Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Roccus7

Yesterday's ASFMC Striper Meeting

Rate this topic

36 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

22 hours ago, MakoMike said:

How did you do that math?

See a couple of previous posts with the math.

 

If we eliminate keeping any fish for a few years, then the only fishing mortality that would remain would be the recreational dead harvest.   There wouldn't be any commercial harvest at all. 

 

It would be sensible to take measures to reduce the rec dead harvest.  How about consistent regulations over the range of the fish?  In Maine, we can only use circle hooks for bait.   Ideas?

Edited by Topside2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 mins ago, Topside2 said:

Rec dead harvest  48%

Rec harvest 42%

Commercial dead harvest 2%

Commercial harvest 8%

 

If we eliminate keeping any fish for a few years, then the only fishing mortality that would remain would be the recreational dead harvest.   There wouldn't be any commercial harvest at all. 

No because you would be converting the rec harvest and the commercial harvest into more released fish which would increase the "rec dead harvest," which is really released mortality, Therefore the release mortality would go u by roughly 10% of that additional 52% of released fish. As I said before the only way to eliminate mortality is to not fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idea.... We can probably fix all of this with a wall. It will extend from Maine to Florida and shut off access to the Atlantic, forcing us to fish inland. This will keep America great. So, so great. You will love it. Everyone agrees. It will be great.. 

 

I think education is a big part of it but extremely difficult to do. There are as many uneducated fisherman as there are bass so that stat is already depressing. Maybe not the masses, but I'm sure we have all seem everything from illegal acts all the way to legal / but unethical acts that are not good for the fishery. I still contest that I fish a lot and not seeing how this number can be true for released fish. 

 

I did like Maine's slot limit approach and think that a harvest focus of influencing keeping bigger sized fish to be problematic. Big breeder sized fish removed from the fishery can only be simple science in negatively affecting the future population? That is not to say there is a one size fits all class of fish that should be kept but would be a way to message where size classes are able. Or, just stop for a while. The meat fisherman will subside from that? ...at least legally. Still guess that the shores of the canal will be lined with long rods by those wearing hoodies and masks. 

 

But the biggest problems (to me) is the disparity in rules and regulations from Maine to the furthest stretches south. They are not based on science or ethics, rather they are based on bitchy groups of fisherman (recreational and commercial crowds) that think that the ocean is a stock and resource to 'share'. You could actually argue that Maine and NH have been the most responsive to accepting changes that will protect but also at the end of the line with the range of fish. Recs say its the comms fault, and comms say it is the recs fault. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While asserting my position against the disparity in distribution of the bass resource unfairly favoring comms I first noted that recs kill too many fish and that needs to be changed ASAP.  

 

But I do believe, because there is zero evidence to the contrary, the "fault" of the comm lies in that they would kill and kill and kill until all the bass were gone unless legally restrained from doing so.  They'd reply the recs would do the same thing (overlooking the fact that recs saved bass from extinction by demanding catch and release under 36") , and many recs would kill bass until legally restrained but likely majority would not. BUT, and it's a huge BUT, recs kill one at a time, while comms slaughter by the boatload.  Again highlighting the unfair allocation of the resource.

 

Further disparity in rec size and take limits aren't helping but they're much more uniform than previously AND they still allow too large a take to ever achieve a booming, thriving biomass like we had during and right after the moratorium.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 mins ago, stripedbassking said:

The Charter/Party boats slaughtering of fish should count towards commercial quotas. They are the reason the Rec Numbers are so high

It’s clearly a commercial fishery disguised as rec!  Bottom line is regardless of the “designation” the numbers need to drastically decrease.  There are so much better systems in place to protect these fish....the coastline of Alaska is larger than the size of stripers migration....Alaska as a state has understood the value of their resources and to taken the steps protect the fish......it’s not hard and it works.  Tag systems, annual quotas per fisherman, shutting down spawning rivers yada yada....it’s common sense law.....

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.