mumichog
07-02-2000, 02:10 PM
The impact of rec. fisherman is more difficult to determine primarily because of the vague evidence catch and release fishing has on under-sized bass. But compare the ratio of hours spent fishing to actual keepers landed and the comm. fishermen have a vastly greater impact than the rec. crowd. Must rec. do not catch any keepers, according to surveys, most that are caught are put back. The comm. guys are out for meat and money so there is little value in even comparing their impact to the rec. crowd which has a growing understanding of need for larger size limits and the releasing of big fish to breed and be caight again.
Frankly, I'm sick of this sentimental pity extended to comm. fisherman - against the backdrop of a obviously declining striper fishery in the 70's and 80's they had to be forced to stop killing bass, by laws and enforcement. They campaigned against the moratorium for years until the very bitter end and then stood proudly beside the policy makers proclaiming their cooperation. Left to their own devices, they would have exterminated the stripers from the east coast, blamed it on the goverment then moved on to exploit another species.
(Don't believe me? Where do you think all the pogies have gone? Check with the ASMFC and you will find out that back in the early 90's the comm. industry worked a deal with ME and NH to allow international processing boats within two miles - instead of twelve - of shore supposedly because the toursits were sick of the rotting fish which were being herded into bays and coves by bass and blues. Remember how good the fishing was in the early nineties, remember how many big stripers were caught right along the shore, remember the schools of 10-15lb blues blitzing with regularity? It's gone because your comm. fishing industry realized a easily reachable and reliable "resource" was being "underutilized," ie, turned into fertilzer. The law was just replaced by another which pushes the big boats back offshore but now allows more small local boats to fish. And, that's right, it was done under the guise of conservation by a group led by NH Senator Jud Gregg, check his website.)
Why is it that just when these fish were making a come a few years ago the limits were lowered? Commercial fishing pressure, that's why. Rec. fishermen are notoriously quiet and under-represented when it comes to the making of regulations, so they had little to do with it. In fact, the growing voice of striper conservation groups were the loudest rec. group to be heard and they mostly favored the higher limts! While the charter captains (party boats) were complict, and the sport fishermen shamelessly jumped the smaller keeper bandwagon, it was the relentless and well financed comm. interests which led to the dropping of the 36" limit. (And it was a shrewd move to bait the rec. fishermen into the smaller fish limits so the comm. guys could point the finger at us as equally guilty if any time like now when the fishery is declining again came along.) To say the ASMFC planned all along to lower the limit when the resource was renewed is to say the comm. folks had nothing to do with the origination of that plan- which of course they did. Even when the striper population was on the brink of extinction and the moratorium was going into effect they insisted that if comm. fishermen were to be banned from fishing that any recovery down the road was to be shared by them and they got it put into the plan from the beginning. This happened even though they would have kept fishing had the ban not gone into effect.
Sport fisherman should refrain from keeping fish because we are fishing for sport not for meat. It is contradictory to say you love fishing as a pastime then lend a hand in the depletion of your favorite species under the guise of "one for the grill" mentality. Ask youself one question - would I rather have lots of big fish to catch or would I rather have a smaller fishery but be able to keep a few for the grill? Answer and you'll know which side of the fence your on since it has become crystal clear we can't have it both ways. Those days have come and gone - because of the greed of comm. fishermen and because there are just too many of us fishing now to think keeping a few won't matter when thousands of others plan to do the same thing.
Frankly, I'm sick of this sentimental pity extended to comm. fisherman - against the backdrop of a obviously declining striper fishery in the 70's and 80's they had to be forced to stop killing bass, by laws and enforcement. They campaigned against the moratorium for years until the very bitter end and then stood proudly beside the policy makers proclaiming their cooperation. Left to their own devices, they would have exterminated the stripers from the east coast, blamed it on the goverment then moved on to exploit another species.
(Don't believe me? Where do you think all the pogies have gone? Check with the ASMFC and you will find out that back in the early 90's the comm. industry worked a deal with ME and NH to allow international processing boats within two miles - instead of twelve - of shore supposedly because the toursits were sick of the rotting fish which were being herded into bays and coves by bass and blues. Remember how good the fishing was in the early nineties, remember how many big stripers were caught right along the shore, remember the schools of 10-15lb blues blitzing with regularity? It's gone because your comm. fishing industry realized a easily reachable and reliable "resource" was being "underutilized," ie, turned into fertilzer. The law was just replaced by another which pushes the big boats back offshore but now allows more small local boats to fish. And, that's right, it was done under the guise of conservation by a group led by NH Senator Jud Gregg, check his website.)
Why is it that just when these fish were making a come a few years ago the limits were lowered? Commercial fishing pressure, that's why. Rec. fishermen are notoriously quiet and under-represented when it comes to the making of regulations, so they had little to do with it. In fact, the growing voice of striper conservation groups were the loudest rec. group to be heard and they mostly favored the higher limts! While the charter captains (party boats) were complict, and the sport fishermen shamelessly jumped the smaller keeper bandwagon, it was the relentless and well financed comm. interests which led to the dropping of the 36" limit. (And it was a shrewd move to bait the rec. fishermen into the smaller fish limits so the comm. guys could point the finger at us as equally guilty if any time like now when the fishery is declining again came along.) To say the ASMFC planned all along to lower the limit when the resource was renewed is to say the comm. folks had nothing to do with the origination of that plan- which of course they did. Even when the striper population was on the brink of extinction and the moratorium was going into effect they insisted that if comm. fishermen were to be banned from fishing that any recovery down the road was to be shared by them and they got it put into the plan from the beginning. This happened even though they would have kept fishing had the ban not gone into effect.
Sport fisherman should refrain from keeping fish because we are fishing for sport not for meat. It is contradictory to say you love fishing as a pastime then lend a hand in the depletion of your favorite species under the guise of "one for the grill" mentality. Ask youself one question - would I rather have lots of big fish to catch or would I rather have a smaller fishery but be able to keep a few for the grill? Answer and you'll know which side of the fence your on since it has become crystal clear we can't have it both ways. Those days have come and gone - because of the greed of comm. fishermen and because there are just too many of us fishing now to think keeping a few won't matter when thousands of others plan to do the same thing.