MAArcher

BST Users
  • Content count

    341
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MAArcher

  1. Also, not sure where the confusion came from, but I was discussing differences in price per pound not pounds per state, I was trying to see if there's a way you could have states with low value kill less fish for the same or more money. I'm guessing eliminating the gill net fishery would be the thing that would have the most impact on that since that appears to be the obvious difference and is supported by CWitek's anecdotal evidence. That and abbreviated fishing weeks moderating supply.
  2. I misunderstood what I was looking at. In CT striper over 28" and caught legally in other states can be sold into CT, so that's the figure I was looking at. About 3.4k lbs. I think you're incorrect about the week day thing being to avoid part time fishermen, at least in Mass. When I talked to DMF I was told its to avoid user group conflict on the water, and that was reaffirmed in the public hearing I attended earlier this year.
  3. I don't follow. I'm wondering if Maryland implemented whatever rules it needed to to make its striper harvest worth $5 a pound instead of $3, and reduced their commercial quota, you'd save over a half million fish but the commercial fishermen would make the same money. What I'm trying to narrow down is why Mass and Ct got higher prices for their fish than the other states. CWitek already noted hook and line yielding a better product is one reason as well as limited days spreading the catch out. Maybe we should be pressuring Maryland to do the same thing as well as banning gillnetting?
  4. Another question for anyone who may know about commercial striped bass fishing, last year the average price paid to fishermen per lb was over $5 in Mass while other states with commercial fishing it was closer to $3. Any insight as to what causes such a disparity? I'm wondering if you could tailor regulations to maximize profits while minimizing the amount of fish harvested. If you can rig it to make the same amount of money by catching one fish as two, then it would be easier to justify cutting a quota in half.
  5. Thanks for the clarification. Since you seem to know a lot about the fishery, could you tell me how Maryland showed conservation equivalency with a 19" limit?
  6. Do you have any idea what your talking about? 60 years ago 20% of the population bought fishing licenses. Today it’s less than 10%. Recreation fishing isn’t getting saved by a little Covid bump or the Googan Squad. You have to learn how numbers work. Everything is relative. 20+ million fishing licenses was almost a quarter of the population 60 years ago. Today it’s less than a 10th. Recreational fishing, just like hunting, is in a death spiral. And your mentality is another nail in the coffin.
  7. I got news for you, kid. A billion dollars ain't what it used to be and take a look at the age stratification of fishing license sales (kids don't fish) and the overall trend of fishing licenses (like a 50% decline since the 80's). You may not have to worry about it, but there's a good chance your grand kids will; that is if someone can get them away from their smart phone screens long enough to realize fish aren't just something you might see on Discovery Channel re-runs. Pull your head out of the sand or where ever it is, eat the fish you kill instead of wasting them, and tell everyone how delicious it is and convince them that they are a natural resource worth protecting for very serious reasons, not just so you have something fun to do on the weekends.
  8. It is silly. But its true. I'm OK with it. The only fish that's shown any indication that it is self aware is the basking shark. But you, as a catch and release angler who wants to elevate fish to some silly status other than food, should know that the only reason you don't get thrown in jail for driving a hook through an animals face and smiling with glee as you drag it from its home, is because fish aren't cuddly. But if you get your way and humans stop recognizing that fish are food, it won't matter if their cuddly or not, it won't be long until PETA has their way and no one will be allowed go fishing. You'd do better to keep fish cherished as one of the last natural and wild food sources left to man.
  9. I'm not even close to done. What about the sharks and seals? Global warming? Spawning ground pollution? Then there's the reasons your more likely to believe in, like alien abduction and falling off the edge of the flat earth.
  10. You heathen. Why do you hate the majestic striper so much? Everyone knows that you're supposed to show your love for them by catching and releasing them until they die an honorable death, alone and out of sight in the mud as nature intended. Now its going to be harder for z-man to find fish to torture.
  11. They are two different issues. The commercial striped bass fishery has a quota, it doesn't matter if one "legit" fishermen or a thousand "illegitimate" fishermen are after them, the quota is the same. If you have a problem with the number of bass being caught, you should have an issue with the quota and size limit, not the number of fishermen. Maybe we don't need less commercial fishermen, we need to allocate some of the quota to smaller fish to take pressure of large breeders and broaden the season to more days per week so guys don't loss so much time to poor conditions. And yes, not meeting the quota can signal a problem, but you still have to take into account the nature of commercial guys as part time with a limited days-per-week season. Take me for instance. I took vacation the week before the 4th and the week of, specifically to fish commercial. Commercial guys did OK in the Merrimack river the week before, but the rains, water temp and sewage releases into the river, had more to do with the poor second week than the striper population. And now with my vacation time wasted during bad conditions, I'm pretty much out of the game this year with very limited time to fish. So you have to ask, how much of the missed quota in recent years was due to the myriad of other factors? I don't know the answer but you have to take it into account before saying it was totally due to depleted stock.
  12. Why would they? They only harvest a small amount of fish and provide a valuable service. The question is why haven't they shut down catch and release fishing? And we know the answer is because of money. And that's what managing wildlife for optimum economic returns gets you.
  13. Yes, full time commercial fishermen benefit, but the fish don't. An example of who would experience financial ruin if a commercial fishery was shut down? Well that would be every single commercial fisherman under your requirement of 80% dependence, right? If your income was instantly cut by 80%, wouldn't you feel like you were financially ruined? Its not difficult to comprehend. If the best thing for fish stocks is to stop harvest, its easier for managers to make that decision if they know they aren't causing anyone to lose their home. Period. That's why the best way to get wild fish onto consumers plates is through part time fishermen.
  14. If we can't make decisions on the best data we're able to collect, what's your suggestion as an alternative?
  15. Maybe. We'll see what the new study with telemetry shows. Hopefully we'll have less disputable figures to argue about in the not too distant future.
  16. Whatever the number, the quota limits the total kill, while there's no limit on how many fish recreational anglers can catch and release (and waste). Even if the estimates are off a bit, you're still talking about approximately 250 thousand commercial fish fed to people as compared to two million recreational fish fed to the crabs. Which will help fish stocks recover faster, cutting out 250 thousand or 2 million? It would be nice is there was some magic technology that allowed catch and release with no mortality. Circle hooks are a start, maybe there's an even more effective invention coming down the pike. Maybe some sort of "Striper Gator Aid" you could squirt down their gullet to ensure they don't succumb to lactic acid build up, or some chemical you can spray on their gills to stop salinization trauma? To my mind that should be the number one focus in the striper fishery, saving those two million fish a year from being wasted. As far as commercial fish being prime breeders, it sounds concerning to me too. I'm really not sure why they split the sizes out the way they do. And I don't feel confident that I could come up with the right size/age stratification that would impact the fishery the least. There's a lot of moving parts to it. I'm guessing that the best way would be to harvest a cross section of age/size by splitting the quota. Maybe only X amount over 35", then the rest under. Maybe work it so catch and release of larger fish happens most when the water is cold.
  17. That's what makes the striper commercial fishery such a good model for commercial fishing. Fishery managers can say, these guys don't need this fish to pay the mortgage, the fish are in trouble, we can shut them down for a few years without causing anyone financial ruin.
  18. You'd be guessing wrong. 2% of total mortality is commercial waste.
  19. It doesn’t cost the rec fisherman who eats their keeper $25 a pound. Follow their example.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. 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?
  24. 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.