BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About flydog777

  • Rank
  1. Great answer! Ditto!
  2. I would agree the new tech is awesome and adds casting distance more action without having to do much. I would still take a modified mambo black over the others. I would list the bucktail as the plug to which most fish are caught. The USN puts them in their survival kits. Tins seem to be an easy to make and catch a ton. Wow. This is good question. I have a lot of confidence in that bucktail though. So many species across the board can be caught with one. I will say the bucktail is the most efficient and reliable hands down imho but I never leave the house without a mambo...just saying.
  3. That would just makes sense. Some good old fashioned real detective work. Why continue with the guess/estimate on science that does not even know how many fisherman caught fish. It is called common sense. NASA had the best of everything but when the Mars rover burned up in the atmosphere the undoing was that some calculations were based on the metric system and others were based on the US measurement system. How do we know. I mean really, really know that those missed percentages are even close to target. We don't. The end result will be worse or improve. That doesn't make sense to a logical person to gamble like this. Not when we live with much better science and reliable data sources already available. You are correct the system is broken. People now see by putting their trust in this process is haphazard. We live in a world that posts billions of selfies on Instagram a minute. We can find better tech and science. Don't give up the fight!
  4. Your observations are more based upon fact than the formulas and science used to manage this loved gamefish. It wasn't just your observations that pointed to some obvious failure managing the fishery. Several thousands of fisherman with years of experience have also found inconsistency along the way. Whomever fishes from the Boston area finding it easy to catch striper is either completely ignorant of the species and range as a whole or not interested in fishing beyond it. To each their own. No harm no foul. Firstly Boston stocks can be traced to the Northern biomass mostly. Secondly there is a year round small population that resides there. I don't think they spawn there though. So that person should give us his spot so we can verify that for ourselves. For scientific reasons of course. I think that all our observations are important and if we were to document this to a data base it could be a goldmine. I wonder what we would find out. The truth maybe or a much clearer picture at least. I wish others would post their observations.
  5. Not protecting spawning fish with a documented history of poor stock recruitments is insane. That is how the fishery sustains itself reproducing.
  6. How about a big F.U.? I can't even understand what you are saying, use English please. Kudos to you if you are really more expert that the NSC. Edited 23 hours ago by MakoMike MakoMike said: Have good life, and when you figure out how to count the catch of some 23 million striped bass anglers let me know. Well I apologize for the bad grammar. I merely was responding to your paradigm regarding the ability to count 23 million fisherman and their catch. I figured it out. Those fisherman will certainly have cell phones. A cell phone app. could record, collate and provide geographical information. I think that is an answer that is not disrespectful and has solved something you fail to recognize. You are incorrect incorrect in your assumptions and this isn't the first time in this forum.
  7. 23 million fisherman with cell phones. I think they call it an App.
  8. If anything. With citing Big Pharma using horseshoe crabs for product testing is certainly about the money. Big Pharma money. So when I agreed with the UMass fish wildlife biologist I was agreeing that man intervenes through greed. Hence it is always about the money. How did you read my reply other than that? I could not understand your response. Some where in this forum you misunderstood the context of what was said. After all said and done I was defending the horseshoe crab being overfished by greed. Hence the dollars and not even in the conversation with you about that subject at all. So what in tarnation were you so angry about?
  9. Dude you are delusional. My money comment was directed at the focus of the commercial fishery. To pander now after I did not even see any valuable correlation between horseshoe crabs, red tail snow robins or knot birds. Your drawing that conclusion your self. If your point is to say it is not about the money. Then record the fish taken. No you want to estimate the process and boast greatness of an inaccurate system. You didn't fool me. The money doesn't come first? Then why does New Jersey get what they want every time? Is it because of horseshoe crabs? If whoever does the estimate gets paid was it in fairy dust? Your delusion will only go so far. The entire process has a breakdown of costs. Those that make money and stand to lose money will always continue to pursue that agenda. Any decision made by any organization is based on cost. The ASMFC requires money to operate. How much money dictates the level of ambition. So yes at the end of the day it always about the money? Show me the text where I questioned the integrity of the red knot bird and horse shoe crab. I responded to a UMass graduate who majored in fish and wildlife biology in his revelation that most of the problems are human in origin and stem from greed. I responded to that post. You read my response and said what about the horseshoe crab and blah blah blah. So how does this comment make any logical sense at all. I entertained your lunacy and now you continue to be vile knowing I responded in kind an enduring your insults. Show me how my response to some one elses comment ...not your own. Has caused you pain that you have gone through so much effort to pat yourself on the back????? I am waiting.......
  10. I agree. The ASMFC does not take an precautions. Matter of fact they can't even follow through with their own recommendations. The problem I have is with a risk policy if the sustainability numbers are wrong to begin with and the stock is already in jeopardy how do you allow for any harvest based on inaccurate numbers. Need to fix the existing problem. Yes if they used this process that would yield a better result. Why it is not being used is indeed a failure of good judgement. A reassessment of poor stock and making change is imperative. As long as this doesn't get used as a double edge sword for the commercial fishery. in that case it could have detrimental effects to the recruitment stock being managed.
  11. I am not counting the ones in the ocean. Just want to put counts on what was caught, put back and kept. I will volunteer to start the tagging process. This is the process of understanding a species by tagging and documentation size and condition. Maybe some day a non invase device will be invented to determine sex without injury to the fish. There is always more we could do. We would never achieve anything if we acccepted less and just rolled with it. It was not my ambition to achieve an estimate if there are acheivable ways to be more accurate. I don't think I convinced you. Don't take it to heart. As you question my lament at a more accurate stock assessment which you find not realistic is in the same way rec fisherman question the basis of numbers used in this estimization. Nothing more, nothing less. So we be both agree to disagree. We would have never got to this conclusion if we estimated each others intention.
  12. I understand that what that the ASMFC has done is create an unreliable system and is dysfunctional. It is now shooting in the dark missing on previous stock recruitments. At some point it catches up with you and if trends already show that with imperfect information. The only way is to start over with some real data to base some conclusions on before swinging with a correction. Your right will we ever get 100% accurate with every thing, but if we could exclude certain things with credible scientific findings it is possible to make better decisions. The direct impact of knowing the cause verses suspecting the cause is stark in contrast. Just because this has been done this way before doesn't mean this is the best way forward. The best science available is limited to budget. Accepting that this process is not working will be the first step in the right direction. It is possible to get more accurate numbers. Just ask any one who fishes to report their catch. It would be closer to accurate then not doing so. Why does this tid bit so bothersome? Because it makes sense! I am for a solution. One that will be accross the board and not interfere with progress of the proposed action. When this doesn't work and it gets worse is that when we need to base findings on more reliable data. Is that when we say the ASMFC did not work at all. Sorry. I can't live with that. I am calling it as I see it. As the forum has suggested the ASMFC are obsolete and can be considered frauds if they can be linked to being part of the problem. It is not that the ASMFC swung and missed twice on the recruitment stocks. They did not correct their mistakes. They continue to fail at achieving a balanced plan that achieves or tries to accomplish their goal. Letting the plan become flexible and counterproductive should be a lesson you only need to learn once. If you never get to fulfill the goal of managing the species you were tasked with. Then what are they?
  13. Nice language. I am open to criticism. If I am inaccurate then I shall make remedy to my misinformation. I don't believe I have mislead you. My argument is reasonably understood and does not need a higher level of interpretation. I have yielded no data to defend. It is the lack of actual real data I am lamenting about. If the data is not based on any accurate measurement. Then in trying to make any corrective measure will yield an inaccurate results an approximation. A guess. So the correction could miss and miss wide. I don't know for sure but I think a lot of rec fisherman are concerned about this. If data measured and obtained needs to be certified or rubber stamped it is not the same as saying this is actual data obtained. Exact numbers with almost no variability what so ever. There is no point in making a conclusion based on imperfect information. I am seeking the total number of fish kept. This number may be direct to the causation of over fishing if that number was obtained and factual. So if I don't have it and everything so far has been guess work. Are you telling me the MRIP is that very information I am searching for. The striper has many predators Sharks, Seals and Man. There are also environmental concerns such as pollution. The water condition, temp, salinity and currents may all contribute. All these factors and the ASMFC cites over fishing and the blame falls to the rec fisherman. So I wonder how can I base any causation without valid evidence in data or by scientific explanation through complete scientific investigation with indisputable findings. There seems to be lacking empirical evidence and facts. Unless the NSC has obtained the exact number of fish caught by rec fisherman which obviously that is not their primary focus. Then how is anything I have said here require the NSC to verify my statements. I am saying we need to start some where with accurate data. Ebbs and flows the way it was previously recorded if imperfect will show a trend. I am not looking for a trend. I am looking for the cause. Rule it in or rule it out and move on to the next suspected cause. By doing this you learn a truth and would have starting point with something valid and factual. Not speculation. Not a trend. Not a methodology of approximation. In my defense of being a rec angler I prepared to accept a valid scientific finding of the cause even if that cause is me. If we really don't know. Then I don't know how to explain this further.
  14. That was the only thing I did agree with you about. John is entirely right that once the decision was ratified and the Tech Comm made their suggested plan the moderator did allow New Jersey to continue in contrast of the plan. It is entirely relevant that if you already had your data and believe your plan then why is this up for review. I get listening to any concerns but that should have been taken as duly noted and follow through what you just voted on. The ASMFC just cant follow through on anything. With 26 species under their management 17 are now imperiled with blue fish being now listed as over fished. You would think that just once the fish species would come before the self interest of New Jersey. You can't spin this into fantasy. There are witnesses as to what really happened. In the previous meeting the public was limited in discussion. Some scientific data was not allowed to be discussed and it was never shared with the public. That is concerning considering the ASMFC track record. So why was something really, really interesting like scientific facts given the shutdown and in the next meeting New Jersey gets the floor. It boggles the mind. John has concisely and politely laid this out in detail. We all want to know what is the point of the ASMFC if they can't do what they set out to do?
  15. In order to make any correction regarding use of analytical means. The best course of data obtained should be based on factual statistics. Basing data of a presumptive means renders any analytics inaccurate and requires a percentage for those statistical inaccuracies. Hence any correction made was a guess and not scientifically accurate based off these assumptions. The only way to justify such a practice would be to use an accredited science institution to say this methodology is acceptable. That all amounts to a hill of beans to any one with a brain. You don't need a Phd to spot bull****! Just like your opinion! In your feable attempt to slight me you just prove how desperate you are to sell this crap. Next time you respond please say something intelligent. Please!