Reallocation for Conservation

[B-Faithful]

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