highest priority. This is especially evident and important with striped bass because it is the most important recreational saltwater species on the east coast.
You don’t have enough space to print all of my disagreements with the ASMFC striped bass philosophy. Here, though, are a few of my main gripes. The estimate of the overall recreational catch that is based on the MRFS data and the 8% hook and release mortality is highly inaccurate, and in serious conflict with more recent catch-and- release studies. The split reference point between the producer areas and coast is totally unfair and just designed to accommodate commercial interests from each jurisdiction at the expense of over 2,000,000 coastal recreational fishers - few of whom ever catch a striper that they can take home and eat. The concentration of fishing pressure that the high minimum sizes places on large stripers is depleting the number of older striped bass in the population; this hurts the quality of the fishery and is dangerous to the spawning population. The ASMFC makes no estimate at all of the known large, illegal, commercial catch which in my mind is a big problem.
Some of the recreational advocacy groups tried to argue against the absolutely obscene 42% commercial increase, but for a number of reasons – especially the undeniable commercial bias of the ASMFC managers – their arguments for a lower mortality rate fell on deaf ears. I believe, though, that just asking for a lower mortality rate won’t solve anything. Until the recreational community establishes the rights of private citizens to a personal share of our public fisheries resources this unfair treatment will continue. When it comes to striped bass the only answer is the complete elimination of all commercial striped bass fishing.
Brad Burns
-----Original Message-----
From: Catherine Cramer [mailto:cramer@cape.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 1:42 PM
To: bigbass@maine.rr.com
Subject: Amendment 6
Mr. Burns:
I am writing a column for On The Water magazine concerning Amendment 6 to the Striped Bass Management Plan. I am trying to collect a range of opinion on the recent approval of Amendment 6, and would appreciate hearing from you.
Thank you for your time.
Catherine Cramer