codfish

Its looking like 1 fish at 35 inches, new rules

Rate this topic

184 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

27 mins ago, bob_G said:

I think you're into something. But I think the local economic impact would be devestating. 

However, what about no possession from July 15- August 15? Easy to enforce. Still allows everyone an opportunity to fish.

most of the “bloodbaths” i witness are late may and june... and again when the “fall run” gets going.  a hundred boats all day on the same schools off herring cove and again every fall just outside jones and robert moses inlet (for example).  i’m sure similar is happening all over the northeast... closing just july and august is (to me) a waste of time... its not going to be enuf to save the species.

 

closed season is what its gonna take in the long run - let them come back (again) and then set realistic limits that won’t decimate the species yet again.  no possession from jan 1 to december 31.

Edited by nicknotsebastian
spelling correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 mins ago, MakoMike said:

As you may or may not know I am, and have been for some time, into this whole fishery management thing. Seasons are the most effective way of curtailing the catch, for all species, not just stripers. But with stripers you have the added inducement that most of the mortality comes from C&R fishermen. Enforceabilility would be no different from what goes on today in the eez, yes some would claim to be fishing for bluefish, cunners, scup, etc. etc. but if the EPO sees them catch one or two stripers and they go back to doing the same thing, a ticket will be upheld in court. 

 

Local economic impact might not be as bad as you think, since people could fish for anything but striped bass and the closed season would not coincide with the peak of the spring or fall run. I just picked the dates at random, but the closed season should not be during the peak of the spring or fall run and it should be when the fish are readily available, not for the month of December.

Understood, and point well taken.

But I think a month long closed season would ruin local tackle shop and charter businesses. Most could not survive losing a month of prime income.

Mortality among c&r anglers is high, I get it. But mortality is 100% each time guys decide to take home fish on each trip. I still contend a huge quantity of recreationally caught fish ultimately end up freezer burned and eventually in the trash. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it's pretty interesting seeing how they're changing creel/length limits instead of focusing on poachers. Poachers will break the law regardless of what the law is....
I don't understand why they wouldn't place higher fines with or without a warning system to combat it. They could also do a rewards program for reporting poachers like Florida has *Florida has rewards up to 1,000$ for reporting violations*.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, ryanh said:

In my opinion, it's pretty interesting seeing how they're changing creel/length limits instead of focusing on poachers. Poachers will break the law regardless of what the law is....
I don't understand why they wouldn't place higher fines with or without a warning system to combat it. They could also do a rewards program for reporting poachers like Florida has *Florida has rewards up to 1,000$ for reporting violations*.  

 

That's because the statistics show that poachers are a minuscule part of the problem. Did you know that MRIP ben has a category for "poachers"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, ryanh said:

In my opinion, it's pretty interesting seeing how they're changing creel/length limits instead of focusing on poachers. Poachers will break the law regardless of what the law is....
I don't understand why they wouldn't place higher fines with or without a warning system to combat it. They could also do a rewards program for reporting poachers like Florida has *Florida has rewards up to 1,000$ for reporting violations*.  

 

At the hearing the speaker made it clear that poaching was for another discussion.  Said they understand the state needs to allot more money to hire more EPOs.  But that's legislature's job, not that of the ASMFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, MakoMike said:

That's because the statistics show that poachers are a minuscule part of the problem. Did you know that MRIP ben has a category for "poachers"?

Oh wow. I was pretty convinced poaching was a large portion of the recreational harvest and I did not know that. I've seen their data queries in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, bob_G said:

At the hearing the speaker made it clear that poaching was for another discussion.  Said they understand the state needs to allot more money to hire more EPOs.  But that's legislature's job, not that of the ASMFC.

Good to know. I wasn't able to listen to the hearing yet. Are all violation fees and such dictated by FWS? Hopefully whoever is can work with legislation to hire more EPOs. I would imagine higher violation fees would put a bit more money back into the system. I'm also all for paying more for a fishing license. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 35" will bring quick results.

I still believe the majority of the fishermen who harvest for the table are more or less law abiding. I also believe they represent the highest percentage of the harvest.

 

The jump from 28" to 35" would instantly save those 28" to 34" fish that are currently eaten.

In theory that should show an immediate jump in that class fish. Anglers would see better size fish right away.

 

Then, the additional benifit of giving a fish a chance to breed more than once kicks in down the road.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MakoMike said:

The easiest, most effective way to go is to have a closed season, when no one is allowed to even fish for striped bass. Tags would be a nightmare to enforce and the cost of the bureaucracy would be prohibitive. No fishing for striped bass between say July 15th and Aug. 15th would be much more effective. Remember most of the mortality is coming from C&R fishermen.

But wouldn’t it force people to actually go get and pay for a permit?  If you want your tags you gotta pay for the permit.  Maybe even raise the cost to $15 or $20, which is still less than freshwater license.  That could help offset the cost and even help pay for more enforcement which is badly needed.  I’d be willing to bet a lot of money on any given day at the canal (or any beach for that matter) less than 25% of the fisherman actually paid for a permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bob_G said:

Understood, and point well taken.

But I think a month long closed season would ruin local tackle shop and charter businesses. Most could not survive losing a month of prime income.

Mortality among c&r anglers is high, I get it. But mortality is 100% each time guys decide to take home fish on each trip. I still contend a huge quantity of recreationally caught fish ultimately end up freezer burned and eventually in the trash. :(

Exactly Bob.  Even though I’m 100% C&R I have no issue with someone keeping a fish if it is not wasted. I bet the amount of recreationally caught striper that ends up in the trash is staggering.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 mins ago, frezzy said:

But wouldn’t it force people to actually go get and pay for a permit?  If you want your tags you gotta pay for the permit.  Maybe even raise the cost to $15 or $20, which is still less than freshwater license.  That could help offset the cost and even help pay for more enforcement which is badly needed.  I’d be willing to bet a lot of money on any given day at the canal (or any beach for that matter) less than 25% of the fisherman actually paid for a permit.

I doubt that the cost of the permit even covers the cost of administering the permit. Add in the fact that MA recognizes a lot of permits from out-of-state that it collects no fee for and I'd wager you wind up with something that resembles a goose egg. If they aren't buying a permit today and poaching fish, why on earth would you think they would buy a permit and stick to the law if you made the permit even more expensive?

 

29 mins ago, mikez2 said:

 

The jump from 28" to 35" would instantly save those 28" to 34" fish that are currently eaten.

In theory that should show an immediate jump in that class fish. Anglers would see better size fish right away.

 

Then, the additional benifit of giving a fish a chance to breed more than once kicks in down the road.

 

The whole idea of the 35 inch size limit is to protect the year class that is currently around 26 - 30 inches. If they get a good spawn or two in things will recover. The only thing that is important in this whole **** show is to protect those fish and hope for the right conditions for one or two good spawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, frezzy said:

Exactly Bob.  Even though I’m 100% C&R I have no issue with someone keeping a fish if it is not wasted. I bet the amount of recreationally caught striper that ends up in the trash is staggering.  

The amount that winds up as crab food is even more staggering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 mins ago, MakoMike said:

I doubt that the cost of the permit even covers the cost of administering the permit. Add in the fact that MA recognizes a lot of permits from out-of-state that it collects no fee for and I'd wager you wind up with something that resembles a goose egg. If they aren't buying a permit today and poaching fish, why on earth would you think they would buy a permit and stick to the law if you made the permit even more expensive?

 

The whole idea of the 35 inch size limit is to protect the year class that is currently around 26 - 30 inches. If they get a good spawn or two in things will recover. The only thing that is important in this whole **** show is to protect those fish and hope for the right conditions for one or two good spawns.

IMHO If they are trying to protect that year class the stripers are fn screwed!  Personally I’m not seeing a lot of fish that size.  Maybe I am in the minority though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the deal is we are trying to get 17% reduction in stripedbass mortality correct? Well we only aimed for a 25% reduction of 3 year the last time. This means that we on got a 7% that if there aiming for another 17% right? Seams they should be a lot more just in case it we dont get the intened results again.
36" is the wrong choice. It’s a band aid at best. This isn’t the 80s and same solutions are not going to work, because it’s a fishery with differant problems. 36 worked in 80s cause there was no larger broadstock. So the idea was to let as many young female bass spawn as many times as possible. Pollution probably contributed to lower embryo success rates too and any larger fish that did survive would have even a harder time because of more contaminants in the body.
Fast foward it’s 2019, we still have a decent fishery plenty of small fish some medium size and a broadstock that is declining fast. Are spawning areas are also free of major pollution.
Are technological advancements in the fishing world ahead , The amount of fisherman are 10x or more what they were. Social media has shortened the learning curve and has made it easier for everyone to cause massive damages on a particular schools of fish. A slot limit is the best option. It allows the broadstock we have left repopulate at a higher rate.“a 12-pound female may produce about 850,000 eggs, and a 55-pound female about 4,200,000 eggs” significantly more with better genetics. Males start spawing at age 2 and females around 5. The females are between 22" to 28" before they spawn. All stripers over 30pds are female. There are more males in the population at smaller sizes and more females larger sizes so, a slot make the most sense. Take figues from above again and consider at minimum spawning age half fish will be male that means you can 2 times as many. Once they start spawning you take more and more females. So while the slot they have isn’t perfect it’s a start. The fisherman article the slots explains it better. I think i posted that article earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t females have to grow through the slot limit size before they become big? So they can be taken then, and never have a chance to reproduce at all. Seems like we are back and forth on a slot limit vs 1@X but would be interested in what marine biologists say is the best method. 

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.