Stripers being overfished??

[finatic]

One of the most important things to surface during the
last few National Marine Fisheries Service hearings on the proposal to
reopen the EEZ was some new information from the ASMFC technical
committee. This is the committee of fisheries scientists from various
states that comes up with the science used to evaluate the striped bass
population. One of the pdf files attached to this message (see attachment
revised fish mortal above) shows the fishing mortality rate ( F )
calculated by these scientists, and the other file shows the estimated
size of the spawning stock biomass - the total weight of all living,
sexually mature, female striped bass.

There are two sets of these files, the ones that some fishery managers
thumped their chests and congratulated themselves on as they rushed to
increase the coastal commercial catch by 42% earlier this year, and the
new ones labeled update in the upper left corner. You will notice that in
earlier estimates the mortality rates were creeping up, but were still
below the target level of .30 and well below the overfishing threshold of
.41. The updated calculations now show that we have been fishing well in
excess of the target every year since 1997, and in fact are very near the
overfishing level! The spawning stock biomass is not rising, as
previously thought, but is falling, and is some 20% lower than had been
estimated as recently as this past spring. This is very disturbing news
for the future of our striped bass fishery.

We're not saying that the ASMFC is made up of incompetent or crooked
individuals; we do not feel that way. But the ASMFC has constantly
knuckled under to commercial interests who simply want bigger quotas to
give them more fish to sell. Too little consideration has been given to
the fact that 3,000,000 Americans fish for stripers, and that a higher
quality recreational fishery would have far greater social and economic
value than the current allocation. All fishery stock assessment work is
unavoidably inexact, and invariably the estimates are high, not low.
Recreational anglers know how easily overharvest can knock down a
resource, and have consistently argued for lower fishing levels.
Instead, the envelope has been pushed too far, and now the quality of this
incredibly important public fishery, and all that it means to so many
people, is threatened. This is why we must remove the commercial
fisherman's influence from striped bass management and make the wild
striped bass a gamefish.

Go to www.stripersforever.org to see the stock assessment info from the ASMFC

[Bob Parsons]

Hrmmmm 42% for commercials... Now in massachusetts we went from 1 fish to 2 fish we can keep. Let me do the math. Ahhh recs got a 50% increase.

More math......... 92% increase in fish mortality.

(Please I'm just playing with the numbers, I know the math is not real but it shows how numbers can be manipulated to skew the results)

Keep the quota tight for the comm.
Go back to 1 fish and increase the size for the recs.
Disallow fishing with high bycatch mortality.

[Ray]

Bob,

As an individual, I agree with you.
Fighting with the comm side of the equation is very frustrating. If a public meeting was attended by 100 rec folks saying no increase or something like that, and 1 comm guy gets up and says don't take away my livelihood, the comm guy wins.

I also have a bitter taste in my mouth from deaing with politically appointed idiots. They don't give a damn about marine conservation. They just want to keep their cushy jobs. To the guy on top making the decision, it's not a striped bass, it's just another fish.

Please excuse my ranting, but it does get under my skin.

[CMP]

LOL-you <name calling not allowed - mcahill> people are always whining about mortality when the numbers clearly show that recreationally 3-5 times as many fish are taken than commercially. Nice work ignoring that little tidbit...

CMP

[Ray]

whats a "gripers forever people"? If I want to be in a group, I'll put myself there.

The numbers are not ignored. My issue is too many people worked way too hard for way too long to allow the precious fishery recover. Now there is a big push to trash it again. That's from both sides.

Maybe we should just kill em, then everyone would be happy, right?

[CMP]

<I have removed this post. While disagreeing on the issues is allowed, name calling isn't...stick to the topic at hand or the thread will get closed and probably removed. - mcahill>

[Bob Parsons]

the fact of recreational kill rates
See my math dealing with reality 50% for the recs as an increase. Shudder to thing what the total % of 3mil recs is.

[Ray]

Well that didn't take too long for everyone to get fired up.

I think it's a new record. Only 7 posts. Good work guys, but we can do better :)

I think the enthusiasm / frustration written by many of us, including myself, is a reflection of just how important the issue of fisheries management is. Yes there are several positions, issues, and methods that we can debate. And, like any issue and random group of people, we can debate it forever. Let's just not loose focus.

20 years from now I want to have the same fishing success, variety, access, and enjoyment I get today. For everyone.

[ruge13]

I got this from the Stripors forever Web site in the FAQ..

"The fishing public, even restrained by very modest bag limits and moderately high minimum sizes, could easily harvest all that a well managed wild striper population can provide without any help from commercial fishermen. Making the striped bass a gamefish will simply mean that those who wish to catch their own will be given priority over those who want to buy their own at market."

If this is that case, why not attack the rec guys to? MA has a 2 fish limit now (which is garbage). Sustainable harvest is the issue, not who harvests....am I wrong?

Why not spend some energy fighting with the politicians that make these decisions like Ray said, not the small number of guys who actually commercially fish?

Anyone - What does that last sentence mean? I didn't understand it. Priority?

[kwakr]

Anyone - What does that last sentence mean? I didn't understand it. Priority?

Priority (1) : superiority in rank, position, or privilege (2) : legal precedence in exercise of rights over the same subject matter

Doesn't seem like too hard a concept.

[flatts1]

Kwakr wrote with regard to 'priority':
"Doesn't seem like too hard a concept."

Absolutely, it is not too hard a concept so I think we can all agree we recreational anglers are truely given "priority" for the striped bass resource [see CMP's first response]. If anyone disagrees then don't waste your time reading any further because this is fundamental concept. Arguing against this fact will only indicate to others that you are not intersted in an open minded discussion on the matter.

Bob Parsons wrote:
"(Please I'm just playing with the numbers, I know the math is not real but it shows how numbers can be manipulated to skew the results)"

I'm not sure what your point here is but it may surprise you to learn that doubling the recreational bag limit (from 1 fish to 2) results in only about a 7% increase in total recreational mortality - not 50%. I'll post a follow up article that describes how this works.

Now, before anyone starts thinking of jumping out a window due to fear of an impending striped bass stock collapse, please read the following. It is an excerpt of Amendment 6 which governs the managment of striped bass.

This is the real deal folks and it's not spin from an activist organization. The full text may be found at...

http://www.asmfc.org/strippedBass.htm



Upon reaching any (or all) of these triggers, the Management Board is required to alter the management program to ensure the objectives of Amendment 6 are achieved.

Management Triggers:

1) If the Management Board determines that the fishing mortality threshold is exceeded in any year, the Board must adjust the striped bass management program to reduce the fishing mortality rate to a level that is at or below the target within one year.

2) If the Management Board determines that the biomass has fallen below the threshold in any given year, the Board must adjust the striped bass management program to rebuild the biomass to the target level within the timeframe established in Section 2.6.2.

3) If the Management Board determines that the fishing mortality target is exceeded in two consecutive years and the female spawning stock biomass falls below the target within either of those years, the Management Board must adjust the striped bass management program to reduce the fishing mortality rate to a level that is at or below the target within one year.

4) If the Management Board determines that the female spawning stock biomass falls below the target for two consecutive years and the fishing mortality rate exceeds the target in either of those years, the Management Board must adjust the striped bass management program to rebuild the biomass to a level that is at or above the target within the timeframe established in Section 2.6.2.

5) The Management Board shall annually examine trends in all required Juvenile Abundance Index surveys. If any JAI shows recruitment failure (i.e., JAI is lower than 75% of all other values in the dataset) for three consecutive years, then the Management Board will review the cause of the recruitment failure (e.g. fishing mortality, environmental conditions, disease etc.) and determine the appropriate management action. The Management Board shall be the final arbiter in all management decisions.


That said, I wouldn't be surprised if regs are proactively (and voluntarily) adjusted by managers to some extent in order to accomodate the new data (note thresholds have been approached but not exceeded). Furthermore, I'm confident that these adjustments will be based on prudent science and not on the advice of groups that seek to perpetuate an agenda based on doom and gloom.

If Mr. Burns is as involved in striped bass issues as his followers give him credit for, then you can be sure that he is aware of the above management triggers set forth in Amendment 6. Do you think that Mr. Burns ever thought to pass along this information to his membership. Of course not, because to do so would be to truely inform them - and that's not his "goal".


Finatic, Kwakr, et al, as Stripers Forever members, does it concern you that folks like yourself who do all the work to support SF's positions in web forums are left to writher in the wind while well informed, open minded folks, poke holes in all of your arguments. If the Stripers Forever "leadership" had a leg to stand on they would step in and defend their position as put forth by their members. However, since their campaign is based almost entirely on misinformation, they simply can't defend it - but they won't tell that to their membership - you. In fact, as you know, SF recently sent out a message to their distribution list soliciting other members to defend their positions for them. Here are some excerpts from that message that you probably already have seen...

SF wrote:
We need some help from our members this winter in spreading the word about SF and its single goal of gaining game fish stature for striped bass. Specifically, we need some volunteers to post our information to the various chat rooms and to defend our mission against the inevitable attacks that will be made.

...

If you like the forum environment and you want the opportunity to make a valuable contribution to our cause, please email our website to the attention of George and we can discuss how we can begin.


Folks, before you send any money to this organization, ask yourself what does this group really do besides run a web site and send out misleading emails. If they can't defend their own positions then why (or how) should you.

Later,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

P.S.
I just wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who run this board for allowing me (and others) to inform folks with information that I hope they will find useful. Thanks!

[flatts1]

The following letter was submitted to On The Water magazine. It was printed in the July, 2003 issue (page 6). It describes how doubling the recreational quota results in an increase of 7% recreational fishing mortality - not 50%

To the Editor:

I attended the Striped Bass hearing in Braintree on April 17th where the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries discussed several different Striped Bass management options with fishing groups and individuals. It was no surprise to me that the regs ended up as they did (2 @ 28") considering the support expressed by 3 of the 4 fishing orgs there to represent their members.

* Plum Island Surfcasters (2 @ 28")
* Marblehead Surfcasters (2 @ 28")
* Cape Cod Salties (2 @ 28")
* Massachusetts Striped Bass Association (1 @ 28" plus 1 over 40")

While I wasn't surprised at the new regs, I was very surprised at the reactions found on nearly every fishing website I visited after the announcement was made. There was hardly a positive remark to be read and by some of the comments posted you would think that these new regs would result in the collapse of Striped Bass stocks before this season ends.

Now, people are certainly entitled to their opinion and that is part of what makes this country so great. However, what good is an opinion if the person expressing it is uninformed or misinformed? More importantly, what good are good ideas if they never leave an Internet message board? I say this because the vast majority of the folks posting knee-jerk, doom and gloom posts on the various fishing websites never even attended the public hearing in Braintree. This particular hearing was devoted entirely to discussing Striped Bass issues "one on one" with those who actually make these key decisions.

If the same folks who felt so obligated to speak out against the new regs had attended the public hearing, then it would probably surprise them to learn that going from 1 fish at 28 inches to 2 fish at 28 inches does not equate to a 100% increase in recreational harvest. In fact, the best available science indicates that recreational harvest will increase by only 21% under the new regs. Why? Because not everyone will catch a second keeper bass and not everyone who does will take it home.

Now personally, I opted for the position that MSBA took (above) which would have resulted in less than a 6% increase in recreational harvest. However the important thing to take from this whole message is that IT'S ALL GOOD FOLKS!! Why? Because either way we are still fishing at or below a target mortality rate of F .30 because that is what Amendment 6 mandates us to do. Does anyone care to guess what the target mortality rate was last year? It was F .31. So even given the new regs, the current fishery is still essentially status quo.

So how is it that we are now able to take more stripers and still fish at effectively the same mortality rate? The reason is that there are so many more fish available now than there were even just a year ago. DMF Director, Paul Diodati, summed it up well at the hearing when he said, "We're well beyond any historical level of abundance that we've ever measured."

The bottom line is that while anglers may be taking more fish in "real numbers", the target mortality rate will remain effectively the same (F.30). This is the rate that has proven so successful in the recovery of Striped Bass thus far and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries should be applauded for their fantastic job to date.

By now I'm sure that there are still some die-hard pessimists out there that would still argue that a 21% in recreational harvest is still too high. After all, that's over a fifth more dead fish than last year right? Well actually it's not. What would you say if I told you that the new regs would actually result in less than a 7% increase in dead stripers? It's true! This is because stock assessments are based on the number of dead fish without consideration of how they die. That said, it is important to understand that "total mortality" is calculated by adding harvest mortality AND discard mortality. Since most mortality actually occurs from discards, it has a powerful impact when fish are removed from that category. I double-checked with the DMF and they explained it to me this way...

6,000,000 (# of fish released) * .08 (proportion that will die from injuries/handling) = 480,000 dead discard
250,000 (harvest) + 480,000 (dead discard) = 730,000 total dead fish


With 21% increase in Harvest
5,947500 (# fish released; 52,500 have been moved into harvest) * .08 = 475,800 dead discard
302,500 (harvest with 21% increase) + 475,800 (dead discard) = 778,300 (7% increase) total dead fish

When the DMF can justify their decisions based on well-researched science like this, not only is it responsible but also it is reasonable.

Now getting back to the premise of this message, which is how you can actually have an impact on fishing issues. Let's say that you are one of the folks posting on the many fishing websites who claim that the new regs are somehow "insane", "dumb", "greedy", "irresponsible", etc. I hope that my comments here have helped to show you the new regs in a more positive light. However, if you still disagree with the way your fishery is being managed, then the only way you can have any real impact at all when it comes to changing these fishing regs is to (1) get informed, and (2) get involved by attending these fishery management hearings. The cool thing is that you can actually do both at the same time. I personally have learned more by attending these meetings than I have from any discussion on any web site. Also, aside from a great learning experience, you will also get to hear some truly passionate testimony from those really "in-the-know" on the matter like Patrick Paquette, Charley Soares, and Ed Nowak. I consider these folks to be among some of the best orators in Massachusetts' fisheries management and when they speak at these hearings - you should listen.

Mike Flaherty
BassPond.Com
mikef@basspond.com

[kwakr]

Hrmmmm 42% for commercials... Now in massachusetts we went from 1 fish to 2 fish we can keep. Let me do the math. Ahhh recs got a 50% increase.
C'mon Bob, You're better than that. From 1 to 2 is 100%

Where did the pressure for the second fish come from in Massachusetts? From what I hear, there was no big recreational push for that increase. When Amendment 6 was approved, giving the aforementioned 42% increase to the coastal commercial folks, states that were not already at 2 fish quickly went there (excluding Maine, which kept its one slot fish or one trophy fish limit.) In Massachusetts, DMR went to 2 fish almost on its own. Many think that the increase was to quiet the critics of the commercial fishery. I remember that CCA argued for a lower F. number and no increase in the recreational bag limit. Also I believe that at least 2 of the 3 clubs that pushed for an increase have commerical pin hookers as active and influential members

According to Mass DMR's own newsletters, nearly 800,000 people participated in recreational marine fishing in Massachusetts. [DMR Q1 2002]. That same issue proclaimed that the Mass recreational fishery was #1 in the northeast and #3 on the east coast in terms of marine angler expenditures, spending “upwards of 1 billion dollars annually in the Bay State."

Contrast that with 1084 commercial striped bass permit holders who reported selling one or more fish in 2002.The landings that year in Mass came to 924,870 lbs (vs. a quota of 802,000- nice job there). At 2 bucks a pound that makes the value to those fishermen around $ 2 million. This past year the harvest came to just under 1.1 million pounds. Go crazy and say they got $3 per lb. and you're looking at $3.3 million. We hear however, that prices were far lower than that due to the fact that the entire quota was caught in 36 days and the markets were glutted. But to be fair, the 1200 or so commercial guys and gals who reported catching and selling fish (and it is the selling part that makes them "commercial" fishermen) did spend some dough for boats, motors, gas, grinders etc.) So if the 1200 pin hookers spent the same average $1250 that Mass DMR says the recreationals spent, that adds another $1.5 million to the value of the bass commercial value. So maybe we're pushing $5 million.
For that we're allowing a handful of guys to remove around 65,000 prime breeding bass from the spawning biomass?
There is something seriously wrong with that picture.

We should eliminate the commercial fishery, return to a one fish limit (or adopt the Maine slot/trophy standard) and continue to allow the ASMFC to manage the fishery, but as recreational only.

As I was slowly pecking out this message, my old friend Flatts was posting yet another voluminous document on the board. He and I have agreed to disagree, but I guess he hasn't been keeping up on fishing mortality numbers lately . The new charts being circulated by National Marine Fisheries show that now the number is F=.35 and that F has been over .30 every year since 1997. The revised 2002 figure looks like F=.39, which I believe was the threshold under the then in force Amendment 5. This means that stripers were being overfished at the very time Amendment 6 was being discussed and eventually approved. But what the hey. "Its all good" in his opinion.

[kwakr]

This is the real deal folks and it's not spin from an activist organization. The full text may be found at...
http://www.asmfc.org/strippedBass.htm

On second thought, if the ASFMC can't spell the name of the fish, how the hell can they manage it?

[Ray]

It's no secret that the quotas are exceeded every season. 42% over what? Maybe it's really a 60% increase. To answer a previous question. Yes CCA wanted status quo on Striper regs in Mass.

There has been some talk in various circles of stretching out the comm season. One way would be to have monthly quotas. The idea here is to prevent market saturation and, hopefully, increase the amount of $$ comm folks can get for there hard earned catch. Instead of reaching the quota in 40 days (most of it is recording in the first few days), have it go over say 3 months. My own thought here is that you are not taking away fish, and possibly increasing the market price paid to comm folks.

Just one of many ideas, good and bad, people have about fisheries management.

Any other suggestions? Can't hurt to explore the issue!

Maybe someday someone may say there are just too many damn fish around. I really don't see that happening anytime soon. Seeing the global demand for all types of fish is increasing dramatically, we will need to sustain the fisheries for generations.

[Bob Parsons]

I noticed that the percent of kept fish was done in April which means it is a prediction based on some assumptions. I wonder if they had any hard data at the end of the season. This was a strange season and from the reports I made and read, it seemed like more keepers were being caught with eventually led to more "one for the grill" since it was a bleeder or overfought and could not be reviewed.

[Ray]

Bob,

My observations from last year is that there are more bigger fish out there this year than in the past several years. For the record, I'm one data point. If we start taking more mature fish today, that's fewer to spawn in the future, or even this year!!

Ray

[Mark Cahill]

That's a little drastic, when you consider that most of the guys that fished striped bass before the crash were technically commercials. Virtually everyone sold fish then. And many of these guys have been doing it for a long time.

I have said it before. We would do well to remember that the emblem over our state house is a cod, which is representative of the importance that commercial fishing has held in this state, even if it does not hold the same importance now.

It's easy to say that we should arbitrarilly outlaw something. But when you realize that you are talking about peoples livelyhoods, it becomes a whole different matter. If you really wanted to get rid of commercial fishing for Stripers, it'd be fairer to grandfather everyone that holds a commericial license now, and stop issuing new ones. But even that would create more issues. Many commercial fishermen have been doing this a long time, and many are second and third generation.

This is more than just a fish issue, it is also a people issue.

[kwakr]

Mark
That's very democratic and politically correct, but the reality is that very, very few of the 5000 some Mass permit holders sold enough fish to even justify the use of the word livelihood. And I assume you are talking about Massachusetts anglers here. But even if you are referring to commercial fishermen coast wide, they are still tiny in numbers relative to the 3 million or so recreational fisherfolk who like to fish for stripers.
Times change. We no longer have commercial hunters of ducks and geese, or deer, elk or buffalo. Where they exist in the wild today, they belong to all of us, not to a favored few who harvest a public resource for their own gain.
Commercial fishing has nearly wiped out some species over the years because they just became too efficient and because those slimy little creatures insist on staying, for the most part, out of sight where no one can count them.
Cod and other deep dwelling groundfish are not like striped bass. There are recreational anglers who target them but not in the numbers that enthusiastically pursue the striper. You can't catch a codfish off a beach or a jetty. (there was a time that you could, but not lately). Even though many of us love cod, haddock and flounder, no one is suggesting that commercial fishing for those species be ended. We just want the harvest to be reasonable and we all want the fish populations to be sustainable, but I haven't heard of any Codfish Forevers springing up and I don't expect to.
I agree that grandfathering existing license holders would probably not work.
How about a buyout of commercial bass fishing permits using some equitable formula?

[ruge13]

Originally posted by kwakr
Priority (1) : superiority in rank, position, or privilege (2) : legal precedence in exercise of rights over the same subject matter

Doesn't seem like too hard a concept.

Kwakr - I agree, the word priority is not a dificult concept. However, when taking in context to mean a shift in influence from comercial to recreational it doesn't make any sense, at least not to me.

This is why I do not support an organization that atacks one particular side when that side is not the most important issue from a natural resources perspective in my opinion. Facts can be manipulated to demonstrate overfishing. That was Bob's point. Any statistics guru will tell you that. The issue is sustainable harvest.

Eliminating the comercial industry is not the only solution and I think may be a hasty decision, as Mark stated, drastic. There are other factors at work. Organizations like CCA make an effort to recognize those factors.

Reducing harvesting techniques does not a sustainable harvest make. Especially when the powers that be in Ma increase the recreational take, efectively negating the impact of eliminating the com guys.

You want to create a healthy sustainable harvest? Spend more time targeting polution in Delmarva.
Spend more energy reducing the recreational take.
Spend more energy trying to regulate food sources that are being raped like the bunker industry? They still use spotter planes, if com striper guys coukld use spotter planes, then I would say you have something to atack. How bout the herring guys?

I am not saying One organization is better than the other but I think the "priorities" need to be reorganized and atacking the com industry in my opinion solves nothing.

I also understand that battles need to be chozen and Stripers forever has chosen their battle, I am just not sure its was the right one for me to support. Until that changes, my money goes to CCA.

What good is a growing population of stripers when they are not healthy, disease ridden, and starving? Even when they do make it to an older age what is going to sustain a harvest? Crabs? Who cares if I catch a few more 20lber's a year when those fish I caught in MA are so skinny and starved they can't make it back to the OBX because natural food sources are overfished?

P.S. All personal opinion

[kwakr]

Shaun
No argument from me on most every point you make. We are often criticized for not jumping into the pollution mess, or the menhaden fiasco, or the pillaging of herring stocks. Those are all valid and troublesome issues, and CCA and other worthy organizations are right in taking them on. And we're glad they are taking them on.
But we believe striped bass should be a gamefish and we believe that the millions of fishermen that seek them should not have to compete with pin hookers, gillnetters and trawlers. The fish is worth a hell of a lot more than the lousy two or three bucks a pound it brings. When you fight battles on multiple fronts, you have a tendancy to win none of them. And as you said, we've chosen our battle and we think we made the right choice.

[kwakr]

Post edited by Bob Parsons since it was a personal attack.

[CMP]

Ray, your point is a good one and well taken, the problem is that the organization that I labelled as fraudulent is not interested in that. They are interested in taking 100% of the quota on a healthy fishery without any scientific back-up. They want the fish because they want them-similar to the "logic" used by a 5 year old. There is a good argument that can be made for monthly quotas and it should be debated. I doubt, however, that prices would stay higher because of it. The fish we catch are sent far and wide and the relatively small (in terms of the fish biz), tonnage that is moved doesn't really glut the market. I, for one, would like to see it tried, more from curiosity than anything else.

Now Mark, I take umbrage with your charaterization of the label with which I tagged that organization as "name-calling". How can I be labelled as such when the organization in question is based on a fraudulent premise to begin with? The entire underpinning of its gamefish argument is completely and utterly repudiated by every piece of sciene that currently exists regarding the health and size of the striped bass stock biomass. That said, how can anything they say be labelled in any other manner but fraudulent? When the basement of a building is compromised, the building is condemned. Stripers forever's (if it is the gripers forever label to which you object, I'll drop it under protest ;) ) basment is not compromised, it's made of soft sand and deserves universal condemnation. Their stance is simply a quota grab and in the fish biz, without scientific back-up, quota grabs won;t work any more-people have learned...

CMP

PS, kwak (how very appropriate a name given your stance on this one :p ), that old level playing field argument is specious. Recs fish for their own consumption while comms fish to bring it to market for others. To try anda equate the two is disingenuous at best and despite that fact, you do it anyway. Your organization's stance now is that if you can't get to the ocean to catch yer own, tough luck and the heck with you??? LOL-you sure are a fine spokesman for "everyman". Wow, could they be any more elitist???

[flatts1]

Sean,

I think that you pretty much nailed it with this paragraph.

ruge13 wrote:
You want to create a healthy sustainable harvest? Spend more time targeting polution in Delmarva.
Spend more energy reducing the recreational take.
Spend more energy trying to regulate food sources that are being raped like the bunker industry? They still use spotter planes, if com striper guys coukld use spotter planes, then I would say you have something to atack. How bout the herring guys?

These are the real problems that face this fishery.

However, I need some clarification on the following statement.

I also understand that battles need to be chozen and Stripers forever has chosen their battle, I am just not sure its was the right one for me to support. Until that changes, my money goes to CCA.

Both Stripers Forever and CCA are calling for gamefish status of striped bass and maintaining the EEZ closure. So the question begs to be asked, is there any real difference between these two groups? In fact I heard that that Brad Burns spoke on behalf CCA at the Maine EEZ hearing while a fellow named George (George Watson I presume) spoke on behalf of SF.

http://www.joincca.org/press/2003/gamefish.htm

I was once told that the Stripers Forever folks were simply some CCA members who felt that CCA wasn't extreme enough for them so they (all 4 of them) formed their own group. Does anyone know if this is true? If so then I presume that in addition to gamefish status and maintaining the EEZ closure, SF's "sole goal" might also include supporting a recreational fishing license and a closed recreational season for striped bass which are both issues that CCA has also advocated for.

Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

[Ray]

CCA National is calling for gamefish status for Striped Bass. CCA Mass members are in partial agreement with this position. Not everyone wants it.

Let's say that Stripers are awarded GF status all up an down the east coast. And the baitfish and other food sources were destroyed. Do you think the Stripers would stick around? If you go home tonight and there is nothing to eat do you just sit around and hope something shows up?

Look at the big picture and the details.
Take a wider look at the CCA National website, not just one issue. I am not attaching this link as membership drive.

CCA National Website (http://www.joincca.org/)

[Ray]

[i]If so then I presume that in addition to gamefish status and maintaining the EEZ closure, SF's "sole goal" might also include supporting a recreational fishing license and a closed recreational season for striped bass which are both issues that CCA has also advocated for[/B]

Mike, I don't know where you are getting your info, but the above comment regarding CCA is simply not true. As the moderator of this forum, I would prefer you continue your informative posts without bashing other organizations.

[ruge13]

I did not realize that CCA was in support. All the literature I have read published by CCA, (with the exception of this link) has been "on the fense" for lack of a better term. Highlighting positive conclusions with both stances on the GF issue. Supportng what Ray said about CCA MA, Some people do and some people don't.

I could not care less if CCA national is in favor of this or not, the fact remains that they focus on issues I believe are most important, and from what I read, they spend more energy on issues that are important to me. Like Ray said, you could have all the bass in the world but if they have nothing to eat, you have done nothing but hurt the population.

No sustainable harvest because of other influences. Comercial guys might agree with that no? CMP?

Again all opinion.

[flatts1]

Ray wrote:
Mike, I don't know where you are getting your info, but the above comment regarding CCA is simply not true. As the moderator of this forum, I would prefer you continue your informative posts without bashing other organizations.

Ray, you are kidding right?

CCA can tell its membership (and web forums) want it wants and from the looks of things members like Sean have been out of the loop on the important issue of gamefish status for striped bass. What really matters though is what CCA says at public hearings when it says that it speaks for its many members.

Ray, as you know I was once a member of CCA and this past July I posted the content of a letter that I wrote to CCA on this board. The link to it was removed and the reason given was due to objectionable language. I disagreed at the time but I respected the fact that it was a matter of opinion. I have since posted the letter in article format and "tweaked" the objectionable word. It can be found at the following link...

http://www.basspond.com/articles/general/dearcca.shtml

As the moderator of this forum, I hope that you recognize the above article as offering useful information about CCA that its members are probably not aware of (especially the closed season). I also hope that you will not use your affiliation with CCA to not allow discussion on exactly where CCA stands because it is a matter of public record that CCA has supported a closed season for striped bass, and a saltwater fishing license. I call this usefull information. If you call it "bashing" then I don't know what to tell you.

It is my understanding that CCA-{whatever state} and CCA National are all the same organization. Correct? If this is true then state chapters simply can not dissassociate themselves from the national agenda when they feel that it is convenient. For example, how much of the $25 CCA membership fee stays in the Massachusetts chapter and how much is sent to support the national agenda - which includes gamefish status for striped bass?

Whether CCA-MA members want to support GF or not, they are. Just curious, Sean do you or any other CCA members ever recall having an opportunity to vote on whether or not to support the gamefish status of striped bass?

Later,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

[Coffee Chris]

I sympathize with the concerns of overfishing but the reality
is Bass are so prolific they're eating themselves out of house and home and actually expanding their historic range. At a TU
meeting this spring a state biologist spoke about Salmon restoration efforts in the Connecticut River and how the
explosion of Bass numbers among other factors have hampered not only Salmon but other important anadromous fish, in particular Herring. By the surveys conducted in the
river the estimated population of Stripers during the spring
shad/herring run was over 2 million Bass!!! In just one river
system. I'm actually more concerned about bait populations
and whether the expanding Striper mass can support itself
with the bait available. More needs to be done to protect
adult bunker and herring to keep this thing going. I hate to say
it but those of you who are complaining about a lack of fish
are just not good fisherman. This fall was one of my best seasons ever, with October alone producing over 50 Bass
between 30 and 45 inches. One of my mentors on the Cape
caught 4 Bass in October that exceeded 50 lbs the largest
topping out at 64 lbs, only one could not be revived and that
was the 53 that got so much press in the local reports. I do agree that there has to be more honesty from the commercial
guys, many of whom are making a lot of phantom harvests
that are not reported. But all in all things are the best I've
ever seen in terms of overall availibility of Bass.
Regards and tight lines !!

[Ray]

Chris,

Thanks for your informative post. Interesting news from the CT River. This past season on the Cape I noted the average size fish was up, and so was the number of those fish. Many more fish in the 36 - 45+ inch range are being caught from shore.

Ray

[ruge13]

I am not so sure its Ray thats missing the point. In no way is CCA misleading its members. I chose what I do an don't read. I typically choose not to read about GF status for Striped bass because I get tired of the same arguments that I do not believe are the most important issue. I agree to dissagree, if we didn't do that what else would we do all winter? You are right, by giving my $25 to CCA I am, by default, supporting GF status by that contribution on the national agenda. However, I am willing to do so because there are more important issues that CCA National or MA, focus. The rehabilitation of a baitfish stock is not an MA issue, it's a national issue, on the national CCA agenda. I support those efforts, granted I have no control over how CCA spends my dollars imediately. But if I got involved more heavily, like Ray, and voted for officials within CCA, then I would be able to influence how my money is spent.

I may not agree with everything our government does but I send them my tax dollars.

To answer your question, no I have never voted, and I don't expect to ever need to as long as they are still supporting issues I agree with.

I am done now. I suspect you are not, so have fun.

If you want to talk about how I/we could all participate in collecting viable data to support any of our assumption, i.e. tagging program, catch reporting, than I am all ears.

OR

You have heard my position. I have tried to filter through the endless copied information from different sites you have posted now and in the past, but I am curious, what is your position on GF status (please try to keep it short)?

[flatts1]

And now the rest of the story...

Here are a few slides that Stripers Forever forgot to mention. This is why it is important to actually attend the hearings. That way you will truely be informed.

I think this graph helps to illustrate which sector is given "priority" to the striped bass fishery.

[flatts1]

Compare this graph which represents total mortality for 2001 with the one for 2002 (next post) and you will find that mortality due to commercial fishing actually went down by 7%. Since we're all talking about the same pie, that means that mortality due to recreational fishing went up 7% last year.

[flatts1]

.

[flatts1]

Kwakr wrote:
The revised 2002 figure looks like F=.39, which I believe was the threshold under the then in force Amendment 5. This means that stripers were being overfished at the very time Amendment 6 was being discussed and eventually approved."

Kwakr, at which hearing did you see the F=.39 figure? According to the Bourn, MA hearing, it was F=.35 (see slide below)

While not as extreme as .39, .35 is still not good news. Then again, that's why it is called the best available science. It's not perfect. No one has a monopoly on wisdom. Who knows, maybe there will be an update to the update that says 2003 F really is .45 or .20. The point is that fisheries managers are doing the best with what they've got and if you talk to some of the more experienced fishermen, the striper fishing hasn't been better.

Later,
Mike

[David Churbuck]

Mike,
What are the sources of those graphs? Please attribute them to their source.

Now, please, for all of our sakes, we've been reading your impassioned posts for sometime now. But after all of your posting here, and after reading essentially the same posts at your own site and on other fishing sites, I have to admit one thing.

I have no clue what your agenda is.

Now, before you cut and paste the equivalent of War and Peace into the next post. Please try, in 25 words or less, to tell us what your beef is. Not what is wrong with CCA or Stripers Forever. But what is the Mike Flaherty view of the world.

25 words.

DC

[flatts1]

Slide Source is NOAA. They were the same ones used at the EEZ hearings. More information can be found at...

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/SlideShows/SBassScope-WEB_files/frame.htm

----

I can't describe my view of the world in 25 words (who could?). I actually have no agenda. I only seek information, fairness and freedom.

Merry Christmas,
Mike

[flatts1]

I'll also add that it appears to be same source that SF references. They just missed a few pages.

[David Churbuck]

No agenda? For a guy who freely slings terms like "fradulent" around to describe other agendas, and who devotes a lot of time to composing epic white papers on striper policy, you must like to exercise your fingers.

Cmon. 25 words. Here's a sample:

"I believe striped bass should be caught by anybody, anywhere, at anytime with no interference from the government."

"I support commercial striped bass fishing. I am opposed to gamefish status for stripers. Open the EEZ."

Cmon, it's easy. 25 words. And I don't care about Stripers Forever and CCA for now. Just you and what you stand for.

[kwakr]

Flatts wrote: Kwakr, at which hearing did you see the F=.39 figure? According to the Bourn, MA hearing, it was F=.35 (see slide below)
In response to: The revised 2002 figure looks like F=.39, which I believe was the threshold under the then in force Amendment 5. This means that stripers were being overfished at the very time Amendment 6 was being discussed and eventually approved."

The slides (which I hope are attached to this post) came from the NMFS scoping meeting handout from Anne Lange. You should have a copy from the meeting you attended. No one said the word F=.39. But that's what the graph labelled "update" sure looks like to me. How would you read it?

I admit to be technically challenged. I cannot make a copy of that #&^%#*&^ slide appear on this post. The source is the same given by the agendaless one.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/SlideShows/SBassScope-WEB_files/frame.htm
slide # 29.

[kwakr]

Mike
How did you get those slides from the NOAA site over to your post anyhow?

[CMP]

Dave, it was not Mike who labelled that organization as based on a fraudulent premise and, therefore by definition, fraudulent. It was me and I will stand by that statement 100%...

CMP :-%

[David Churbuck]

Indeed it was you Mark, and I believe that label was edited out of your post by a moderator. Please be careful when using terms like "fraud." They polarize what should be a reasoned discussion.

Apologies to Flatts1. Still anticipating a simple statement of his stance.

[CMP]

OK Dave, and there's nothing at all polarizing about an organization that refuses to back up the claims it makes and there is certainly nothing polarizing about taking money out of someone's pocket without any scientific rationale, which is the basis of fisheries management, right? Puh-leeze...

Merry Christmas indeed CMP

[David Churbuck]

Hey, take it up with the organization in question. Last I checked, they had their own website and can make their own arguments.

[CMP]

Dave,

Last time I checked, they made their false and polarizing statements on your site, and I refuted them thereon. I didn;t bring this issue here, they did, yet you singled me out, not them. If you want to stay on the sidelines re:fisheries issues, I can respect that fully. That said, when you try to stifle one side and not the other, yer no longer on the sidelines, but in the playing field. You asked me if it was a RT issue. Nope, it's not, but they brought it to you, not me-I'm merely refuting thier false claims with fact, as is Mike. If you don't want this here, fine with me, I'll abide by that, but I'd expect them to do so as well. One thing you and I will ABSOLUTELY agree on though is this-this issue doesn;t belong in a conservation/ecology portion of ANY site. Nope, you'd need an "ubsubstantiated quota-grab" section in which to place it. I'm done...

CMP

[David Churbuck]

Reel-Time has never taken a definitive stand -- as an organization -- on any fishery or conservation issues. I have my personal opinions, which I keep to myself, and have not inflicted them on Reel-Time as its own.

We believe our users can make up their own minds on issues such as the ones's discussed in this conservation forum. While many have asked us to mobilize Reel-Time's users in petition drives and other collective initiatives, we have always demurred in the interest of maintaining objectivity.

We have taken considerable heat, in the background, from users and organizations that feel we are squandering an opportunity to influence fishery policy. We have never felt that Reel-Time's mission should extend to participation in the setting of fishery policy. Our users are welcome to discuss and debate the issues, in civil tone, in this forum.

Our policy, in what is acceptable in this forum or any other is simply this:

"Be nice or be gone. Period. There are places on the Internet you can go to be a jerk. This is not one of them. "

And with that warning let me demonstrate the internet equivalent of not picking fights "with people who buy ink by the barrel" by locking this thread shut. Take it to PM.