ASMFC meeting yesterday - striped bass

[B-Faithful]

Originally Posted by reds

Here's some applied common sense.
#1 We have been in a recession for the last 3 years. Recs don't have the money to fish. Charters are off because of it, tackle sales are down. Boat sales are in the toilet. Surprise, surprise the rec catch is off.

I think while overall you may be correct there are some key things to consider.. Despite the down economy fishing license sales have been up in Maryland. According to mrfss data, there were more rec trips taken in Maryland in 2009 than the previous year (I havent checked to see data revolving around other areas). Also areas like VA beach are seeing huge economic growth around the recreational striped bass fishery. Hotels, charters, restaurants, etc are now busy in the winter months where they were generally quiet only a few years ago. Recreational fishing is a 1.3 Billion dollar industry to the state of Maryland according to DNR and 1 Billion according to the American Sportfishing Association.

Lets face it, striped bass on the commercial market is facing the same economic battles as restaurant industry is way down, prices for striped bass on the commercial market are stagnant at best, etc.

[Shawn Kimbro]

I really hope there is a better reason to vote for increased commercial harvest besides getting recreational fishermen off their asses. By that logic, I should go out and dump used cylinder oil in the Bay so it'll motivate somebody to support a no discharge law!

[Fishamajig]

Originally Posted by Shawn Kimbro

I really hope there is a better reason to vote for increased commercial harvest besides getting recreational fishermen off their asses. By that logic, I should go out and dump used cylinder oil in the Bay so it'll motivate somebody to support a no discharge law!

Not really. What the ASMFC members did was this: rather than us make the decision for the constituency, let's solicit public comment from the public BEFORE we make a decision. That is all this is about.

Dumping used motor oil in the bay would be unethical and illegal! (Plus I know you wouldn't do it!) Putting an issue of striped bass allocation before the public is a very sound democratic process!

[B-Faithful]

Originally Posted by Fishamajig

Not really. What the ASMFC members did was this: rather than us make the decision for the constituency, let's solicit public comment from the public BEFORE we make a decision. That is all this is about.

Dumping used motor oil in the bay would be unethical and illegal! (Plus I know you wouldn't do it!) Putting an issue of striped bass allocation before the public is a very sound democratic process!

While it may be a very democratic process. It can also be seen as a weak move too. Since the issue was voted on at the Feb ASMFC meetings, the commission representatives have had pleanty of time to gather information and feedback from their constituents to take a position on the issue. While I have high hopes of recreational angler feedback on the issue if the word gets out that the rec allocation will be taken and given to the commercial allocation, the public is not nearly as well organized or vocal. The organization and paid lobby of the commercial side is very strong and there is a better understanding of how to get things done. However, I do believe recreational organizations are getting stronger. We will have to see what happens..

I spoke with Jim Donofrio of the RFA today and expressed my concerns about how reducing the recreational allocation in order expand the commercial allocation reduces opportunities for recreational anglers.

[Shawn Kimbro]

Originally Posted by Fishamajig

Not really. What the ASMFC members did was this: rather than us make the decision for the constituency, let's solicit public comment from the public BEFORE we make a decision. That is all this is about.

Dumping used motor oil in the bay would be unethical and illegal! (Plus I know you wouldn't do it!) Putting an issue of striped bass allocation before the public is a very sound democratic process!

I don't want to sound argumentative because I know what an advocate for recreational fishing you are and I sincerely appreciate all you do. Frankly, I'm a fan of both your work on and off the water. My point is that it doesn't make sense to support the wrong side of an issue just for the sake of generating discussion. I know this is more involved and we will certainly need the future help of the states we voted with, but it still feels like a punch in the gut to recreational fishing.

[reds]

Originally Posted by B-Faithful

I think while overall you may be correct there are some key things to consider.. Despite the down economy fishing license sales have been up in Maryland. According to mrfss data, there were more rec trips taken in Maryland in 2009 than the previous year (I havent checked to see data revolving around other areas). Also areas like VA beach are seeing huge economic growth around the recreational striped bass fishery. Hotels, charters, restaurants, etc are now busy in the winter months where they were generally quiet only a few years ago. Recreational fishing is a 1.3 Billion dollar industry to the state of Maryland according to DNR and 1 Billion according to the American Sportfishing Association.

Lets face it, striped bass on the commercial market is facing the same economic battles as restaurant industry is way down, prices for striped bass on the commercial market are stagnant at best, etc.

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.

[Fishamajig]

After the moratorium was lifted, both recreational and commercial catches were even at about 7 million pounds each per year coastwide in or about 1995. Commercial catches are still about that number. Recreational catches in 2006 were about 30 million pounds and are currently about 25 million pounds.

The stock (total abundance) is currently about 52 million fish with the threshold set at 32 million fish. Fish stocks as you know have ups and downs and we have seen the abundance drop from 70 million fish in 2004 to where we are now. Is the fishing getting worse - yes - but still way above target.

You may have seen the best of the best, and that is a fact that bothers us recreational fisherman.

[B-Faithful]

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.