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

[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.

[B-Faithful]

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.

[Skip]

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.

[reds]

Originally Posted by Skip

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.

"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"

[JigStix]

Originally Posted by Skip

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.

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.

[B-Faithful]

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

[Mikie]

Originally Posted by B-Faithful

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.

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.

[B-Faithful]

Originally Posted by Mikie

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.

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.

[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.