jrzfly

House Fails Fishermen and Fish by Passing H.R. 200

140 posts in this topic

On 7/14/2018 at 0:01 PM, JoeGBreezy said:

There are others who support The Modern Fish Act, magazines for instance. OTW supports it and has my opinion on that support and what that will do to my support of OTW. I'll have to go dig up my copies of The Fisherman Magazine and Anglers Journal to see where they stand. Not sure the fly fishing magazines will weigh in. 

Some flyfishing magazines have weighed in.  I know The Drake has.  It opposes H.R. 200.  Because fly fishing is inefficient, and fly fishermen need an abundance of fish if they are going to catch anything.  Boat fishermen seem willing to scrape by on scraps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 6:54 PM, bunkerhead said:

Striped bass have never been managed under MSA. It’s one of the few species managed by ASFMC. 

 

So nothing with this legislation will affect SB. 

Wrong.

 

Take a look at the Zeldin amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TimS said:

My apologies for generalizing - I did understand that it was ‘only’ Montauk to Block...so only the bass in the EEZ where they are most likely to spend months are in trouble :) The places they breeze through in a hurry they’ll still be protected :squid: 

 

TimS

It's more than Montauk to Block; it's the entire "transit zone" between Block and Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be bad if this passed through senate. Who voted what way when in house is totally relevant if you understand the implications of HR 200 and want to prevent these types of legislation at their root. It’s overwhelmingly obvious which party as a whole is on the side of sportsman and conservation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 mins ago, CWitek said:

The interesting thing here is that most of H.R. 200 represents language that has long been pushed by the more extreme members of the commercial fishing industry--New England groundfish trawlers, the pair trawlers that decimate forage fish stocks, etc.  The fact that CCA, or any angling group, would support such a bill just to be able to catch a few more reef fish is astounding, but that's where we are.

What has been done - and I know you already know - is verbiage was added to the bill to give other groups a reason to support it. It’s just like how a federal highway bill will also include twenty pages of ‘pork’ that has nothing to do with highways to get votes from folks who otherwise wouldn’t vote for it. The clearest example is the opening off the EEZ between Block and Montauk - we were told this bill doesn’t affect striped bass - and it shouldn’t. Except this unrelated pork needed to be added to get support from the for hire folks that fish those area. Pure pork - not in any way good for the fish. 

 

This is bill is very bad for the fish - even the fish, like striped bass, that weren’t previously managed by the law this bill looks to changed. This bill is ONLY good for industry and gives them all the tools they need to over fish stocks that are already over fished and to put off indefinitely any regulations to rebuild badly damaged stocks. There is NOTHING in this bill for the fish...if you think fishing sucks today, you haven’t seen anything yet :(

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 mins ago, CWitek said:

It's more than Montauk to Block; it's the entire "transit zone" between Block and Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York

 

block island transit zone.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 mins ago, TimS said:

What has been done - and I know you already know - is verbiage was added to the bill to give other groups a reason to support it. It’s just like how a federal highway bill will also include twenty pages of ‘pork’ that has nothing to do with highways to get votes from folks who otherwise wouldn’t vote for it. The clearest example is the opening off the EEZ between Block and Montauk - we were told this bill doesn’t affect striped bass - and it shouldn’t. Except this unrelated pork needed to be added to get support from the for hire folks that fish those area. Pure pork - not in any way good for the fish. 

 

This is bill is very bad for the fish - even the fish, like striped bass, that weren’t previously managed by the law this bill looks to changed. This bill is ONLY good for industry and gives them all the tools they need to over fish stocks that are already over fished and to put off indefinitely any regulations to rebuild badly damaged stocks. There is NOTHING in this bill for the fish...if you think fishing sucks today, you haven’t seen anything yet :(

 

TimS

What's amazing is that the various rec groups are now calling H.R. 200 "the Modern Fish Act," even though it isn't.  The House version of the Modern Fish Act ins H.R. 2023, which never made it through Committee.  So in order to get two titles in the bill that they want, they're willing to accept six or so that are directly contrary to their interests.

 

I'd understand their vehement support--and I understand that, down at ICAST, it was extremely vehement, if not completely honest, support--for H.R. 200 was in anglers' interest.  But it is directly opposed to anglers' long-term interests, and that doesn't dissuade them at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, TimS said:

Really? They are loons because they don’t think it’s a good idea to let businesses manage the stocks they deplete for their own financial gain? It’s hard to imagine that you really believe folks that want healthy stocks with abundant fish to catch only want that so they can hurt ‘recreational fishing’ businesses - you left off the businesses part...again. You care if regulations affect businesses, not actual recreational anglers who fish for recreational reasons. It seems a little less than forthright when you continually leave that part out. You’d be happy if people never caught a fish over a couple pounds as long as not one dollar was lost by the businesses that mistakenly believe people won’t fish for anything unless they can kill a cooler full. It would be nice if you could be a little more upfront and let folks know why you think stocks should be managed like food store instead of the shared public natural resource that it is. Not everyone thinks the only good fish is a dead fish...

 

TimS

Wow... you put words in my mouth that I never said.

 

my point is that the concept of managing for abundance sounds wonderful and is an easy to sell to those that don’t understand ecology. But it’s an impossible endeavor that defies common sense IMO. And at least some individuals pushing the concept have to realize it and are only doing so because it will further impact recreational fishing. 

 

Im not in the “business” and don’t profit from any of this. I want healthy but accessible fisheries. The current law isn’t working for what I Fish for and hence why I’m all for change. 

 

A couple winters back I stood and argued why we needed the 20% cut in SB even though Asfmc was willing to maintain status quo based on a hope of future strong year classes filling the void. That wasn’t ok by me and I’m glad anglers forced their hand.

 

But on the flip side if/when the SSB bounces back I will argue that we liberalize. That’s how it should work imo and it’s not working that way under the current version of MSA. 

Edited by bunkerhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Near as I can tell , this bill gives more fish to the Recs at the expense of our commercial fishermen and women who will face further draconian regulations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bunkerhead said:

my point is that the concept of managing for abundance sounds wonderful and is an easy to sell to those that don’t understand ecology. But it’s an impossible endeavor that defies common sense IMO. And at least some individuals pushing the concept have to realize it and are only doing so because it will further impact recreational fishing. 

 

Im not in the “business” and don’t profit from any of this. I want healthy but accessible fisheries. The current law isn’t working for what I Fish for and hence why I’m all for change. 

 

A couple winters back I stood and argued why we needed the 20% cut in SB even though Asfmc was willing to maintain status quo based on a hope of future strong year classes filling the void. That wasn’t ok by me and I’m glad anglers forced their hand.

 

But on the flip side if/when the SSB bounces back I will argue that we liberalize. That’s how it should work imo and it’s not working that way under the current version of MSA. 

You sound like a very reasonable, thoughtful person & have obviously put some time into fighting for healthy fisheries.  And I do understand your frustration with the current state of fisheries management as we all do for our own various reasons. So I guess what I'm struggling with is why you support HR 200 when it can only further decrease current fish stocks. I'm assuming you feel that the stocks are healthier than the science shows and therefore the current regulations are too strict?  You mentioned fluke but are there other species you're currently frustrated with?  I'm just trying to get a sense of where you're coming from on this because change just for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pakalolo said:

Near as I can tell , this bill gives more fish to the Recs at the expense of our commercial fishermen and women who will face further draconian regulations 

Maybe there is something good about this bill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 mins ago, vinnyb said:

You sound like a very reasonable, thoughtful person & have obviously put some time into fighting for healthy fisheries.  And I do understand your frustration with the current state of fisheries management as we all do for our own various reasons. So I guess what I'm struggling with is why you support HR 200 when it can only further decrease current fish stocks. I'm assuming you feel that the stocks are healthier than the science shows and therefore the current regulations are too strict?  You mentioned fluke but are there other species you're currently frustrated with?  I'm just trying to get a sense of where you're coming from on this because change just for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing.

Changing the law doesn’t have to mean decreasing fish stocks....

 

changing the law will benefit summer Flounder IMo. We rebuilt that fishery with higher quotas, longer seasons, higher bag limits, and smaller min sizes before. 

 

Increasing access to a healthy fishery like sea bass would be good for anglers and good for other managed species as well. I’d much rather have party boats anchored on wrecks rather than jogging metals over migrating stripers this fall. 

 

Too often regulators are forced to make decisions based on what the law allows and not necessarily what they think is best for fish and fisherman. Put the right people in the decision making seats and let them manage for sustainable yield. No some mythical abundance and not the raping and pillaging of our oceans that some think the changing of the law will allow. Which it won’t.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CWitek said:

Some flyfishing magazines have weighed in.  I know The Drake has.  It opposes H.R. 200.  Because fly fishing is inefficient, and fly fishermen need an abundance of fish if they are going to catch anything.  Boat fishermen seem willing to scrape by on scraps.

Fortunately I don't subscribe to that one. But it's going to rain tomorrow and I'll be looking through all my saved copies. Support the MFA and you are gone, but I will write them and tell them, not just let the subscription quietly expire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pakalolo said:

Near as I can tell , this bill gives more fish to the Recs at the expense of our commercial fishermen and women who will face further draconian regulations 

I read this bill a while back and came away with the sense that everyone will be able to take more fish. I should re-read it I guess.  Regardless, any extra striped bass taken right now and in the next several years is just bad for the fish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 5:34 PM, bunkerhead said:

Changing the law doesn’t have to mean decreasing fish stocks....

 

In what world does removing the last hurdles to continuing harvest long after a stock is in decline NOT mean decreasing fish stocks? Do you think the folks who have been responsible for the decline of every important recreational/commercial fishery on the East Coast are going to magically grow some kind of morals and voluntarily kill fewer fish so the stocks can rebound? 

 

I'm still waiting for one example of verbiage in this bill that is designed to protect a stock from over harvest. Just one...share it with us please. 

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.