Reallocation for Conservation

[B-Faithful]

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):

Anglers have also specifically expressed concerns over the winter gillnet season and the YOY indices. With the possibility of global warming and the potential for an earlier spawn, some anglers are troubled that the setting of long gillnets may have an ill-effect on fish migrating into the bay to spawn. It is because of this concern that I suggest that the greatest commercial allocation reduction come from this fishery in particular.

[reds]

Originally Posted by B-Faithful

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.

[Mikie]

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.

[B-Faithful]

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.

[B-Faithful]

Update:

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

I read Candy Thomson’s column today that your organization is calling for the commercial quota of striped bass to be reallocated to recreational fishing, but then set aside for conservation. We at Stripers Forever strongly support this view. In our work to make striped bass a game fish we have also repeatedly asked to have the commercial quota set aside for conservation.

Stripers Forever will be reintroducing legislation in Maasachusetts again this winter to designate striped bass as game fish, thus eliminating the commercial fishery in that state. Massachusetts commercial fishermen kill over 100,000 breeding sized stripers a year – a number which includes a modest estimate for commercial discards and the well recognized unreported catch. It is heartening to know that officials in other jurisdictions will be getting the message from a respected organizations like MSSA that striped bass are simply too valuable as a recreational or personal use resource to be squandered.

Please let us know if there is anything that we can do to help you.

George Watson, Treasurer
for the board of Stripers Forever

[Mikie]

Originally Posted by B-Faithful

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.

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.

[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

[Mikie]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[reds]

Originally Posted by B-Faithful

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

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.