Conn commmercial striper season

[catspaw]

Received this today- seems as bill has been sponsored to open a commercial striper season in Conn.


Stripers Forever Connecticut - here is a matter of the greatest importance for the future of striped bass. Representative Richard Roy of Milford, CT has introduced
HB #5506 which would overturn CT’s long-standing game fish law and make it legal to commercially fish for striped bass in CT! This would certainly be a blow that striped bass don’t need, and it would make it much more difficult to finally achieve the coast-wide game fish status for striped bass that Stripers Forever is working towards with its Massachusetts game fish bill.


We understand this bill has been introduced largely to reduce the number of striped bass in CT waters so that they will not eat all the lobsters. According to a 1999 study by the Univ. of Conn. the lobster population crashed from record high numbers – that coincided with record numbers of striped bass – because the waters of the Sound became too warm.


We urge all SF members to do their utmost to defeat this bill. Send Representative Roy both an e-mail, a postal letter, and make a phone call to his office today. His name in paragraph one above is a link that will provide complete contact information. Let him know that you live in CT, that this bill will be very harmful to the sport that you love and to the recreational industry in CT that depends on good striped bass fishing. Tell him that you want him to withdraw this legislation today.


Here are some talking points if you want to say or write more:
1. The striped bass are already under too much pressure. Fishing quality is already substantially worse than it was 5 or especially 10 years ago. This is reducing fishing participation and harming the guiding and tackle industry.
2. Commercial fishing has been shown to create an illegal market in addition to the legal one that puts far more pressure on the resource than planned.
3. The State of Connecticut has no commercial quota for striped bass and any such quota would have to therefore come by reducing the current recreational season and/or bag limits which are already very restrictive by historical standards. In 2003 CT had 473,000 marine anglers, 212,000 of whom primarily targeted striped bass. This legislation would be unfair to them since it would give a very few people a disproportionate share of a scarce public resource.
4. Professionally produced socio-economic studies have shown that recreational use of this resource is many times more valuable than commercial sale in terms of economic activity, taxes generated, and jobs created.
5. The State of Connecticut has a strong warning against regularly consuming striped bass taken from Long Island Sound. These fish should not be sold to consumers.
6. The University of Connecticut has determined that the lobster problem is due to water temperature issues and not predation by striped bass. Before warming temperatures in the late 1990s record numbers of both lobsters and striped bass coexisted in the Sound.
7. Since 1980 Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and New Jersey have made striped bass a game fish protected from the pressures of commercial fishing. Legislation is now pending in MA to accomplish the same thing in that state because of the points made here. CT should not overturn years of positive precedent in the conservation of striped bass.


Remember: E-mail, and Write, and Phone Call!


What else can you do in addition? If you are as upset with this as we are, take the same steps above with your local legislator – and if you know them by all means go see them – explain your concerns, and ask them to help you convince Rep. Richard Roy to withdraw this legislation as soon as possible. You can find your CT legislator at this link.


Also, forward this e-mail to all of your fishing friends. Ask them to do the same thing and to go to the Stripers Forever website and become a member – free as always – so that we can help them stay on top of this issue too.


While we urge you to use your own words, please…do not be insulting or negative towards commercial fishing or to Representative Roy. Dwell on the facts above and the benefits of a robust recreational fishery for striped bass.

[Soundking]

In the words of Terrell Owens, getcha popcohn ready.

[Onshore]

Catspaw,

It is interesting you post on this forum about a bill filed in CT and in the post refer to a bill filed by Stripers Forever to make Striped Bass a gamefish in Massachusetts.

I fon't know about others but, that is the first reference I have seen regarding such an initiative by SF in the
Bay State. And a cursory look at the SF Web site today does not give any indication of such an effort.

When will you enlighten us about that issue?

[catspaw]

I believe it's pretty common knowledge that SF wants stripers to have sportfish status coastwide, but I forwarded this in the interest of Conn fishermen.

[seafly]

Onshore,
There has been a Striped Bass Conservation Bill filed with the MA Legislature. True.

[seafly]

Anyone looking for information about the MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill (filing date, contents etc) can go the the Stripers Forever web site (www.stripersforever.org) and even with just a cursory look-see they should be able to find the headline referencing the Bill being filed.......

click on the headline and you will be able to read the Bill itself and some of the many reasons why it is important that it get passed: Economics, democratizing the fishery by making the rules of harvest the same for everybody without special or elite exemptions, saving the large and most valuable breeding females, setting aside a no-kill reserve stock allocation made up of the entire current commercial quota, a reduction in the recreational take from two fish to one, a slot limit etc. Go read the Bill and see for yourselves.

It is a good Bill, maybe not perfect but certainly the best alternative to the destructive status quo. Everyone that believes in the long term conservation of the striped bass should be rallying in support of this Bill.

[Onshore]

Thanks. I read it. Do you know if a public hearng has been set ?

Because of the plight of the Massachusetts commercial fishermen and the current economy I'll give you odds the bill is never reported out of committee to the legislature for a vote.

[Doug Jowett]

Onshore,
There has been a Striped Bass Conservation Bill filed with the MA Legislature. True.
Good Idea. I noticed that bill introduction two weeks ago. (#$119)

[seafly]

One of the strongest factual arguments in favor of passing this Bill is exactly the same false argument that some are trying to use to defeat it: the money issue/economics/jobs etc. All of the information gathered on the subject of the economy associated with the striped bass by both pro and con alike clearly point to there being an economic advantage to the economy of more than a $100. to $1. ratio in favor of managing the stripers as a gamefish.

To propose or insinuate differently clearly is an emotional attempt to bolster the "recromercial's" wishful " efforts to continue enjoying elite harvesting privileges at the expense of the stripers and the recreational fishing public. And remember, the economic considerations are or should be secondary to the concern for the bass which is at the heart and sole of this Bill..

I hope that everyone will read the Bill, discover the truth for themselves by doing the homework and drawing their own reasonable conclusions. I have and am supporting the Bill as being the best available option to insure the long term survival of the bass and for the benefit of everyone equally and for the economy...in that order of importance.

[Peanut Bunker]

If all the folks who say they rarely, if ever, need to take home a bass to make their day complete, would support a one fish limit for recreational fishing in MA it would more than account for the quota taken by the commercials. If you want to go even further, support a tag system for a few trophies/year and you would eliminate most of the mortality on this fish in MA. Mission accomplished, and then some.

The Southwick study (patently biased as its source reveals and hence irrelevant to an objective discussion) states quite clearly that additional jobs would be created if gamefish status is approved. I'm not sure who's going to come out of the woodwork and buy new boats and take up the sport of fishing and become part of this "additional revenue". Enlighten me please. Before you do, now consider that this is not the goal of the bill, that a provision of the bill is to set this aside for conservation. So yes, from what I can see, the total economic impact to the state will be reduced by eliminating the commercial fishery. Great time to do that. I'm still waiting for SF to take this study off the website.

As far as inequitable harvesting by different user groups is concerned, get yourself a commercial license or don't, it's your decision. Don't make my decision for me.

[Surfcaster51]

Hello Catspaw....

are these the numbers you are referring to when you say the recreational people such as members of Sf are putting to much pressure on the striped bass population in the state of Ma.........shame on you

During 2007, the commercial fishery for striped bass in Massachusetts sold about 54,266 fish weighing 1,040,328 pounds and kept approximately 3,369 fish for personal consumption. Total losses due to commercial harvesting (including release mortality) were 62,932 fish weighing 1,117,513 pounds.

The recreational fishery harvested about 347,102 striped bass weighing over 4.7 million pounds. Total losses due to recreational fishing (including release mortality) were 808,870 fish weighing over 6.5 million pounds. Combined losses (including scientific losses) were 871,837 fish weighing over 7.7 million pounds,

I agree totaly with you that there should be a reduction in the recreational quota.

[gseries69]

My understanding is that the commercial quota does not include bycatch which some say is significant.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know that I travel from Vermont to fish Cape Cod as do several of my friends, one of which bought a house in Cotuit. All I know is that every time we go down we spend a good amount of money on flies, food, gas, hotel, guides once in a while, line, big ticket items like kayaks, rods and reels, beer obviously, and all kinds of other stuff. After last falls disasterous season I cut my trips short and if it doesn't pick up then I'll find some thing else to do in another part of New England or stay home.

I wasn't part of any study and I don't know what the impact of anglers like me have on the area, but that is my behavior pattern and where I've spent my money the past few years.

Take it for what it's worth.

I'm not sure how to support SF's effort because I do not like the idea of taking harvest away from one group to simply give it to another, so I'm on the fence. However, I will say that commercial fishing's obvious focus is to harvest fish for money. Their aim is strictly for profit and I believe their focus will continue to be on maximum sustainable yield. That's just good business sense for them. Recreational anglers, like me for example, leave much less of a foot print because I don't take any fish. In addition, I believe you could convince more anglers to take a reduced limit approach as has been done with so many other species so that the MSY model is no longer used. It may not be popular at first but it can be done.

If SF wants to convince more people that their effort is the correct path then they need to begin talking about what they will do after striped bass are a game fish. To simply move the harvest quota from commercials to recreationals is not going to garner much support from guys who do both. SF needs to lay out a plan of how their influence will force better management, because right now many anglers believe the commercials are the ones in the drivers seat. To replace them with more of the same is frankly not worth the effort.

[Ray]

Whats wrong with protecting Stripers, or any other species, regardless of who is harvesting them?

Once a Striper is dead does it really matter who killed? I was never in favor of the 2 fish per day limit. if the biomass is truly in danger then maybe we should simply stop harvesting it, both commercially and recreationally.

[seafly]

The MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill includes the following:

1) It takes the entire commercial quota and DOES NOT give it to the recreational fishermen but rather SETS IT ASIDE AS A NO-KILL RESERVE to act as an insurance stock buffer during an unexpected environmental event. For example, a couple of bad YOY recruitment classes or mycobacteriosis both of which the stripers are having to combat while we argue about the striper's fate.

2) It directly addresses the recreational overfishing issue by REDUCING THE RECREATIONAL TAKE/KILL from two fish per day to only one.

3) It PROTECTS THE LARGE BREEDING FEMALES by stopping the killing of all striped bass between 26 inches and 40 inches...the size at which they are most fecund.

LETS' DISCUSS FACTS AND NOT SPREAD RUMORS.

[Peanut Bunker]

#3 - cool strategy, let's nail 'em before they have a chance

[gseries69]

Seafly,

Not sure if your post was directed towards me, but I was not commenting on the bill. Why would I read a bill from a state I don't even live in? We've got plenty of our own problems. There isn't a landlocked salmon in Lake Champlain that doesn't have a lamprey mark on it.

I was commenting on SF and their message as I see it. I am a member of SF and I have never been given any communication as to what they would do if and when stripers became a game fish. I have however, learned through this and other forums how ASMFC regulates the striper biomass. The fact that so many anglers believe SF is trying to simply grab the commercial quota is a testament to the lack of information they've provided on post game fish status, at least through the communications that I have received.

I was giving my perspective on how I see SF and also how I spend my money in the Bay State. No rumors, just perspective.

I hope you guys do what's right for your state and striped bass. What ever you decide. In the meantime I'll continue to work at improving the fishery up here for when you visit.

[seafly]

"3) It PROTECTS THE LARGE BREEDING FEMALES by stopping the killing of all striped bass between 26 inches and 40 inches...the size at which they are most fecund."


The management reality is that although there may be more fish taken/killed [with the slot limit] the loss is off-set many times over by allowing the biggest, most gravid females to re-produce as they are exponentially more fecund and produce many more, healthier and survivable eggs which more than off-sets the possible increase in juvenile mortality. This, I believe, is universally accepted fishery science and not just wishful thinking.

Keep in mind the purpose of the Bill is to insure the survivability of the striped Bass...... not to kill off as many as we think might be possible under ideal circumstances which is the Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) management philosophy that we are presently operating under. This is a greed based or exploitative philosophy where-as the Bill is conservation or species enhancement based.

I believe that we are flirting on the edge of another collapse in the fishery in spite of what our fishery managers want you to hear. They certainly won't point the finger of criticism at themselves and admit that their management is at fault.

No, in hind-sight they will lay the blame on two bad recruitment years (Young of the Year or YOY) or the onslaught of the deadly mycobacteriosis disease .... both of which are viable realities right now. But the management truth is that they are allowing the striped bass to be over-fished and the percentage of big breeder sized dead fish is much too high to sustain a healthy population strong enough to ward off these "unforeseen" environmental events.

It is a matter of good science overcoming human greed. Tough to do but the facts are there. Now it is up to each one of us to put aside our selfish and nearsighted objectives and focus on what is best for the bass for without the bass we will have nothing to argue about or to fish for!

[Onshore]

Seafly wrote:

"LETS' DISCUSS FACTS AND NOT SPREAD RUMORS." ...which is a great idea given the conjecture espoused in this thread by some. Then, instead of facts, goes on to ignore the facts and write more conjecture and inuendo such as, "

The management reality is that although there may be more fish taken/killed [with the slot limit] the loss is off-set many times over by allowing the biggest, most gravid females to re-produce as they are exponentially more fecund and produce many more, healthier and survivable eggs which more than off-sets the possible increase in juvenile mortality. This, I believe, is universally accepted fishery science and not just wishful thinking.

I believe that we are flirting on the edge of another collapse in the fishery in spite of what our fishery managers want you to hear. They certainly won't point the finger of criticism at themselves and admit that their management is at fault.

No, in hind-sight they will lay the blame on two bad recruitment years (Young of the Year or YOY) or the onslaught of the deadly mycobacteriosis disease .... both of which are viable realities right now. But the management truth is that they are allowing the striped bass to be over-fished and the percentage of big breeder sized dead fish is much too high to sustain a healthy population strong enough to ward off these "unforeseen" environmental events."

And in retort, all I can say is please LET'S DISCUSS FACTS AND NOT SPREAD RUMORS

[CMP]

Bill, please, you KNOW that facts never enter into the discussion with the gripers forever clones. Come on. :rolleyes:...

CMP

[seafly]

Bill,
How about offering up some constructive dialog and helpful information that will add substance to this conversation? Please see most posts in this thread as examples of same. If a person's comments do not happen to fit neatly into your perception of things then maybe you could/should consider some alternative manner of responding that others will find helpful to the thread.

Like dis-proving a statement you disagree with? Instead of sniping away with the intentions of discrediting the poster try proving the poster's information/claims to be incorrect. This discussion should not be about the poster but rather the integrity and veracity of the posts themselves.

In that vein I submit the following for everyone's consideration regarding misstatements and factually incorrect "information" that we have all been subjected to on a continuing basis.

For a very long time on this forum and every other place the opportunity has presented itself, you have been referring to Stripers Forever as : Swipers Forever, fly fishing elitists, and even more personal and outrageous names. You have continuously misstated the objectives of Stripers Forever and accused them of being selfish resource grabbers, not interested in conservation, etc.. Your long, malicious list goes on and on and is well documented. Every loyal reader of your posts knows this to be a factual statement.

The MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill proves you to be incorrect on every accusatory count! Your personal vendetta against Brad Burns and Stripers Forever has been factually uncovered for what it is.

With the filing of the MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill (drafted by Stripers Forever) all of your claims and false accusations against Stripers Forever have been proven to be nothing more than hot air and vindictive BS. For me and I should think, many others, your posts no longer present much in the way of substance that is believable. With the filing of the Bill the door to your outhouse has been opened and we can all see whats' inside.


My apologies for this digression but someone has to tell the truth.... and the truth is in the MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill that proves all of my above statements and accusations to be true and factual. Yes, let's discuss the facts and stop spreading rumors. Lets talk about the Conservation Bill and the effects it will have if passed. Please see my previous post.

[Onshore]

Seafly wrote: " For a very long time on this forum and every other place the opportunity has presented itself, you have been referring to Stripers Forever as : Swipers Forever, fly fishing elitists, and even more personal and outrageous names. You have continuously misstated the objectives of Stripers Forever and accused them of being selfish resource grabbers, not interested in conservation, etc.. Your long, malicious list goes on and on and is well documented. Every loyal reader of your posts knows this to be a factual statement."

Best go back and see what I did write in this forum for that is under discussion here. In fact, I have made none of the statements nor used the names you list above in this thread. In fact, my posts have been rather dull, I'm afraid. Or does the acronym SF offends you ?

However, filing a legislative bill does not prove anything.

The arguments espoused by SF in support of it's bill are not proven facts; merely unsupported arguments in favor of the proposed legislation.

The facts are that Striped Bass have been restored and the stock is in good shape - not overfished nor endangered of being overfished. That is the position of ASMFC and MA Div. Marine Fisheries and it is supported by proven facts.

No doubt the Massachusetts legislature will see through all the SF subterfuge and the bill will die in committee.

[Onshore]

Just an aside but, a check of the Massachusetts Legislatures' Legislative Tracking System
web site shows no bill filed on behalf or SF in the current session of the legislature.

The only bill listed with anything to do with Striped Bass is

HOUSE, NO. 4588 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/h04588.htm)

... Martin J. Walsh. Petition filed at the request of Robert Clavin for legislation
to authorize the taking of striped bass by spearing. ...

I wonder if SF has a position on that bill..................

[Bob Parsons]

Bill, please, you KNOW that facts never enter into the discussion with the gripers forever clones. Come on. :rolleyes:...

CMP I have to agree, add info, Just don't spout negativity because you don't agree. I will be deleting further post that are in this nature.

Just be sure I'm not misread. I was agree with the people who wanted to see facts and the like in support of their opinions.

[Slappy]

My apologies for this digression but someone has to tell the truth.... .

You want the truth?

You can't handle the truth. :rolleyes: (someone post a pic of Jack!)


Seafly, here is why SF has lost me and many other hardcore anglers that I know: SF is a one issue organization--making stripers a gamefish.

I am a very hardcore striper fisherman and have no ties to comms, but I don't give a frosty crank about making stripers a gamefish. I want there to be a class of people who make money off stripers like comms and charters (charters are comms and not recs in my opinion). The money that these people make creates a strong constituency for the support of a quality long term striper fishery--much more so than a strictly recreational fishery. Not many hotel operators are out on the water every day monitoring the striper fishery and they make big $ from striper fishermen.

Why doesn't SF have the support of long time stripermen like Bill and CMP? Becuase the organization doesn't address what they are worried about.

When SF drops the gamefish idea and works toward improving and protecting forage, reducing the damage done by trawlers to migrating populations, and improving spawning habitat, then SF will be supported by recs and comms. There is a common interest in all these groups that is not addressed, but SF has chosen a divisive mission.

I would love to send SF a check, but I won't support the current mission.

[seafly]

If I was incorrect in assigning you some specific, unwarrented blame and accusing you of indiscretions that you are not guilty of then I stand corrected and apologize for my error.... really, if I made a mistake I am sorry.

However, to take issue with the substance of my statements is only further examples of your motives. .. I shall cite but one quotation of your comments/feelings regarding Brad Burns and Stripers Forever that you have posted on Reel-Time. Your words speak directly to your motives. There is not one truthful fact in your entire statement (please see proof below) and I believe that it vindicates the fundamental essence of my earlier accusations.

Quote from onshore,
"I have to agree. Brad and company are soley interested in grabbing the commercial quota. Give them that and then they will want to make it fly-fishing only. And, if you don't agree, name one current-day Striped Bass issue, other than doing away with the commercials, that SF has promoted or backed."

Bill, These are your words not mine......

Lets' look at the record.

Fact: Bill filed by Rep. Matt Patrick. No number yet because of an electronic snafu at State House. Call Rep. Patrick's office for confirmation.

Fact: the above quote is yours taken verbatim from another thread. It directly speaks to my accusations regarding the lack of substance and what would appear to be venomous inaccuracies in your posts..

The SB Conservation Bill puts the entire commercial quota into a no kill conservation reserve fund and does not give it to the recreational fishermen as you claim. Fact.

Fact: Stripers Forever has directly lobbied it's members to speak out against: pair trawlers, menhaden slaughter, recreational overfishing, use of gaffs on stripers etc. and has encouraged it's members to speak up in favor of keeping the EEZ closed to the taking of striped Bass, protecting river herring, the use of circle hooks etc. These are only a few of what you referred to as the, "current-day Striped Bass issue, other than doing away with the commercials, that SF has promoted or backed."

Please show us where your proof is that Brad Burns or Stripers Forever intends to force everyone to use fly rods to fish for stripers..... This claim is patently ridiculous!

Bill, I think that you have been defrocked of your sheep's clothing by your own words. You sound to me as if your sympathy is aligned with the "recromercials " instead of being concerned with the conservation of the striped bass that you claim to care about.

Regarding ASMFC and the MDMF and their claims of striped bass not being over fished and fully recovered: Believe what you want. Either take a good look around or put your head in the sand....your call.

The stock assessment figures that our own MDMF publicly claim to be true and sell off to the public as being fact are, by their own admission, subject to more than a fifty percent error factor!!! If you choose to believe their "science" and "facts" that is your choice but please do not try and claim that what the ASMFC and the MDMF come out with regarding stock assessment figures are 100% true or factual. It is their best guess scenario. Just like they were telling us that all was OK just before and actually well into the last crash. Their credibility record is little better than ..........

Look at what happened to the white perch that were once considered a terrific sport fish and are now nearly extinct from all of our coastal waters.... happened under the trustworthy commercial care of the MDMF! How about the situation that we find our groundfish stocks in? Do you think that the MDMF had the correct science in hand when they regulated the fishery into the disastrous condition it is in today? Or did this have anything to do with the commercial pressure on the managers to allow more and more exploitation of the fishery? Should we blame it on the faulty "science" or commercial greed? Seems to me it has to largely be the responsibility of one or the other.

I, for one, have a very hard time accepting the "stuff" (being polite here) that comes out of our MDMF that I believe is designed more to pat themselves on the back than it is to tell us the wide ranging parameters of truthful possibilities that we should be looking at in order to be making honest and responsible regulatory decisions.

Believe what you wish...

[seafly]

I shall do my best to refrain from name calling and invectives as I do not believe that I can compete on that level of discourse that others on this site seem so familiar and competent with. I will however continue to defend the truth.

I will make several comments regarding "user groups". I believe this phrase was coined or brought into play by commercial fishing advocates and fishery managers to somehow justify unequal access to what is rightfully a equally held, public fishery.

However, it is the contention of many that since the SB fishery is ours (collectively) ie. everyone's in equal shares as in "the public's", that it should be managed likewise with no elite or special access or harvesting privileges for anyone.

To make access to the fishery equal for everyone, having everyone playing by and obeying the same rules and harvesting regulations will be a total democratization of the resource. It ELIMINATES ALL DISCRIMINATION and EXCLUDES NO ONE. Everyone will all be treated the same without exception. It will do away with special "user groups." We will all be in the same group as equals.

Seems to me to be a far more equitable and fairer way to manage a public resource then it is to grant special privileges to a defined "user group". I disagree with those that believe the striped bass fishery should be managed as an elite fishery with special rights of harvest reserved for a defined "user group" in order for a few to enjoy personal financial gain from a resource that is rightfully owned by each of us equally. We all belong to the same "user group" - we all are the public owners and users. We should "use" it without discrimination.I believe the fishery should be managed with equal treatment for all.

I do not expect the self-interested recromercials to agree for to do so would mean they would have to give up the special privileges they now enjoy.

One's viewpoint depends on where one stands. I see a much brighter future for the bass if managed as a recreational species without a price tag on it's head..... like all other game fish,animals and birds are. I see a developing, universal stewardship constituency once it becomes a gamefish available to all on equal terms...but not until. I also see a fairer and more just system of "allocation" if everybody is granted equal shares and access to this public resource while having to abide by the same rules and regulations equally.

Although my vision and beliefs may not be in sinc with everyone else's why do we have to lower the dialog to such a low and unproductive level? It is only discouraging to those that are seriously trying to make up their minds based on reasonably presented information.

This discussion should more correctly be about what will be best for the bass and not the promotion of greed based agendas.

I fear that this thread has become uninformative and is only serving as an outlet for frustration and pent-up cabin fever.... mine included. Consequently I shall now lurk and let the chips fall where they may.

[kwakr]

Seafly,

You have articulated the case for personal use recreational fishing for stripers as well as anyone could. CMP admits he'a an old, supposedly inactive,commercial fisherman who throws out the same old tired insults he's been launching since 2003. He's not going to change and it woould be dull without him. He could use a little fresh material however. Bill is just Bill, kinda full of himself. He seems to be consistant in his message that the ASFMC is capable of properly managing a fishery where 99+% of the participants are recreational fishermen. They're not; it's not in their DNA. They just regard the recreational fisherman as a PITA, an obstacle to the MSY that they live by. (Yes, I have been to a number of meetings.)
Recs don't give a fig for MSY for stripers. They want a healthy fishery that will provide them and their heirs access to the best game fish on the Atlantic coast.


How 'bout them Cardinals?

[Onshore]

I guess the sky is falling again. Same old, same old unfounded statements about the end of striper fishing as we know it with nothing to back it up. They have been saying the same thing every year now since stripers were restored.

[seafly]

There are those on this site that would like to believe that everything is OK, that the stripers are doing just fine and that all is right with the world of the striped bass..... and they might be right or they might be wrong! The bigger question is not who is right or who might be wrong for that only distracts from the more important question:

WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR THE BASS?
Are the chances they will be around for generations to come better off being managed under the proposed MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill or as they are today?

WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR THE BASS?
That is the real question that any true sportsman or self proclaimed conservationist must wrestle with. For one to deny or argue that that this is not the core issue worthy of our debate is to admit that the welfare of the bass is not one's primary concern.

WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR THE BASS .......four fundamental questions?

1) should they be managed as a commercial or a game fish?

2) should we preserve and not kill a reserve stock of fish in order to re-populate the species in the event of an unforeseen environmental event or, instead, should we continue to regulate the harvest using a Maximum Sustainable Yield formula which is based on "scientific" stock assessment data that may be misleading/incorrect by as much as or even more than 50%?

3) should we reduce the overall recreational harvest of larger fish or should we continue the present kill while targeting the larger more productive breeders (over 28") for harvesting?

4) should we continue to intentionally kill off the largest, best breeding, most fecund female bass over 34 inches or instead, should we prohibit the killing of these, gravid females that carry the big fish, genetic DNA?

These are four legitimate and appropriate, core questions based on the assumption that we SHOULD BE DOING what is best for the bass and not what might be best for the individuals who may or may not have a vested financial interest in the fishery.

My conclusion is that the bass will be better off being managed under the parameters of the proposed MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill then they will continuing to be managed as they presently are.

I am not concerned with who is right or wrong but rather, are we doing the right thing or the wrong thing for the sake of the bass.

[Doug Jowett]

I saw a bumper sticker today that read: "Commercial Striper Fishing Isn't A Crime - Unless You Break The Law". ;)There's a lot said in that bumper sticker.

[Onshore]

There are those on this site that would like to believe that everything is OK, that the stripers are doing just fine and that all is right with the world of the striped bass..... and they might be right or they might be wrong! The bigger question is not who is right or who might be wrong for that only distracts from the more important question:

My repy to your questions in Blue

WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR THE BASS .......four fundamental questions?

1) should they be managed as a commercial or a game fish? BOTH - but allow only legit commercials fishermen who hold licenses for other species and fish more than six months a year to hold a Striper permit.

2) should we preserve and not kill a reserve stock of fish in order to re-populate the species in the event of an unforeseen environmental event or, instead, should we continue to regulate the harvest using a Maximum Sustainable Yield formula which is based on "scientific" stock assessment data that may be misleading/incorrect by as much as or even more than 50%? YES - Untill a better criteria is devised.

3) should we reduce the overall recreational harvest of larger fish or should we continue the present kill while targeting the larger more productive breeders (over 28") for harvesting? REDUCE IT - Why not go to one fish at 34" like the MA commercial fishermen are required to adhere to?

4) should we continue to intentionally kill off the largest, best breeding, most fecund female bass over 34 inches or instead, should we prohibit the killing of these, gravid females that carry the big fish, genetic DNA? SAME ANSWER AS IN 3

These are four legitimate and appropriate, core questions based on the assumption that we SHOULD BE DOING what is best for the bass and not what might be best for the individuals who may or may not have a vested financial interest in the fishery.

My conclusion is that the bass will be better off being managed under the parameters of the proposed MA Striped Bass Conservation Bill then they will continuing to be managed as they presently are.

I am not concerned with who is right or wrong but rather, are we doing the right thing or the wrong thing for the sake of the bass.

Since the Mass bill is not available from the legislative tracking site and you seem privy to it's ramifications; why have not your or someone else from SF posted it so we all can consider it's good and bad points? Why do you folks keep it to yourselves?

[Onshore]

I saw a bumper sticker today that read: "Commercial Striper Fishing Isn't A Crime - Unless You Break The Law". ;)There's a lot said in that bumper sticker.

And, I would not be surprised if it was on a commercial fisherman's auto.

[seafly]

The question was, should we reduce the overall recreational harvest of larger fish or should we continue the present kill while targeting the larger more productive breeders (over 28") for harvesting?

Onshore's answer: REDUCE IT - Why not go to one fish at 34" like the MA commercial fishermen are required to adhere to?

Answer: I agree with reducing it but all the science proves that we should be protecting not killing off the larger more productive female bass which every striper over 34 inches is!

Comment: not necessary.

[IronSkippy]

Seafly

Your notions and feelings are similiar to mine regarding the state of the fishery. I think the lack of perspective and narrow ideology of Stripers Forever can further hurt the fishery if folks like you and Doug accept those narrow pretenses.

I have a few questions that I think will help clarify what I am talking about. Please do your best to answer them.

1. Are you in favor of slot limits for bass?

2. would you favor a slot limit that protects immature and small breeding fish (fish between 26 and 40 "s) or one that protects the more fecund medium and large prime breeding fish( 40"s and up)?

3. Do you believe it is best to harvest large portions of a year class before they have reached maturity?

4. Do you know what percentage of a year class would reach maturity if a large scale, coastwide recreational fishery focused on juvenile fish?

5. How did stripers forever fight in the State of Maine to stop the slaughter of juvenile stripers ( baby fish as small as 3lbs can be kept up there now)

6. how did Stripers forever fight against the exclusion of certain methods of fishing in specific waters in the state of Maine?

6. Has stripers forever advocated any slot size that would protect prime
breeders?

7. What did you feel was wrong with the previously successful coastwide 36" size min. @ 1 fish per day?

[seafly]

Have you read the Bill yet? Would you like me to send you a copy of same so that we could discuss what is really in the Bill and both be on the same page? I would be happy to do so. It might help to answer some of your questions.

I believe that much of the concerns and even criticisms of both the Conservation Bill and of Stripers Forever stems from misunderstandings created both by intentional rumor mongering from "gamefish" opponents and from misstatements made by less informed members of Stripers Forever or even those that just want to see things improve.

Please understand that Stripers Forever and recreational fishing proponents are a diverse grouping of folks that each has their own viewpoints and ideas on how to improve the fishery. Often they identify themselves as members of Stripers Forever and as a consequence their statements, their wishes, thoughts and ideas are then taken by others as being the gospel according to Stripers Forever.

No good can come from fighting brush fires and rumors. Lets talk about what is real. The fact is there has been a Bill filed. I would be happy to discuss the details of the Bill, my personal feelings and thoughts about the Bill and why I believe it to be the best option on the table. Many of your insightful questions and doubts can be answered and maybe even put to rest after reading the Bill. Let me know your wishes. Thanks.

[Onshore]

Seafly,

I've asked this question before of SF proponents and, I'm going to ask it of you.
Why don't you post the bill as filed in Massachusetts so we all can read it and make up our own opinions on it.

Two many SF fellow-travelers are citing the Mass Legislative bill as law and it's allegations as fact yet, none will post it here for all to read. Until it apears here it's just so much hocum. As of today, the only bill pertaining to Striped Bass in the legislative hopper is: HOUSE, NO. 4588 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/h04588.htm) ... Martin J. Walsh. Petition filed at the request of Robert Clavin for legislation to authorize the taking of striped bass by spearing.

[IronSkippy]

Seafly

My guess was that you would refuse to answer those questions. I held out hope that you would answer because others (I will do same if you like) have answered your direct questions. I asked for your answers not my own intepretation of a filed piece of legislation. I posted those questions to YOU

I am all for rules that ensure this species is adequately protected for everyones enjoyment. Be it the commercial side (charter boats, bait shops, commercial fishermen) or the recreational side, I always want healthy numbers of these things around. It's just awful seeing people Jerry Jones'd into uninformed positions.

[seafly]

IronSkippy,

I'll accept your "shot" but I do think that, as Onshore has suggested, we will all be better off when everyone can read the Bill and see for themselves what it is all about. Once that has been made public (see my answer to Onshore elsewhere re same) and we can discuss the merits (or not) of the actual Bill itself rather than speculations and accusations, then the discussion will have both more value as well as more substance because it will be based on facts not "hokum" as has been suggested.

Read the Bill (as soon as it is made public) then ask away. If I don't or can't answer the questions I will try to get them for you. Your questions are valid and appropriate for discussion in my opinion. They can best be answered within the context of reality not one person's promise of the truth.... or "hokum"!

Seafly

[IronSkippy]

My questions were meant to expose some of the misinformation you have been programmed to believe. I have seen the text of the bill as it was previously linked to from the sf site. It would be disasterous for the coastwide stock to have a high catch state like MA go to such a size limit structure. As it is now, the only factor that has made the inshore bass hang on this long with the 2 fish at 28 limit is the emergence of the recreational tuna fishery.

If I can de-program one person a week from believing that fish between 26 and 40 inches are the most fecund or that a recreational slot take of 20-26 inches would reduce harvest levels, I will feel good about my efforts to protect bass. I know it will not be easy. Hopefully, all who believe things like the above will be rescued before they take too big a gulp of that burnstown kool-aid.

I really feel for the guides in Maine who had to sit back and watch their fishery decimated by poor regulatory choices. My guess is that they hardly have any returning stock left up there.. Hopefully they can get responsible rules in place up there soon. If not, they will be done taking people striper fishing.

[Mattb]

I really feel for the guides in Maine who had to sit back and watch their fishery decimated by poor regulatory choices. My guess is that they hardly have any returning stock left up there.. Hopefully they can get responsible rules in place up there soon. If not, they will be done taking people striper fishing.

IronSkippy- you raise an interesting point that I don't think I've seen brought up anywhere else. Maine's fishery is in the tank - and everyone I've spoken to (those that don't blame it on me for being a poor fisherman) say it's likely a coastal issue - Maine's at the end of the range, so as the coastal stock gets hammered Maine is the first to feel the decline.

You're the first one I've seen to make the more direct connection between Mainers killing more fish due to the slot and our fishery disappearing. Do you know of any more info on this? Any studies, etc.?

For any that're unfamiliar with what's happened up here, here's something I recently posted on another site-

Maine implemented the slot for the 1997 fishing season. In 96, Maine's total striper catch was less than 2000 fish (44,000 lbs) and this was close to the long term average up to that time. In 97 under the new slot the total catch was over 35,000 fish (185,000 lbs) and in 2007 it was 71,000 fish (316,000 lbs).

2008 was abysmal, so I'd imagine it'll be well under the 2007 number, and 2007 wasn't really all that good either.

[IronSkippy]

I have no knowledge of a study demonstrating site fidelity with Striped Bass. All I know is what I what I have seen and experienced. In '96 I caught 7 tagged fish from a single patch of structure. Nothing remarkable until I was notified that the fish were tagged in New Jersey 3 years prior by the same person. The following year I caught 3 tags in the same spot tagged by that same person. The guy that tagged them only tagged that one year in one spot. He tagged a total of 46 fish. The fact that I caught 10 of his tags over the course of two seasons tells me that these fish know where they are going.

My experience with specific spots where I target bass tells me similiar. If I overfish an area over the course of a season, I find it takes years to get back to what the area once held. If I fish an area gently, it maintains it's productivity year to year. I have also ruined areas for years by taking the small fish with small baits. I find if I stick to baits (whole Menhaden) that only target the largest in a spot, I have continued year to year recruitment of large fish in those spots. I am not comfortable taking people fishing for money unless the fix is in.

The other area I see this exposed is in Federal Waters. If you have not seen the expansion of the schools using the deepwater east of Chatham or the high ground of Stellwaggen Bank, you are truly missing a site. Stellwaggen in June and July is amazing now. Since we tuna fish with live pogies, the striped bass are more of a nuisance than dog fish. I went 3 weeks without being able to put a pogie on kite because as soon it got 20 feet from the boat, a school of 25lbers was on it. There is quite literally 20 miles of fish on that bank. Those schools of fish have been getting larger in numbers for the past 8 years. Contrast that with the contracting inshore schools. The fish seem to be returning to areas where thier number one predator is not allowed to take them.

Having experienced that, I also believe in the ameoba theory. I believe that a larger stock spreads itself into a larger area along the coast. With this belief, I would think Maine would see a decrease in fish simply because the blob of fish is smaller and thus is not spreading as far north.

[Slappy]

Back to the topic of the thread...the CT comm striper season bill.

According to a brief item in this week's The Fisherman, the bill will be dead. The guy who introduced it didn't understand the implications of the bill.

Yay!

[browndog]

8-10 years back the Ct. River shad gillnetters wanted to legalize gillnetting bass. They claimed the decline in american shad was due to striper predation. The next year there was a record shad run. The lobster die off was/is because of enviromental conditions.

[seafly]

As already answered on another thread........Fair question Bill. "Why hasn't the Bill been posted on line yet?"

Sadly the answer will disappoint those of you that choose to question the credibility of others and call each other names. And the conspiracy theorists will be disappointed as well.

This is all new and confusing to me so please bear with me. Eventually I hope that you will come to understand that I do not intentionally spread "hokum" or "crap" and do my best to tell only the truth.

As I understand it: Until a filed Bill has been granted a docket # it means that it has not officially been accepted (by the clerk?). I guess being accepted is the 2nd stage in the process. Once it has a docket # then I believe that it is eventually assigned a Bill #. At that point it can be looked up and read by anyone....ain't bureaucracy wonderful?

I have only seen a draft of the Bill and until it has been given a docket # it is not officially accepted (by the clerk?) and therefore has no guarantee of being assigned a Bill #. Because of that I and others have only been at liberty to explain that the Bill has been filed. To claim more would have been an exaggeration and misstatement. To reproduce and make it public would have been to imply that it is a done deal and that isn't the case. I have only stated that it has been filed...no more than that has been implied.

When it finally is assigned a Bill # it can be made public but until then should someone make it public and then the Bill not be either "accepted" or given a Bill # we would have been misleading and therefore subject to justified criticism. Hopefully the process will soon overcome what we have been told is a "computer problem" that has slowed down the process. I believe it but call the State House to confirm it if you wish.

As soon as it has a Bill # or maybe even a Docket # we will post it on our web site for all to see or I think you should be able to look it up on line through the State House. We would very much like to put a lot of the rumors and suppositions to rest and I want to personally be able to say "I told you so" to those that have questioned much of what I have said about the Bill. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.

[CMP]

Earlier today, I sent a max donation of $2,300 to Rep. Roy for his re-election campaign, congratulating him on his stance. I suggest those of you who agree with this, do the same...

CMP

[seafly]

CMP,

You wouldn't be implying that the political climate regarding fisheries issues can or is influenced by pro commercial members of the fishing community? Why, for shame!

This is another very clear example of the social reality. Folks that get paid from or financially benefit from dead fish at market can afford to donate some of their fishery earnings to influence and perpetuate that which benefits them personally.

As a point of interest (I will call it "interest" rather than "fact" so as to not give you another reason to make a fool of yourself by lowering the conversation to having to use obscenities in describing that which you don't agree with), as a point of interest, I have received word that the politician being referenced has seen the error of his ways and has reassured the recreational fishing community in CT that this Bill will, "not go forward".

If my information is correct and I have every good reason to believe that it is, then CMP, you have just made this politicians day. He is laughing all the way to the bank with your $2,000. donation!

[Onshore]

[quote=seafly;258128]CMP,

This is another very clear example of the social reality. Folks that get paid from or financially benefit from dead fish at market can afford to donate some of their fishery earnings to influence and perpetuate that which benefits them personally.quote]

Seafly,

The above is a very clear example of your not understanding fisheries management or how it works. Fisheries management is political. Those who hollar the loudest get the most attention. Have you ever attended a meeting of the NEFMC ? If you had you would know that most of those serving on the Council are working fishermen or represent environmental/conservation groups. As for ASMFC; commercial and recreational fishermen are equally represented. Sure commercials benefit from the fishery - but only if it's healthy and viable. At most meetings of either group recreational fishermen seldom attend. Is it any wonder the commercial fishermen often get their way?

As for benefiting from dead fish; well that's pretty clear. Recreational fishermen kill 3-4 times the number of Stripers than commercials do. There are far more of us then of them; so recreational fishermen benefit most. A DEAD FISH IS A DEAD FISH no matter who kills it.

With all the BS being cited as fact by your dillatante SF group; it's a wonder to me that the commercials haven't organized to lobby to make recreational fishing C&R.

[north coast]

"With all the BS being cited as fact by your dillatante SF group; it's a wonder to me that the commercials haven't organized to lobby to make recreational fishing C&R ."

now there's an idea--123-3

[seafly]

Be careful for what you wish for.................

All SB fishing may soon be C&R if the indicies re. yoy recruitment and # of breeding females and the effects of myco don't do an abrupt turn around.

[seafly]

Onshore's comment, "The above is a very clear example of your (Seafly's) not understanding fisheries management or how it works." is another example of someone flying off before reading carefully.

My comment Onshore referred to: "This is another very clear example of the social reality. Folks that get paid from or financially benefit from dead fish at market can afford to donate some of their fishery earnings to influence and perpetuate that which benefits them personally."

Answer the following please:
1) Who appoints members to the ASMFC?
2) Are the folks making the appointments accepting political contributions?
3) Does the commercial industry make political contributions with monies derived from selling fish?
4) Does the commercial fishing industry lobby politicians to further their agendas?

My earlier statement is both clear and correct.

[Bob Parsons]

This thread started out as a notice of intent for commercial fishing in conn. Now it is the same old us vs them posts. Beating a very dead horse.

When either group gets a NEW idea, feel free to start a new thread.