Quote:
Originally Posted by reds
Mrfss data is flawed. That why the national fishing registry.
ASA data doesn't show the last 3 years.
Using your logic lets take it a step further.
Only those that spend $10,000 a year or more on rec fishing will be allowed to do so.
Or. Only those who have a boat of 40' in length or greater will be allowed to fish. Why not limit Striped Bass fishing to the elite?
Limiting access to a small portion of the populace sounds familiar. Didn't the CCA propose to limit Striped Bass fishing to only a portion of the rec fishermen not so long ago.
|
Reds,
Not sure what you are trying to get at. We are discussing a redistribution of allocation and whether or not it is justified. No one on the rec side is talking about limiting or reducing access to anyone. Although I beleive by maintaining, or even increasing the recreational allocation, it increases access to fishing for all. Increasing the commercial allocation would only stands to reduce access and opportunity to more of the public as obviously the harvest of rec fishermen will have to be reduced through creel, season length, or size limits. My point was to show that by maintaining the current allocation distribution that it benefits our society economically as well. I only wanted to do this because the regular commercial fisheries arguement tend to revolve around jobs and economic impact. Fortunately for the recreational fishing community and the industries that support them, there is a big push to understand those impacts as well and it is showing to be far stronger than commercial markets many instances. Of course I also believe that general public access to utilize our public natural resources should also be provided for ahead of any commercial industry. There is also precedent in this as far as hunting goes. Obviously access and opportunity to natural public resources for recreational hunting is provided for before that of market hunting.
In other words and to summarize, I believe reducing the recreational allocation to expand the commercial allocation limits access and opportunity to the public. This is also not justified through any market indicators or economic benefits to the states (as we are speaking of state waters).
I am not sure what proposal that the CCA made that would have limited access to only a few rec fishermen that you speak of. Maybe you can clarify. I am not active with that organization. If you are speaking of the preseason C&R issue, Lateral Line/TidalFish.com rep made a proposal that would have limited trollers to 3-4 days a week, CBF made a proposal of 1 rod per person that would have reduced the efficiency of trolling to a level that would have essentially made it useless and a non effective method of fishing, and I believe the MCBA wanted it "shut down". The CCA did say they would agree to the CBF proposal providing there were no day closures (I was told day closures were the most important issue that they put their efforts in to ensuring they were not enacted). However it is my understanding that they made it clear that they prefered to adopt the original DNR proposals that are similar to what we have in place. While I am not happy with the gear restrictions implimented on those that enjoy to troll and believe it has reduced the efficiency of the fishing method in the bay to a level that deters some/many from fishing, I personally believe there is a level of efficiency that one who trolls can have a relatively tollerable expectancy to catch a fish.
The CCA never made a proposal themselves that I am aware of. Again, I am not active with that organization so please correct me if I am wrong or if there was another issue that you are speaking of. From my perspective, the CCA worked to keep access to catch and release open. Anyhow, all of this is irrelivant to the conversation of should the coastal recreational allocation be reduced to expand the coastal commercial allocation.