The Riddler

Amendment 7: Is it enough to rebuild Striped Bass Stock?

Rate this topic

221 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, yogiiiboy said:

Commercial, recreational, boats for hire, etc., etc........regardless, when dealing with a migratory resource, i feel as though every inch of that resource's territory must be covered in order to resuscitate and/or save it if all other means fail.....or, most importantly - until it's too late.

 

Game Fish Status for this fish already!!

 

 

 

 

I agree with your premise that the fish should be managed uniformly all along the coast.

 

But why not keep the commercial fishery and ban recreational harvest?  It would yield far greater conservation benefits.  If one’s primary concern is protecting the bass, it would seem the logical thing to do.

Share this post


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

I agree with your premise that the fish should be managed uniformly all along the coast.

 

But why not keep the commercial fishery and ban recreational harvest?  It would yield far greater conservation benefits.  If one’s primary concern is protecting the bass, it would seem the logical thing to do.

Because, I guess, Charles we’re trying to rebound the fish across the board regardless of who catches how many.  If the powers to be see fit for the commercial industry to then open up before recs, fine…… but I feel at some point this effort should be shared across the board to get stocks up “at a quicker pace” than just having a segment of any group sit out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 mins ago, yogiiiboy said:

Because, I guess, Charles we’re trying to rebound the fish across the board regardless of who catches how many.  If the powers to be see fit for the commercial industry to then open up before recs, fine…… but I feel at some point this effort should be shared across the board to get stocks up “at a quicker pace” than just having a segment of any group sit out.

I agree with that.  But that argument doesn't lead to shutting down the commercial fishery, it leads to reducing both the commercial and recreational fishing mortality by an equal amount.

 

The problem with "gamefish" status is that it doesn't reduce fishing mortality; it merely shifts fishing mortality from the commercial to the recreational sector.  The number of dead fish remains the same.  To rebuild the stock, fishing mortality must be cut across the board, for a bass neither knows nor cares who kills it, and a bass killed by an angler is just as dead as a bass killed in a net.  To rebuild, everyone must stop killing so many fish.

Share this post


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

I agree with that.  But that argument doesn't lead to shutting down the commercial fishery, it leads to reducing both the commercial and recreational fishing mortality by an equal amount.

 

The problem with "gamefish" status is that it doesn't reduce fishing mortality; it merely shifts fishing mortality from the commercial to the recreational sector.  The number of dead fish remains the same.  To rebuild the stock, fishing mortality must be cut across the board, for a bass neither knows nor cares who kills it, and a bass killed by an angler is just as dead as a bass killed in a net.  To rebuild, everyone must stop killing so many fish.

Agreed.......i think we're both trying to say the same thing.

 

 

Share this post


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

I agree with that.  But that argument doesn't lead to shutting down the commercial fishery, it leads to reducing both the commercial and recreational fishing mortality by an equal amount.

 

The problem with "gamefish" status is that it doesn't reduce fishing mortality; it merely shifts fishing mortality from the commercial to the recreational sector.  The number of dead fish remains the same.  To rebuild the stock, fishing mortality must be cut across the board, for a bass neither knows nor cares who kills it, and a bass killed by an angler is just as dead as a bass killed in a net.  To rebuild, everyone must stop killing so many fish.

I still believe that gamefish status for the species would only help in the end though 

Share this post


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

I still believe that gamefish status for the species would only help in the end though 

Could you explain why?

 

Given that Stripers Forever, the organization pushing the hardest for "gamefish status" states on its website that

 

Today, the coastal recreational fishery operates under much stricter regulations, limiting anglers in many states to a single striped bass at least 24 or 25 inches long. In states with coastal commercial fisheries, the minimum legal size for anglers is 28 inches, which puts a bass for dinner out of reach of the great majority of rod and reel fishermen. In Maine, anglers are allowed to keep one striped bass as small as 20 inches, or one over 40, but none between 26 and 40 inches.  With these highly restrictive angling regulations in place from Maine to North Carolina, fishery managers have made room for a large commercial quota at the expense of millions of recreational anglers.

 

It's clear that they see "gamefish status" as a means to relax recreational limits so that more anglers can have "a bass for dinner."

 

How would that help the resource?

Share this post


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

In Maine, anglers are allowed to keep one striped bass as small as 20 inches, or one over 40, but none between 26 and 40 inches

That ME reg is almost 10 years out of date, a product of a CE.  We've been on the 28" minimum size, and the slot since they were initially put forward by ASMFC, because it was decided not to pursue any further CEs.

 

Looks like Stripers Forever needs a few thousand volts to wake them up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 mins ago, Roccus7 said:

That ME reg is almost 10 years out of date, a product of a CE.  We've been on the 28" minimum size, and the slot since they were initially put forward by ASMFC, because it was decided not to pursue any further CEs.

 

Looks like Stripers Forever needs a few thousand volts to wake them up...

The fact that they haven't updated their website speaks volumes.  If I recall correctly, the Maine size limit changed with Addendum IV.

 

But their motivation for "gamefish status" remains.

Share this post


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

The fact that they haven't updated their website speaks volumes.  If I recall correctly, the Maine size limit changed with Addendum IV.

Seems correct, don't have the dates handy.  We went from 1 fish 20-26" AND 1 fish 40+" to 1 fish 20-26" OR 1 fish 40+" for a few years and then to the ASMFC standard. 

 

They did run the CE numbers for a slot and the answer was 24-26", which they didn't even submit; they realized that was too tight to be enforceable...

Edited by Roccus7

Share this post


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

Could you explain why?

 

Given that Stripers Forever, the organization pushing the hardest for "gamefish status" states on its website that

 

Today, the coastal recreational fishery operates under much stricter regulations, limiting anglers in many states to a single striped bass at least 24 or 25 inches long. In states with coastal commercial fisheries, the minimum legal size for anglers is 28 inches, which puts a bass for dinner out of reach of the great majority of rod and reel fishermen. In Maine, anglers are allowed to keep one striped bass as small as 20 inches, or one over 40, but none between 26 and 40 inches.  With these highly restrictive angling regulations in place from Maine to North Carolina, fishery managers have made room for a large commercial quota at the expense of millions of recreational anglers.

 

It's clear that they see "gamefish status" as a means to relax recreational limits so that more anglers can have "a bass for dinner."

 

How would that help the resource?

Who said anything about stripers forever? 
 

I think when most people say gamefish status, they are referring to no harvest whatsoever- comm or Rec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, Pickerel92 said:

Who said anything about stripers forever? 
 

I think when most people say gamefish status, they are referring to no harvest whatsoever- comm or Rec.

Everyone I know who talks about "gamefish status," not only for striped bass but for red drum, speckled trout, etc., whether they are in New England, Florida, Texas or anywhere in between, is talking about ending the commercial fishery while permitting recreational harvest.  And over the course of the last few decades, I've spoken to a lot of people involved in the process all over the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

 

What you describe is generally referred to as either "no-kill" or "catch and release only."

 

Believe me, when a Cajun talks about "gamefish" for red drum, he is not talking about giving up dinner.  The vast majority of the folks talking about "gamefish" for striped bass are no different.  It's all about conserving the other guy's fish, and not theirs.

Share this post


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

Everyone I know who talks about "gamefish status," not only for striped bass but for red drum, speckled trout, etc., whether they are in New England, Florida, Texas or anywhere in between, is talking about ending the commercial fishery while permitting recreational harvest.  And over the course of the last few decades, I've spoken to a lot of people involved in the process all over the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

 

What you describe is generally referred to as either "no-kill" or "catch and release only."

 

Believe me, when a Cajun talks about "gamefish" for red drum, he is not talking about giving up dinner.  The vast majority of the folks talking about "gamefish" for striped bass are no different.  It's all about conserving the other guy's fish, and not theirs.

I actually think many of the people on this site are advocating for zero harvest when they refer to gamefish status.

 

I bet 95% of us would give up recreational harvest if it meant the commercial fishery ended, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, Pickerel92 said:

I actually think many of the people on this site are advocating for zero harvest when they refer to gamefish status.

 

I bet 95% of us would give up recreational harvest if it meant the commercial fishery ended, too.

No-kill would be a viable alternative if fishing mortality reductions are needed, although that still leaves the 50% attributable to recreational release mortality.

 

However, I strongly suspect that both the fishing tackle industry, including local dealers, as well as the for-hire industry would push back very hard if that was ever proposed.  I also suspect that your 95% estimate is a little high, probably for the SOL community, and definitely for anglers as a whole.

Edited by CWitek

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.