Drew C.

ASMFC bass meeting

Rate this topic

277 posts in this topic

Lol, these guys saying if we reduce harvest we’ll just increase release mortality so why bother? Such stupid logic, yes we’ll increase C&R mortality but it would be roughly 10% of the harvested fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, linesiderdemdnj said:

They obliterate every year class, the fishery sucks here

True, once they hit the size limit for harvest it’s all over. 
 

The structure of this fishery sucks. MD targeted immature fish. On the coast, we target the breeding fish. 
 

Kill’em young, kill’em old!

 

 

Share this post


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

Lol, these guys saying if we reduce harvest we’ll just increase release mortality so why bother? Such stupid logic, yes we’ll increase C&R mortality but it would be roughly 10% of the harvested fish

Harvest mortality is 100% (and that assumes one stops after catching their limit). Cnr is 9%. 
 

How does that math add up?

 

answer - only at the asmfc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, Drew C. said:

True, once they hit the size limit for harvest it’s all over. 
 

The structure of this fishery sucks. MD targeted immature fish. On the coast, we target the breeding fish. 
 

Kill’em young, kill’em old!

 

 

Md targets both, Chesapeake regs and ocean regs. 28-35” out front. So md does kill them young and old, kill them old and pregnant in trophy season, young the entire year, then old once those fish leave the bay in spring and come back in late fall. It’s truly ridiculous, md needs to be called out and Luisi needs to be put in his place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall it seems like the pro kill propoment is much more vocal/forceful than the pro conservation side, which is very disappointing.  I can't believe that nobody opposed removal of the moratorium.  The one tool in the box that is as close to a guarantee that there is and the only one proven to work in the past.  Sound decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ifishthebadspots said:

Scientifically, why is having higher limit better than lower? Why don't we leave the big girls alone period? 1 fish maximum of any size below 28 - why is this bad?

because the majority of the fish are in the smaller range. Protect the many and sacrifice the few. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, linesiderdemdnj said:

Oh my god, seasonal closures?  The fish are doomed. Seriously. 

thats one of the smartest things they have shown so far. My only disagreement is it should be 4 to 8 weeks instead of 2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, canalsharpie said:

because the majority of the fish are in the smaller range. Protect the many and sacrifice the few. 

Smaller fish doesn't lay eggs and recovers quicker, and whoever fish3s to harvest won't cycle through 30 fish to catch slot, killing 3 in the process.

 

You kill one big fish - it's 15 years to get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, canalsharpie said:

thats one of the smartest things they have shown so far. My only disagreement is it should be 4 to 8 weeks instead of 2. 

I guess there is some merit to it being beneficial but still. If that’s what they are falling back on, and not significant regulation changes because they are worried about economic impacts, then that is sad. 

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.