Jump to content

Keep No Bass.

Rate this topic


yosco

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JoeyZac said:

 

I don't know that's how it's "supposed to be," but they've been offshore as long as everyone can remember, and they're there now, so I have to assume that they "belong" there, at least.  Maybe they "also" belong inshore?  Or maybe that's only when there are an excessive amount?

 

I don't know.  Do you?

 

 

May I ask how you "know?"

I've explained it to you numerous times.  I've even taken the time to give you examples to try to put it in perspective.  If that is something you cannot wrap your head around, I don't know what to tell you.  It's obvious you don't know but believe it or not, others do.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, pakalolo said:

the east end gillnetters had a banner year, some saying they have never seen so many bass. Anecdotal? of course, factual? of course 

 

Right, because they all poach in addition to their tags.  Saying they had a banner year covers up the poaching 

 

What's constitutes a banner year? They only get 200 or so tags each. Like you have said many times,  the commerical quota is a strict limit that can't be overfished based on the number of tags issued.  So how is one year any different than another?  Why where there so many boats out everyday all day from August to November?  

 

There is only one answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single management program around the world, whether it's whales, bacteria, sharks, plovers., lions, tigers and wolves ( I bet you thought I was going to say bears ) will tell you that a contracting population reduces territory, and an expanding territory spreads it out. Anyone who can't grasp that basic concept is beyond understanding. Sorry to offend anyone, but that's reality. TFB. The bass are in trouble and the ASMFC needs to get off their collectives asses and grow a pair. It needs to be shut down for at least 5 years, maybe 7-8. The math I understand is 80,000,000 in the early 2000's and 35,000,000 now...rounded from their statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bbfish said:

 

An animal is missing from part of its historic natural range.  A pretty common sentiment up and down their range. That’s a problem.  Plain and simple.  You’re scenario of fish being “forced” inshore is anecdotal at best...........

 

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I am trying to be accurate.

 

Is this animal missing from part of it's historic natural range really a problem?  What's the problem?  Less bunker will get eaten by them?  Certainly we anglers see it as a problem, but is that "really" a problem?

 

Or do you mean that the fact that they are missing is indicative of a problem, like a decreasing biomass?

 

And if there is a problem causing them to not come inshore, what is the problem?

- A shrinking biomass?

- Polluted inshore waters?

- Seismic testing?

- Absence of bait? (I think we all agree it's not that)

- A simple change in migration path/habits after Sandy?

 

Now, if the biomass is shrinking, is it enough of a problem that we have a true issue with the future of the species, or is this just a matter of "on a scale of 1 to 10, the biomass was a 12, and now it's only a 9?"

 

If we have polluted inshore waters, that's another problem?

 

Seismic testing, sure, laugh, I don't think that's it, but it did occur.

 

Personally, I try to look at things like stats/projections/condition of things like the survey of YOY Bass, and things like the health of the Chesapeake Bay, or the fecundity of the Striped Bass that may or may not be reproducing in our local estruary, the Mullica River.

 

But nooooooooooo, what we're going to do is just bitch that the biomass is down, and then mock anyone who tries to look deeper into than "I had a bad season."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JoeyZac said:

 

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I am trying to be accurate.

 

Is this animal missing from part of it's historic natural range really a problem?  What's the problem?  Less bunker will get eaten by them?  Certainly we anglers see it as a problem, but is that "really" a problem?

 

Or do you mean that the fact that they are missing is indicative of a problem, like a decreasing biomass?

 

And if there is a problem causing them to not come inshore, what is the problem?

- A shrinking biomass?

- Polluted inshore waters?

- Seismic testing?

- Absence of bait? (I think we all agree it's not that)

- A simple change in migration path/habits after Sandy?

 

Now, if the biomass is shrinking, is it enough of a problem that we have a true issue with the future of the species, or is this just a matter of "on a scale of 1 to 10, the biomass was a 12, and now it's only a 9?"

 

If we have polluted inshore waters, that's another problem?

 

Seismic testing, sure, laugh, I don't think that's it, but it did occur.

 

Personally, I try to look at things like stats/projections/condition of things like the survey of YOY Bass, and things like the health of the Chesapeake Bay, or the fecundity of the Striped Bass that may or may not be reproducing in our local estruary, the Mullica River.

 

But nooooooooooo, what we're going to do is just bitch that the biomass is down, and then mock anyone who tries to look deeper into than "I had a bad season."

 

 

I’ll say it again, if a species is not in part of its natural range that there is a problem. Plain and simple.  Inshore waters have always been part of their natural range.

 

its very clear you you don’t want your 2 striped bass a day taken away. That’s fine, you can want whatever you want, but there are plenty of people in this thread that do research on your bolded terms.  Ignore em all you want. Plenty of informed individuals are informing us that there’s a train coming around the bend, maybe we should take simple precautions by stepping off the tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bbfish said:

 

I’ll say it again, if a species is not in part of its natural range that there is a problem. Plain and simple.  Inshore waters have always been part of their natural range.

 

its very clear you you don’t want your 2 striped bass a day taken away. That’s fine, you can want whatever you want, but there are plenty of people in this thread that do research on your bolded terms.  Ignore em all you want. Plenty of informed individuals are informing us that there’s a train coming around the bend, maybe we should take simple precautions by stepping off the tracks.

 

And I continue to ask if the "problem" is that the biomass is in decline, if it is in critical decline, or if there is something else at play.

 

The dig about it being "very clear" that I don't want my 2 Bass taken away, well, for starters, it's inaccurate.  I have no use for an "over" (43"+) fish.  Don't like to eat them; they're just not as good as a much smaller fish.

 

You continue to get in all the digs, after the false assumptions, you wish.  I'll continue to ask all the insightful questions I wish.  And whatever, life will go on just fine for both of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're not asking insightful questions, you're grasping at anything that allows you to maintain what you want for harvest. that's the problem with fisheries management in general, it's not fisheries management, there's really no such thing - it's socioeconomic appeasement, resource be damned.

 

 

ASMFC - Destroying public resources and fisheries one stock at a time since 1942.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, Just wondering if any of you would support Keeping The Commercial Quota throughout entire range of the bass as it is today but disallowing any Recreational Take.  All Recreational Fishing must be catch & release only.  This was floated around NY many seasons ago and was met with fierce opposition.

Another item also thought about was the imposing of also called  Bass Tax paid by Recs and the money used to buy out The Commercial Sector in NY.  Again, met with fierce opposition by both Recs & Commercials.

I just wanted to remind some of you what was thought about years ago but never came to be.  Many so called recs who talk about restoring the stocks just pay lip service and continue to take "One For The Cat" or "One For The  Neighbor" but  will always cry about others. If we really want to save The Bass maybe we need to sacrifice and let the Stripedbass remain a Recreational Catch & Release Species Only.  I know I will be attacked for this post by some but its okay.  I would like to take this opportunity to wish every member and their Families a Very Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's your answer Cpalms: Each commercial fisherman that holds bass tags is entitled to fill those tags, some are gillnetters, some are pinhookers, some are draggermen who are only allowed to land 20 fish per day, some are charter captains with a prior history of commercial fishing, some are retirees that fished back in the day and continue to fill their quota. With me so far? In order for a vessel to land bass, the tag holder must be on that vessel. Still with me? Some of the tag holders will fish on someone elses' boat, totally legal. If there are 3 guys on a gillnetter for the day, they can land 3 sets of tags=675 fish. What you saw are different fishermen on a relative handful of boats harvesting their LEGAL number of fish. Your anti - commercial bias renders you virtually incapable of listening to anyone with a differing opinion , but this post explains what you were seeing. So the gill net boats had a banner year, many days landing a set or 2 of tags.

IN FAVOR OF COMMERCIAL FISHING AND SURFING THE NORTH SIDE

MAY THE RICH GET RICHER!!

FISH ARE FOOD!!

UA MAU KA EA O KA AINA IKA PONO O HAWAII

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As TimS has said, if you remove commercial fishing then rec guys would more than likely get their quota. I’m sure the exact same thing would happen if it were catch and release for rec guys, the commercial interests would get a good chunk of the quota the recreational fisherman once had. There is only one solution to this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 mins ago, Stripedbass50lbs said:

Gentlemen, Just wondering if any of you would support Keeping The Commercial Quota throughout entire range of the bass as it is today but disallowing any Recreational Take.  All Recreational Fishing must be catch & release only.  This was floated around NY many seasons ago and was met with fierce opposition.

Another item also thought about was the imposing of also called  Bass Tax paid by Recs and the money used to buy out The Commercial Sector in NY.  Again, met with fierce opposition by both Recs & Commercials.

I just wanted to remind some of you what was thought about years ago but never came to be.  Many so called recs who talk about restoring the stocks just pay lip service and continue to take "One For The Cat" or "One For The  Neighbor" but  will always cry about others. If we really want to save The Bass maybe we need to sacrifice and let the Stripedbass remain a Recreational Catch & Release Species Only.  I know I will be attacked for this post by some but its okay.  I would like to take this opportunity to wish every member and their Families a Very Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year.

 

Im totally fine with taking responsibility. Dropping the number of bass taken each year by any means necessary.

 

Just as long as the decrease in rec takes doesn’t increase commercial...which I’m pretty sure is how this would play out.  Which sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stripedbass50lbs said:

...Many so called recs who talk about restoring the stocks just pay lip service and continue to take "One For The Cat" or "One For The  Neighbor" but  will always cry about others. ...

I believe that the recreational take averages out to less than one fish per person overall. Maybe if given a chance most anglers would selfishly keep as many fish as they can, but many for whatever reason aren't proportionally responsible for killing fish compared to others, even those that nobly catch and release all of the many they catch stacking their own sizable pile of dead released fish.

 

Edited by rollincoal
"If you know that and you don't know anything else you know more than if you know everything else and you don't know that."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...