Reallocation for Conservation

[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.

[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.

[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.