Looks Like No Gamefish Status for Stripers

[Onshore]

The legislative public hearing on House Bill 796 was held on January 14. The bill, filed for Stripers Forever, sought to make Striped Bass a gamefish in Massachusetts and would end all commercial fishing for them in the Bay State.

From all reports; H.796 is going to die a slow death in committee and will never resurface for a vote - even in the House. That seems to be the concensus of those I've been in touch with in the past few days since the hearing.

Apparently, Stripers Forever, despite a big effort - pre-hearing coffee, rally and press conference, failed to turn out any significant showing in favor of the legislation. However, commercial fishermen, their senators and representatives turned out to speak in large numbers in opposition to it.

Meanwhile, the average Massachusetts striper fisherman must be very content with the present state of the fishery because; he stayed home or did something else the day of the public hearing.

What is your take?

[rthomas]

Too bad but we will have to keep trying. Being an "average" CT fisherman I had to work like most. Did you go?

[PeterSorensen]

Bill, thank you for the update. I was just reading similar information on another site.

[Slappy]

Wait, so SF wasted taxpayer dollars again? :eek:

All in the name of killing more small stripers? :eek:

So the recreational angler community is represented by the RFA and SF...looks like the comms can get comfortable with their position in MA as the big fish killers. :eek:

My take is that the organizational structure is there to have an impact on stripers--if SF or RFA was interested in working within the management framework they could have a positive impact on the fishery. But they have chosen not to. :eek:


If I was a comm, this would be my icon. --127-3-

:eek::eek:

[CMP]

While I enjoy seeing the gripers forever crew get bitch-slapped again, Slappy,you are spot on-it deeper than that. What so many ppl fail to recognize is that single-species management schemes are a waste of time. Unless and until we look at fisheries management from the perspective of eco-system management and force fisheries managers to recognize that what impacts one impacts all,we are well and truly screwed...

CMP

PS-congrats to reel-time in taking coakley's money in her failed Senate bid. Glad to see real people making some money off that mess!!! --123-3

[FishHawk]

Bad timing in a poor economy. FishHawk

[soundownsam]

Good.

sam

[gseries69]

Talking about striper conservation on this forum is a complete and utter waste of time and is reflected in the lack of participation from members, save a select few.

[Onshore]

Talking about striper conservation on this forum is a complete and utter waste of time and is reflected in the lack of participation from members, save a select few.

Don't blame R-T's. Stripers Forever couldn't even turn out a decent showing of their membership to support their gamefish legislation. One estimate I saw was that they only had 10-12 at the public hearing. Blaming others is just beating a dead horse..

More likely, the average R-T's, like the average MA fisherman realizes the stocks are in good shape and is happy with the fishery.

[CMP]

More likely, the average R-T's, like the average MA fisherman realizes the stocks are in good shape and is happy with the fishery.

Hoo Boy, now you went and did it. Someone please pass the popcorn...

CMP:-%

[fatkenny]

I personally don't think that gamefish status solves anything.

Gamefish status serves the purpose of big tackle companies. I am not accusing striper forever of having any kind of corporate ties, or in anyway of having compromised ethics or morals. I am just pointing out that maybe the real winners of gamefish status are the tackle companies, boat manufacturers, and folks who sell gamefish related items.

As CMP posted, there are a lot of other factors that effect stripers. Excluding the comm guys actually undercuts those people who can collect the best data about those factors, and who know the most about the fish stocks. For example, seals, herring, water temps, pollution, blight, etc. these are all potential reasons for a population crash, and the best way to find out is to talk to folks who fish the same spots, the same way, year in, year out. Excluding them seems petty and short sighted.

In the 1980s, the commercial guys were definitely having a major impact on the stocks. And you could argue that the stocks being in trouble again correlates with allowing the commercials back in, but they are actually pretty well regulated right now. I really think the bulk of the fishing-related mortality is actually the result of "rec" fishing. To me, that is what has changed the most over the past 10 or 20 years.

***

gseries - What am I going to do about it? A personal moratorium. I am going to keep a few fish every summer, because I love how stripers taste, but for me, it is back to one fish, 36 inches. (actually, I never stopped following the old numbers... for me a keepah has always been 36 inches). Anybody else care to join me? I was thinking about printing up some bumper stickers or something, just so folks know what I am about, and how I think we should fix this situation. Shoot me an IM or whatever and I will see about sending some out. One fish, 36 inches.



Buccobruce has been encouraging me to go public with this idea for a while, I guess I just don't think there are that many folks out there willing to go back to the old numbers (which worked). My goal is to get everyone (recs, comms, guides) to follow the 1980's rules, which we all know worked.

If the fisheries management guys cannot figure out how to manage the striper rec fishery, than we should do it ourselves, voluntarily.

[notime]

Attached is a link to an article on WBZ. Notice their picture of a bass?

http://wbztv.com/local/bass.fishing.ban.2.1433344.html

[gseries69]

Don't blame R-T's. Stripers Forever couldn't even turn out a decent showing of their membership to support their gamefish legislation. One estimate I saw was that they only had 10-12 at the public hearing. Blaming others is just beating a dead horse..

More likely, the average R-T's, like the average MA fisherman realizes the stocks are in good shape and is happy with the fishery.

Bill,

With all due respect, and I do respect you and your contributions to RT, my point is that every time the subject is brought up the discussion spirals into name calling and attacks on SF and it's members, the only viable option for a conservation organization any angler has at this time. To what end and for what purpose? What has it accomplished?

All of these conversations are eventually highjacked by a select few who seem more interested in bashing SF and it's members than coming up with any alternative to deal with conservation issues. As proof, I again mention the fact that participation on this forum appears to have dropped dramatically.

Perhaps the MA striper population is fine, but anglers, even accomplished anglers, up in Maine and NH haven't seen a good run for three years. Rich Murphy and Lou Tabory, not exactly new to the sport of striper fishing, are firmly on the side that something is drastically wrong. Maybe a few would like to take shots at them and say they don't know how to fish for stripers which is why they aren't catching as many.

Florida enjoys gamefish status on snook and redfish and many have participated in the recreational fishing economy in FL thanks to the states conservation efforts on those species. Do you fight as hard to overturn gamefish status on FL species as you do against gamefish status on stripers?

Like I said, these conversations go no where and are a waste of time.

Now back to work which is what kept me from attending the meeting in MA.

Maybe the next time there is a meeting they should hold it during the commercial striper season and we'll see how many commercial guys show up. I guess if guys do show up, that means they don't need the extra money.

[fatkenny]

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth, said a healthy striper stock is worth about $1 billion to the state's tourism business, and keeping it robust is essential.

The reason people like to come to the cape, chatham, elizabeth islands, etc. is because they are authentic. When you go down to the docks there are working boats there, it's "real ye olde cape cod." It's like the difference between going to legal seafood in an airport versus a clam shack next to a dock.

This is like the guy who builds the subdivision and touts the "quant new england views of nature" except that the subdivision knocks down the old farms house, fills in the vernal pools, and destroys the micro ecology that created the demand in the first place.

Those comm fishermen are more vital to the states tourism business than stripers forever. Am I wrong?

[IronSkippy]

"All of these conversations are eventually highjacked by a select few who seem more interested in bashing SF and it's members than coming up with any alternative to deal with conservation issues. As proof, I again mention the fact that participation on this forum appears to have dropped dramatically."

Threads were not hijacked. Fisherman in this state were geniunely in fear of a set of fishery rules that would have serious negative effects on the coast wide bass population. Fortunately, many members of the stripers forever group came to realize how harmful it would have been to impose the same rules that led to a 1500 percent increase in the number of dead fish over a one year period in Maine. I am thankful that so many were able to spit the kool-aid before ingesting it. I have talked to many who lamented that fact that there could be no other position than the one favored by the leader of Burnstown. Eventually, a proponent, volunteer, donor, becomes disillusioned if their leadership is unwilling to discuss issues or even succumb to common sense. That is why you saw the support for the bill completely fall apart. That is why you see less of a response here. Be DARN thankfull that the bill is being taken for what it is and we are not looking at 3-6lbs (20-26 inches) juvenile bass being legal to take in Mass.

As far as this site losing readership, it has maintained usage far better than similiar sites.

[captmike]

The reason people like to come to the cape, chatham, elizabeth islands, etc. is because they are authentic. When you go down to the docks there are working boats there, it's "real ye olde cape cod." It's like the difference between going to legal seafood in an airport versus a clam shack next to a dock.

This is like the guy who builds the subdivision and touts the "quant new england views of nature" except that the subdivision knocks down the old farms house, fills in the vernal pools, and destroys the micro ecology that created the demand in the first place.

Those comm fishermen are more vital to the states tourism business than stripers forever. Am I wrong?

You're right about the commercial fishery being important to the tourism on the cape. I mean everyone loves to see the big commercial boats, no one less than me. It gives me a kind of serene and distant feeling. On the other hand if we're talking about stripers the boats that fish for them commercially are not the big commercial boats, they're typically rec fishermen who fish commercially on the side from their boats.

[Onshore]

[QUOTE=gseries69;279295]Bill, With all due respect, and I do respect you and your contributions to RT, my point is that every time the subject is brought up the discussion spirals into name calling and attacks on SF and it's members, the only viable option for a conservation organization any angler has at this time. To what end and for what purpose? What has it accomplished?
================================================== ============

IMHO, SF is a one-issue organization and, because of that has no chance of attracting and representing the average saltwater fisherman. Their leadership has continuously refused to work within the system and to take on other issues many of us feel are more important than saving all the stripers for the SF membership
================================================== ============

All of these conversations are eventually highjacked by a select few who seem more interested in bashing SF and it's members than coming up with any alternative to deal with conservation issues. As proof, I again mention the fact that participation on this forum appears to have dropped dramatically.
================================================== ============
Again, IMHO, what do you mean by "hijacked by a select few" This forum (Looks like no gamefish status.....) had limited appeal to R-T members because most of them don't feel stripers need gamefish status. That's why the number of posts was not large.

As long as SF continues to be a one-issue organization spouting nonsense to try and create issues that don't appeal to the majority of fishermen; they will continue to be hammered by others who have just as much a legitimate right to push their agenda as does SF.

As far as bashing SF members, I've tried to avoid that and, think I have for the most part. My argument is not you or with the other members but, with the leadership. They don't publish a list of officers and directors and don't hold meetings for their members and others to attend and ask questions. Talk about a "select few" SF's officers and directors make all decisions and then expect the members to fall in line like the three blind mice. That only works for a while.

If you disagree with that, fine but of if your a SF member, ask your officers or directors who among their current members was a member 5 years ago and 10 years ago and ask to see the membership rosters for 2009 and 2005 to compare for yourself. QUOTE]

[Ray]

Bill,

As a shorebound and kayak fisherman I have experienced that the quality of the fisheries for bass have decreased every year for the last 5 years. Of course there are the pushes of bass through the canal and hotspots and everyone goes nuts. But otherwise it has slowed greatly. Some areas are still good. But for example the shoreline bass fishery that made places like Chatham a destination location are gone.

Sure there are great schools are offshore where the tuna guys are, and in BB and CCB in late May - early June, but those fish are big. Where are all the potential spanning males? I guess in nets in Maryland --124-3

[gseries69]

Bill,

Fair enough. I think you have some good points and if anything it is up to SF to change the way the average saltwater angler sees them. Attitudes are reflected by leadership and SF leaders will need to reflect on the poor turn out. The future of SF is their concern, the future of stripers is all I'm concerned about. It would be nice to fish again for stripers in Maine. It was a big part of my season.

I personally don't see SF as a one issue organization, but rather a one strategy organization and that is to manage the striper as a public asset equally for everyone because the balance between supplying these fish as food and it's recreational value economically and socially has changed, just as it did for many other species. I don't believe MSY is a good way to manage stripers and belive mortality limits will be lowered with out it. Is it fair to the commercial fisherman? Probably not, but I again refer to the Florida species that are managed as gamefish and ask why we wouldn't manage the most important northern saltwater gamefish the same way? It seems to have worked out well down there. I've asked the question many times and have received very few, if any, answers. I'm not trying to be cynical about it, I really would like to know what you think about it and if you think it did some good for snook and reds in places like Florida and Louisiana.

I would like to have a world class fishery again up north as you do in Florida. I haven't been to Maine in over three years because the reports have been so bad. In that same amount of time I've been down south on trips a half a dozen weeks.

Maine is three hours away and much cheaper.

[Onshore]

You cite Florida as managing their fisheries the way you would like to see Stripers managed and, I assume you refer to Redfish and Seatrout and Snook. None of those fish are highly migratory as is the Striper

Florida passed an inshore gillnet ban because commercials were using huge nets, blocking channels with them and nearly wiped out all three above species. That was the start of the management down here to which was added closed seasons and slot-limits.

Slot limits don't work on the coast as evidenced by what happened in Maine and New Jersey. An inshore gillnet ban would do little to change the coastal Striper population as gillnets are not being used over much of their range.

I'm not sure you can compare what Florida does to a static stock of fish to what any state could do with a highly migratory population.

[gseries69]

Are snook, redfish, and sea trout managed under the same MSY method as striped bass now? Can they still be fished for commercially using the same methods as stripers?

I guess my assumption, possibly incorrect, is that Florida decided that the fishery was worth more managed for the recreational angler in mind versus the commercial interst. How did they gain gamefish status? Can/do commercial fisherman still sell those species using other methods?

How does the migratory aspect of the fishery impact the management? The majority of stripers seem to be in two places 90% of the time. Chesapeake in winter and Cape Cod in summer. Except for a short period of time for migration each spring and fall they are basically static which is why it makes sense to me that the mangement of the striper in the Chesapeake and Mass is so important to the fisheries outside those areas.

If slot limits don't work I would certainly be against it, but I thought both redfish and snook were slot fish.

Yes I cite Florida because I've fished down there a bunch and I loved it. Perhaps I am off base in comparing the two.

[Perch]

Fatkenny: Not only are you wrong, there aren't any "commercial striper fishermen." It’s a grotesque charade. Anyone who believes these recremercials depend on stripers for their "livelihood” is living in La-La Land. And what on earth is so controversial about game-fish status for stripers? Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and the District of Columbia have made the species a game fish. It’s not like this is a new, radical idea. Diodati makes no pretense that his “commercial” season provides anything more than gas-and-tackle money for recreational anglers or minor compensation for genuine commercial fishermen who, under his agency’s watch, have wiped out other fish stocks. “The commercial fishery has also changed by attracting thousands of non-traditional participants who are lured by the thought of subsidizing an expensive hobby,” he writes.

[IronSkippy]

Fatkenny: Not only are you wrong, there aren't any "commercial striper fishermen." It’s a grotesque charade. Anyone who believes these recremercials depend on stripers for their "livelihood” is living in La-La Land. And what on earth is so controversial about game-fish status for stripers? Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and the District of Columbia have made the species a game fish. It’s not like this is a new, radical idea. Diodati makes no pretense that his “commercial” season provides anything more than gas-and-tackle money for recreational anglers or minor compensation for genuine commercial fishermen who, under his agency’s watch, have wiped out other fish stocks. “The commercial fishery has also changed by attracting thousands of non-traditional participants who are lured by the thought of subsidizing an expensive hobby,” he writes.

Perch- The reason that all those recreational interests spoke out against the law was because it was terrible for the fish. Do not ever say the fishery is not a make or break moneymaker for many fisherman. I know the guys and I am one of the guys. I catch alot of these things. If you have such hatred of folks selling 7 fish in a day for gas money, then do something about that. It is still not a valid reason to pass rules that have proven to be a disaster when put into practical application. My families income greatly depends on a healthy population of bass. We would not be in business without the commercial sale of bass, a healthy recreational fishery, and plenty of fish to run charters on. The common denominator in the success of those three aspects of our businesses is a healthy stock of bass. The bill threatened all three of those aspects so I fought against it. Most recreational fishing groups in this state did the same for similiar reasons. Again, it comes down to arrogant leadership of a group painting moderate users of the resource as whipping boys. I feel for guys like you because you want a the same thing I do - A healthy inshore fishery. You and many others blindly followed Burns because he was the only one to grab a hold of of. There is still time for you to spit it out and ask true fishermen what it would take to return the fishing to what you experienced in previous years.

jb

[gseries69]

Does gamefish status get stripers off the MSY method of management?

[Onshore]

[QUOTE=gseries69;279312]Are snook, redfish, and sea trout managed under the same MSY method as striped bass now? Can they still be fished for commercially using the same methods as stripers?
.................................................. .................................................. ...................
Following the gillnet ban, snook, reds and trout were taken off the list of legal commercial fish. They are not managed for MSY. Those species along with Tarpon and Bonefish may not be sold.
.................................................. .................................................. ...................
How does the migratory aspect of the fishery impact the management? The majority of stripers seem to be in two places 90% of the time. Chesapeake in winter and Cape Cod in summer. Except for a short period of time for migration each spring and fall they are basically static which is why it makes sense to me that the mangement of the striper in the Chesapeake and Mass is so important to the fisheries outside those areas.
.................................................. .................................................. .....................
Large stripers spend most of their time outside the Hudson River, Chesapeake and Albemarle Sound where they spawn. They are along the coast - migrating north as far as Canada and South as far as Florida. During most of the year, the Bay, River and Sound have only small fish, for the most part. I've caught Stripers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and in Georgia. Surprisingly, friends of mine who live in Amherst, NS had one of their best years for Stripers last season from tributaries along the Bay Challeure.
.................................................. .................................................. ......................

If slot limits don't work I would certainly be against it, but I thought both redfish and snook were slot fish.
.................................................. .................................................. .......................
They are, but they do not migrate great distances - spawning within the same estuary where they spend most of their life and more easily managed. allowed Maine to have a slot limit and it resulted in killing many immature fish. They allow New Jersey to do it too and it increased their annual kill too. The commission has vowed not to again allow a slot limit on Stripers.QUOTE]

[Perch]

Ending the recremercial slaughter of breeding-age female bass will be “terrible for the fish”? C’mon, IronSkippy. I will acknowledge that the low slot was ill-advised and very dangerous for a bad year class. I warned Patrick about that. Even with that major flaw, the bill is a net gain for stripers and striper anglers. It’s not dead yet, and maybe Patrick will fix it.

[ag1]

Ending the recremercial slaughter of breeding-age female bass will be “terrible for the fish”? C’mon, IronSkippy. I will acknowledge that the low slot was ill-advised and very dangerous for a bad year class. I warned Patrick about that. Even with that major flaw, the bill is a net gain for stripers and striper anglers. It’s not dead yet, and maybe Patrick will fix it.

Let's hope he does fix it.

I reluctantly supported the bill and wrote to my reps about it. I say "reluctantly" because SF was the only group doing anything about conserving stripers. I did not like the proposed small fish slot and would have preferred a move back to the one 36"+ fish rule. I also don't object to a Comm quota if the stocks support one.

It seems to me that SF would have had more support if they surveyed anglers first. From the discussion here and on other sites, there seems to be broader support for returning to the one fish rule.

If nothing else, at least the bill reminds the managers that we are watching.

[Slappy]

. From the discussion here and on other sites, there seems to be broader support for returning to the one fish rule.
.

Simple idea, easy to defend, easy to enforce--but not proposed!! (that would be too easy!)

Seems like the obvious solution to me.

But the charter boat fleet is pretty strongly against a one fish limit so there is some strong oppostion.

[gseries69]

There is still time for you to spit it out and ask true fishermen what it would take to return the fishing to what you experienced in previous years.

jb

Heck, I'll bite. What would it take to return fishing to what it was in previous years?

I like to fish in Mass, I liked Maine too because it was close and I have family there. I don't go to Maine much anymore and I've backed off my trips to the Cape because the fall runs have been so terrible.

BUT, I still have those dollars in my budget to go fishing somewhere. If the Cape economy is so great that they don't need folks like me there to spend money that's fine I'll find other places to fish. I know that we need you all to keep coming up here to ski to keep us going. What's really tough to swallow is the lost opportunity to have a truly world class fishery. We had it for a while, but it appears to be gone now. With the big Florida kills this winter I wonder where I'll be going this year. Seems there are fewer and fewer opportunities. A real shame.

[Perch]

“It seems to me that SF would have had more support if they surveyed anglers first. From the discussion here and on other sites, there seems to be broader support for returning to the one fish rule.”

Yes. But, Ag1, this wasn’t a SF bill. SF didn’t even know about it until Patrick hatched it. Patrick is a good guy who wants to help stripers. He made a very bad mistake with the low slot. But he can amend that out.

[ag1]

Yes. But, Ag1, this wasn’t a SF bill. SF didn’t even know about it until Patrick hatched it. Patrick is a good guy who wants to help stripers. He made a very bad mistake with the low slot. But he can amend that out.

True, but SF could have received more support if the bill had been amended early.

Even so, I don't think any bill targeting commercial fishing is a good idea to introduce during a recession.

[Perch]

Ag1: First, it might not be strategically wise to amend too soon. Might be better for Patrick to wait till a compromise is needed. Second, the bill did not target “commercial fishing.” Don’t let all the BS fool you. There’s no such thing as a “commercial striper fisherman” in Mass. These guys are recremercial anglers. It’s all a grotesque charade. Even Diodoti admits its about extra gas and tackle money. Yeah maybe there are six guys who could really use the extra dough, but there are lots of other things they could do to earn as much or more. And consider that a recreational caught striper is worth roughly 100 times more to the economy than a commercial caught one.

[bonefishdick]

I'm curious and I don't even know the answers , I will state what I was told which then leads to my questions which is these.

Is it true that a Commercial license for "stripers" costs $65.00, and does this license cover all other fish legal to sell.

My other question is does this then allow the "Commercial Fisherman" to write off his expenses for all or part of the year.

It seems to me if that is the cost off the license and you do get to write off your expenses then it's a damn good investment even if you never catch and sell one fish.

I wonder if this might be a big part of the issue that I have not seen discussed at any point yet.

[Onshore]

I'm curious and I don't even know the answers , I will state what I was told which then leads to my questions which is these.
Is it true that a Commercial license for "stripers" costs $65.00, and does this license cover all other fish legal to sell.My other question is does this then allow the "Commercial Fisherman" to write off his expenses for all or part of the year.It seems to me if that is the cost off the license and you do get to write off your expenses then it's a damn good investment even if you never catch and sell one fish.I wonder if this might be a big part of the issue that I have not seen discussed at any point yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't answer all your questions but, what you call a striper license is a Rod & Reel permit that allows the owner to catch and sell striped bass to licensed dealers. They must be caught on rod and reel.

There are a number of other permits or endorsements that can be purchased for other species at additional cost. You can look them all up on the MA. Div.Marine Fisheries web site. As far as "writing off" expenses, the lic. has nothing to do with that. It's like any other business venture - expenses of doing business can be written off against business income on State of Fed tax returns.

[ag1]

I took some time last season to go through the 2008 DMF numbers on commercials. The first chart shows how the permits were used by the 3,858 holders. The second is a table showing the pounds of bass sold by the guys that actually fished for stripers.

I would be interested in hearing from guys who are more familiar with the commercial side, especially about the large number of permit holders that do not fish for stripers. WTF? Is it because they are busy chasing other species or is this just a ticket to write off expenses?

In the table, I drew a line to try and identify those holders who are truly doing this for a living. I based this on an assumption that $2-3 per pound basically covers boat expenses. Having owned a boat in a slip a few years ago, I can certainly understand the incentive to do this.

My take on this is that taxpayers are subsidizing boat expenses for lots guys in the name of commercial fishing. I think the DMF should cut back on the number of permits.

[Perch]

And how many “commercial” striper fishermen do you think report their income from killing breeding-age female bass?

[north coast]

Perch:
Do you even realize, That It's remarks like yours that that help keep support for agendas like yours in check. Are there some guys that sell bass for a few extra bucks? probably. There are guys that sell every other marketable fish for a few bucks too,so what? There are way more guys that depend on the commercial bass fishery than you would have others believe. You are definately the "antiCMP"

[Onshore]

Why do folks get all upset with the very small commercial fishery for Stripers in Massachusetts when the entire fishery lasts about 30 days and takes only about 15% of what recreational fishermen take over an 8 month season. I think you guys have your priorities mixed up.

If you care about the present and future state of the bass; shouldn't you be advocating for measures to restrict the rec. catch????

[browndog]

I believe the issue people have is that a small group of people are allowed to take a large number of bass. I'd like to see a national limit of 1 bass,34"per angler, per day, no exceptions.Manage bass like migratory birds, the feds set guide lines and the states are mandated to comply.This topic gets beat to death several times every year.

[CMP]

Why do folks get all upset with the very small commercial fishery for Stripers in Massachusetts when the entire fishery lasts about 30 days and takes only about 15% of what recreational fishermen take over an 8 month season. I think you guys have your priorities mixed up.

If you care about the present and future state of the bass; shouldn't you be advocating for measures to restrict the rec. catch????

And there you have it folks! The reason the whiners from gripers forever cannot "win" this argument is that the commercial take is a peeeshole in the snow compared to what the recreational sector kills. You lose...

CMP :-% --123-3

[Onshore]

I believe the issue people have is that a small group of people are allowed to take a large number of bass. I'd like to see a national limit of 1 bass,34"per angler, per day, no exceptions.Manage bass like migratory birds, the feds set guide lines and the states are mandated to comply.This topic gets beat to death several times every year.

Hi, Capt. ; which do you want?

a national limit of 1 bass of 34" or

Do you want the feds to set the guidelines and the states to manage the limits like migratory birds? Actually you have it that way right now with ASMFC (the Feds) setting the guidelines and the states required to set their limits/seasons/sizes within the guidelines.

Any state is free under ASMFC to adopt size limits of any length as long as it's over 28". They can set a season limit as short as they want and they can set a bag limit as long as it's not more than two.
So, theoretically, if you can get your state to decide to, you could have a season lasting a week with a one fish/day limit of 50" and a bag limit of one.

IMHO you will never see a national limit for many reasons. Two of the most valid are that states within the Chesapeake(MD & VA) only have large fish for a very short time - during the spawning season when it is illegal to take them. The rest of the year the Chesapeake has plenty of fish but, not many are over 24"

[pgod]

What many fail to realize is that commercial bass fishing is not a black and white topic. Both sides should take a step back, remove the emotion and look at the big picture. For example, think about what it creates for the state and residents. 2008 and 2009 were two of the most difficult years financially that most of us as individuals and our respective states have experienced to date. For two months each year- commercial bass fishing kept money in the pockets of the "real fisherman", it provided relief and hope for part timers that were unemployed, it put money in the cash draws of local tackle shops and stores, it ensured local and corporate gas stations would see $150+ transactions, it increased tax revenue for the state through income, sales and permit fees. It allowed some pretty discouraged people to get out on the water and give their family's some hope and a boost to the checking account. No matter how you look at it, consumer spending increased as a direct result of the commercial bass season. Clearly it makes perfect sense to shut it down and pull that money out of the economy.

Openly admitted I am biased, I was brought up commercially fishing for bass since I was a child and have never known any other way. The bass season should be kept open until there is viable proof that the stock is in trouble. Our country was founded on the fisheries, it is our heritage. The State has limited, closed, changed, threatened and taken away so many other fisheries as it is. The bayman has been pushed to the brink of almost extinction in MA and this would only do more damage.

Has anyone stopped and thought maybe the bass have evolved? Talk to the dragger guys, plenty of bass off shore all year. Talk to the tuna guys or read the reports. Plenty of bass in tuna country - and why not? Fields of halfbeaks and sand eels, why wouldn't the bass hang with them? Get rid of the midwater trawlers, increase the herring, mackerel and menhaden stock and you will have your glory days back. I don't think there is a problem with the stock, i would say it is more of a change of pattern.

And speaking of the glory days... In the glory days of fishing, were there this many recreational fisherman putting full season pressure on the fish via boat and every inch of shore line they can read about online? People fail to see the big picture. Did you not think sharing on message boards and mediums such as our beloved "on the water magazine" would come with consequences? More fishermen + much more readily available and pertinent information = increased preasure and less fish.

I say 1 34 inch fish a day for recs, get rid of sundays for the comm season and increase the comm size limit to 35 inches (30 a day T, W, Th). Think grey guys, not black and white. Push reform it will get you further than trying to shut it down. Just look at how easily they reformed the heck out of sea bass in MA. My god, what is that season open for 10 minutes in the spring now?

[browndog]

Hi, Capt. ; which do you want?

a national limit of 1 bass of 34" or

Do you want the feds to set the guidelines and the states to manage the limits like migratory birds? Actually you have it that way right now with ASMFC (the Feds) setting the guidelines and the states required to set their limits/seasons/sizes within the guidelines.

Any state is free under ASMFC to adopt size limits of any length as long as it's over 28". They can set a season limit as short as they want and they can set a bag limit as long as it's not more than two.
So, theoretically, if you can get your state to decide to, you could have a season lasting a week with a one fish/day limit of 50" and a bag limit of one.

IMHO you will never see a national limit for many reasons. Two of the most valid are that states within the Chesapeake(MD & VA) only have large fish for a very short time - during the spawning season when it is illegal to take them. The rest of the year the Chesapeake has plenty of fish but, not many are over 24"

The difference is that commercial waterfowling was banned long ago. My idea is 1 bass minimum size 34-36" per day for everyone, all states.

[moondoggy]

I think they should allow 1 striper at 24 inches per day for recreational anglers.There are so many small stripers now with the fish management system they have in place there is hardly any alwife or bunker around any more.The thames river is stacked up like cordwood with small stripers and a lot stay all year round.Any striper 34 or bigger returned.

[Onshore]

The difference is that commercial waterfowling was banned long ago. My idea is 1 bass minimum size 34-36" per day for everyone, all states.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When commercial waterfowling was banned there was no recreational fishing for Stripers but, they have been caught commercially since shortly after the Pilgrims landed.

You and I could probably be happy with a 1 large fish per day limit but, You will never see 1 bass 34-36" because of the situation in the Chesapeake with few big fish except during spawning but; even more so because the average of the millions of recreational striper fishermen has never caught a fish that size and would never support such a drastic change.
I also seriously doubt that your (charter/headboat) industry would support such a change.

[browndog]

You're correct. I agree it's not likely to happen, just expressing my opinion.

[Perch]

“When commercial waterfowling was banned there was no recreational fishing for Stripers but, they have been caught commercially since shortly after the Pilgrims landed.”
--
Another alleged fact plucked from Onshore’s fertile imagination. Commercial waterfowling was ongoing until 1918 when the Migratory Bird Treaty Act put an end to it. Recreational angling for stripers was an ancient sport in America when, in 1864, the recreational Striped Bass Club opened on Cuttyhunk Island.

[Onshore]

[QUOTE=Perch;279455 Commercial waterfowling was ongoing until 1918 when the Migratory Bird Treaty Act put an end to it. Recreational angling for stripers was an ancient sport in America when, in 1864, the recreational Striped Bass Club opened on Cuttyhunk Island.[/QUOTE]

That's what I said. Commercial fishing for stripers began right after the Pilgrims landed in 1620 and that's about 200 years earlier.

[Perch]

Onshore. Read what both of us wrote. What you wrote is that there was “no recreational fishing for stripers when waterfowl was banned.” That’s a ridiculous and fallacious statement, as I demonstrated to you.

[Onshore]

This ****ant argument is going nowhere and really isn't going to solve any of the problems Stripers may have. I'm done with it.

[Perch]

“This ****ant argument is going nowhere and really isn't going to solve any of the problems Stripers may have. I'm done with it.” For once, I agree, Onshore. And the reason the argument is going nowhere is precisely because of wild, inaccurate statements such as proclaiming that there was no recreational striper angling in America before commercial waterfowling was banned in 1918.

[gseries69]

Like I said in my original post, talk of striper conservation is a waste of time. You should see the flames on another board when the subject was brought up.

New England anglers have an opportunity to have a truly world class fishery of thier own and continue to pi$$ that opportunity away. Our trout rivers can't hold wild trout, our stripers haven't visited Maine is three years, we've destroyed our ground fisheries, depleted our menhaden stocks, Lake Champlain is teaming with lampreys, blah blah blah, the list goes on...

So where else can we go fishing?

[Perch]

“Like I said in my original post, talk of striper conservation is a waste of time.” I agree, at least when the talk is based on personal fantasies of some folks we’ve recently heard from. When discussion is sensible and based on facts it is at least interesting, therefore not a “waste of time.”