MAArcher

BST Users
  • Content count

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About MAArcher

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. It doesn’t cost the rec fisherman who eats their keeper $25 a pound. Follow their example.
  2. Explain why it’s better for fish when the fishery managers have to decide between putting people in financial ruin and doing what’s best for the fish? How does anyone benefit long term from having only full time commercial fishing? Also explained How part time me fishermen hurt the fishery? read my posts. I explain clearly why eating striper is environmentally better for all.
  3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think tarpon were ever fished commercially nor are they known to be good table fare because of all the small bones. So how exactly do tarpon compare to striped bass? Guarantee away but I assure you, the majority of fisherman fish striper as a fun way to get food, and no, they would not agree with you. And no one is arguing if it will benefit striper population numbers if we go to catch and release only. The argument is if that's the best way to achieve the goal when you can have the same result without waste.
  4. There you said it again, in your mind eliminating 48% of mortality instead of 52% is an attempt at decimation? You don't really believe that do you? Do you understand the numbers are based on estimates and the margin of error is likely greater than four percent, right? They could easily be flipped, or a draw even. Before you bow out, answer me this; Mass is doing a new study that will provide us more accurate numbers. If it shows that the numbers are reversed, would you then agree that we should stop catch and waste fishing before we stop catch and eat if its shown to kill the most fish?
  5. Do you know what the law is? Does striper bycatch have to be thrown back or are draggers allowed to sell a certain amount of striper bycatch?
  6. How is stopping 48% waste not ensuring the species thrives or decimating it? Why would anyone change their mind from reasonable to unreasonable? You are a lot like Z-man, you make things up in your head to reaffirm your narrative if it doesn't stand up to logic and reason. In this case, you're making up a scenario where if we only eliminate 48% waste instead of 52% utilization, that somehow in our delusion equates to decimation. Or do you know that its not true and say it anyway? I'm bothering in hopes of changing your outlook brother, not mine. Do what's right and eat what you kill instead of wasting it. Its not a big ask.
  7. I see that you reference God in your tag line. How would you answer St. Peter if, before unlocking the pearly gates, he turns to you and asks "Why did you kill the fish for fun, and for sustenance you instead chose a way that desecrated the Lords creation?"
  8. Yes, the commercial discard is in the numbers. And if you do away with the 48% catch and release waste, not only will the species rebound, we get to keep all the benefits of wild fish consumption instead of suffering the consequences of their waste.
  9. Also, what difference would it make if someone did get a commercial permit to keep more fish? Why is that bad? They paid for a license, why shouldn't they get to use it? What difference does it make if they eat the fish themselves or sell it to someone else to eat? None of that is illegal or unethical. How is any of that worse than wasting fish for fun? Yes, you should have said it was because I didn't want to waste fish, then at least for once you'd be in the right. You don't have to respond. I know your answers. You're going to make up something stupid that you can't back up with any logic or reason and make defamatory remarks. Ever watch South Park? When the fat kid Cartmen says "Screw you guys, I'm going home" and takes his ball and goes home. That's how you end any conversation that doesn't reaffirm your delusions. (like your delusion that you're not wasting fish by catch and releasing.)
  10. Show me just one time where I said I got a commercial permit so I could keep more fish.
  11. Its not a term I came up with. Its in the dictionary. Waste: eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process. I know this is a big ask given your limited language skills, but please explain to me how releasing a fish to die after you've played with it does not fit the definition of waste? And once again, I'm not saying you shouldn't ever be allowed to waste fish. I grew up wasting fish. It is fun. But we should only do it if there's an abundance.
  12. How not so? Catch and release fishing wastes more fish than commercial fishing consumes. In pure numbers, catch and release fishing kills 6x more fish than commercial fishing, so catch and release is worse. That's how not so. Striper are not a gamefish (and no fish should be). Putting a price tag on a wild animal is the only way to save them, unfortunately. But to be clear, we both are putting a price tag on them. As others have already stated, there is economic benefit when striped bass are used as a gamefish. Commercial fishermen put a literal price tag on them. Recreational catch and keep fishermen make them valuable for their economic activity as well. In modern times its when no one makes a dime off a wild thing that it gets wiped out.