Reallocation for Conservation
 

I havent seen it posted here so I thought I would share what the MSSA is doing in the name of conservation. To me it is a big deal and an approach that could prove to be very successful. As a member of the MSSA, I am very excited about the iniative of "reallocation for conservation" that the organization is taking to preserve the fishery for the future. I certainly hope and believe this cause will be fully supported by all fishermen. Here is a copy of the MSSA letter sent to DNR.

One of the many reasons I joined MSSA. Someone there is using their brain.:)

Ho....hum.

Let's see if I read this right.

We (read rec angler) catch 57.5 percent of the Stripped Bass caught in the bay. We don't want the amount we catch reduced, but, you can take the quota from the commercial user group and hold that in reserve in case one year we catch over what we are supposed too, and use that quota to appease the ASMFC.

A major problem will arise.

ASMFC will take Maryland's commercial quota and redistribute it to the states that have commercial fishing. To do other wise major federal law would have to be changed. Maryland doesn't have that much clout in Congress.

And I'm wondering if the majority of members of the MSSA who agree with the letter, think it will mean more allocation for rec anglers.

Reds, our commercial harvest is out of line with other states in the ASMFC. Yet, our recreational seasons continue to come underfire. This reallocation may even stand to benefit some watermen through enabling them to make more per fish harvested as currently the gold resource is being sold a copper prices.

Given how this reallocation is intended to be used and stated as protection in case of a larger take under current regulations, I doubt the ASMFC will redistribute to other areas along the coast. Hopefully, given the concerns over some stock indicies starting to arise at the ASMFC, I doubt such a move would be done anytime soon and could be used to push back at other states for other conservation moves to take place. Should stock numbers look good in a few years and Maryland remains at or below its target on the recreational side, then DNR may need to look at seasons and regulations for both commercial and recreational.

I wish I had a "chrystal ball" that would explain what happened to the rockfish population. Either the stock is in good condition, and they aren't here; or the stock is in serious trouble.
Last Spring, all I heard was that the spawn was going to be late because of all the cold and snow. Then when the spawn didn't show up during the regular time (mid March-May); the theory was that they came in EARLY and spawned. The yoy index doesn't seem to support this.
Now, for the fall run; the theory is that the water temps are not cold enough to have driven the stock down the coast and into the bay. They say the majority of the fish are still off the coast and headed this way.
Even last winter, the stock didn't act normally. Reports I heard were that the stock remained out past the 3 mile limit and many boats had to resort to illegally chashing them offshore.
I really don't know what has happened. Is the stock sound and they have changed their pattern? Or, is the stock in serious trouble, as the yoy might indicate?

Does someone know how the fishing was all along the coast this year? Are the northern states having a banner year, or are their numbers depressed like ours?

Dumbfounded, 5th (Marty)

Marty - From what I have read, the fall fishing up off of Long Island was awesome; best in years. They were surprised how long the bait had stayed in the area, which held the fish there. I am afraid by the time the fish are ready to migrate up into our bay, it will be too cold and most of them will just continue down the coast to be slaughtered again this winter off Va. Just my .02:confused:....Don

Maryland's Commercial harvest is out of whose line?

It's the same as it's been since the moratorium. The allocation is written in stone in Maryland's law at 42.5 percent of Maryland's quota.

Don't doubt what ASMFC will do.
One only has to look up the coast to New Jersey and see what they had to do with the commercial quota in order to keep from losing it. (New Jersey wanted to give it to the rec anglers)

For those that don't know New Jersey has a commercial quota that is counted in the total commercial catch. BUT it's caught by recreational anglers. They had to make use of smoke and mirrors to keep from losing the commercial allocation.

One last thing. Do your home work on Striped Bass prices. Maryland enjoys good off the boat prices until the other states flood the market with their catch.

It's as simple as this, conservation is needed on all fronts. A little here and a little there will provide a sustainable resource for everyone.

Marylands commercial harvest is out of line in the sense that it makes up nearly 1/3 of the entire commercial take in lbs. That doesnt include the potomac river numbers either!

Even good "off the boat prices" are still selling our gold resource at copper prices. A reduction in commercial allocation may even benefit some watermen through increasing the prices for their harvest.

I am aware of what NJ did. They gave striped bass gamefish status and their recreational fishermen the commercial allocation through trophy tags to keep from losing it. I believe the MSSA is asking for commercial allocation to be given to rec side to cover seasons like 2009. I dont believe unused allocation would be redistributed to other states given the recent exceeding of the rec targets here in MD. Should the fish population look great in a few years and Maryland is hitting the targets, then Maryland may need to look at where unused allocation can be used to expand our fisheries as to not lose fish to redistribution. Until then, this reallocation is necessary to protect our recreational fishing and act as conservation initiative given the growing concerns at the ASMFC and within our own DNR.

It certainly be interesting to see how DNR responds to this paragraph of the letter given their concerns over preseason C&R (not to confuse the subjects):

The last time MSSA got greedy with the Striped Bass and tried to cut the throat of the commercial user group , it created a rift within MSSA. I don't expect anything different this time.

Don't expect the DNR to take MSSA's side on this matter, they still have people working for them, who remember the last time.

So after reading this thread, my take on it is the recreational sector is EXCEEDING their quota, so they want to take some of the commercial quota (which is closely monitored and the season can be closed in a matter of hours if the quota is reached) to make up for their excesses. Anybody ever hear of the word GREED? It's time for mandatory recreational reporting on a daily basis to get a timely count on the harvest (of ALL species, not just striped bass) so the seasons can be closed before the quotas are exceeded.

The recreational side does not operate under quotas. They have targets. The target was exceeded in 2009. However it was well under the target (by 33%) for this current year. The 2009 number is so out of wack and viewed as an anomaly that it is being investigated by the ASMFC. The exceeding of the target should not occur unless we have stretches of good weather, an exceptionally good year of fishing, or other unique factors. Therefore this would be far more of an act of conservation. However it would provide protection to if and when on occassion we exceed the targets Maryland has in order to protect the benefits of recreational fishing. MSSA is not asking for season extensions or liberalization of current recreational regulations.

Update:

the initiative has received the endorcement of Stripers Forever. (www.stripersforever.org) Here is a letter to the MSSA:

The only difference between a "target" and a quota is there are no teeth in the law to enforce when the "target" is exceeded. Let's change it to a quota, initiate daily call-in reporting and tagging for recs, and immediately close the season when the quota is reached. THAT'S conservation - maintaining the biomass within the prescribed guidelines determined by the scientists.

I dont have time today to go through a long response with in depth examples but while your idea sounds good it goes against open access and stands to hurt recreational fishing. A quick example is my father who cannot fish the spring and doesnt even splash his boat until June due to business reasons. If there was a good year or levels of high participation before the fall fishery, then he misses out on an opportunity to fish for migratory bass in Maryland as the seaon would possibly be shut down. This not only affects anglers like him but stands to make for inconsistant economic impacts that could negatively hurt the industries that support recreational fishing, like takle shops. (what if there was a year of good weather and participation was up and the season was shut down two months early - how would that impact local tackle shops and other industries that depend upon people being able to fish) This is more so the case in Maryland where we are so dependant upon one species for recreational fishing in the Chesapeake Bay.

Targets are set so that managers can adjust open access regulations to provide for a sustainable resource. The law of averages comes into play for managing towards open access. Open access provides opportunity for all and a more consistant market place around recreational fishing. Creel, season lengths, size limits, etc. all are tools for managers to hit their targets. If there are a couple of years where the targets are exceeded, then adjustments can be made with those tools. Same goes for if the harvest falls well short of the targets.

There is also the winable aspect of working towards conservation. I think the MSSA has made a great case towards a need to reduce the commercial harvest while not using it to expand other fisheries.

I am happy see that both the RFA and Stripers Forever have shown support for this initiative and see it as a necessary reallocation and conservation measure

Unfortunately, your argument doesn't hold water. If the "target" is exceeded, steps are taken to reduce future harvests to a LOWER target level to compensate for the overharvest. The methods used to gain this reduction of harvest ALWAYS utilize some type of REDUCTION OF EFFORT. Whether it's a shortened season, reduction in creel limits or increases in the size of legal fish or a slot limit, the goal is to reduce the number of fish harvested. These methods ALL limit the access of the recreational fishwerman to harvestable fish.

All the MSSA has done is shown they are just as greedy as Stripers Forever and RFA.

Stripers Forever have been on the "We only" bandwagon for some years now, with trumped up studies. All it's gotten them is laughs behind their back.

Mikie, You are correct in that those measures limit access and opportunity; But they are consistant and give stability and equal access to all. It doesnt punish the guys who tend to fish the end of the seasons for not getting in early and creating a "race to the fish". It is not necessarily the direct harvest of fish that drives recreational fish like commercial fishing, It is the opportunity and access to fish. The opportunity to harvest fish is a driving force in participation though. This is where managers have to balance the opportunities with access through season lengths, creel limits, size limits, etc. to maximize use in a sustainable way.

Reds, What you may call greed, others call proper management. As stated before, with the current allocations our managers are selling our gold resource at copper prices. MSSA is not calling for gamefish status or an end to the commercial harvest, just a reallocation to bring the split in line with the demands and needs in the state. It certainly will be interesting to see how this shakes out..

BTW, I am just a MSSA member so do not take my thoughts and positions as those of the organization.

I often wonder how all those huge breeders that were poached and sold in DC over the years factor into all this.

Recs and commercial obey the rules but the YOY drops. Everyone starts pointing fingers but miss what could be the real problem.

Reds - Not sure if you meant to point it out or not but your comment about DNR holding a grudge speaks sadly about fishery management.
I do believe you on it - some bad back room dealing goes on.

ALL of your arguments are aimed in one direction - more fish for ME, ME, ME. Hard to give credibility to anyone who is so one-sided.

"Don't expect the DNR to take MSSA's side on this matter, they still have people working for them, who remember the last time."


Sorry Skip..... I don't see the word grudge in my statement..... What I do see is me saying DNR is not going to take MSSA'a side. That doesn't mean they will take any other side, either.

Finally. I'll leave this thread with a saying from a wise man, I knew.
"Don't mess with a man's income, unless you want him to mess with yours"

No one is asking for more fish... The MSSA letter is clear that it is asking the reallocation not go towards expanding or liberalizing recreational regulations. I am all for appropriately managing through open access measures such as season length, creel limits, size limits, etc. I believe the MSSA target is to bring the allocation in line with the demands and needs in the state.

You probably are not the best person in the world to voice anything on this matter. Not a personal attack, but you are always going to be known as the fisherman who took 18 rods through a gannet bee hive, so conservation does not appear to be your forte. You can only hinder the argument.

You have a great obsession with killing fish over 40", your so called "large breeders", but continue to post hundreds of reports killing ridiculous amounts of 18-28" fish per day, my "long term breeders". I'll never understand your logic.

MSSA has the letter up on their website now. They also have an article posted that i am told will be found in The Daily Record in Annapolis: http://www.mssa.net/newsarticles/rec...es_Nov2010.pdf