Holy Crap!!

[Shore Thing]

Hey Greg. Do you know what the actual number is that results in the 5% of catch? I still imagine that 5% equals tens of thousands of spawning female rockfish and tens of millions of eggs regardless of percentages. I have to disagree with the fact that they time the season so that most fish are spawned. If they back it up to May 1 then yeah but not currently. I think they should back it up to May 1 if there is really such a dyer outlook on the horizon.

[B-Faithful]

I dont have the number before me but according to DNR it accounts for less than 5% of the SSB harvest.

Bottom line is that the best opportunity for the citizens of Maryland to engage in the migrant fish is only a very small part of the take. The fact is that the coastal reduction, which focuses on these fish up and down the coast with far greater creels from NC to Maine, will protect and preserve the SSB far more than what we could ever do here in MD with our shortened season and already low creels. Lets face it, the take from the entire coast, where some states have had a recreational creel of 3 fish per person (NJ), or very large commercial harvests on only fish over 34" (mass), or HUGE recreational takes almost exclusively on the SSB (NY).. Our take on big fish is peanuts. This isnt to point fingers at the other states but just the fact of who takes what. Our take is vastly on resident fish both commercial and recreational. These resident fish are said to be mostly male and the ASMFC doesnt have reference points for the bay yet to see if a reduction in the bay is needed or would even benefit the fishery.

[B-Faithful]

If you want to see harvest numbers from years past during the trophy season, see my post from 2013 here: http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/show...=1#post2039561

I gave harvest numbers with what the regulations were for the given year. Note that the 2009 numbers were viewed as a statistical error by the ASMFC.

(yes I was advocating for a no take slot in 2013 but more so supported the 1 @36"+ this year. This was based more on the fact that the ASMFC TC and LEC prefers that it not be done. I believe that MD should not have asked for conservation equivalency so we had a leg to stand on down the road should further reductions be needed. Plus I dont want NRP blotters filled with rec violations. I am told that MD is going to protest the 20.5% reductions in the bay too so I think it is a bit "ballsy" to ask for both conservation equivalency and file a protest on the bay reductions )

[Shore Thing]

If there really is a problem with the rockfish population which I dont totally buy then recreational fishermen need to make some concesions. Since commercial fishermen cant keep fish over 36" then there should be a slot limit for recreational fishermen 28" to 36" to coinside and the season should be moved back to May 1 so spawning fish are given time to do what they came here to do. Just my take on things if you want to make a difference in Maryland.

[B-Faithful]

If we are going to base recreational regulations on commercial regulations, then we all should have to use the same gear-type, have the same size limits, and season lengths. Maybe we should all have the same creel and eliminate limited entry too.. This should be for all species also.

Bottom line is just because we have the regulation in MD that the commercial cannot keep a fish over 36" doesnt mean we should apply the same regulations to the recreational fishery. For what it appears to me, the Maryland recreational side is taking quite a hit this year with the no-take slot that eliminates the take of lot of fish out there. We will also have a 20" min this summer.

Look at the regulations out there for Bluefin, flounder, seabass, etc. There are different size limits on commercial and recreational takes on most species.

[Shore Thing]

To each his own but I think fishery rules and regs should be skewed toward the commercial fishermen. They are doing it to make a living. Rec fishermen should be in it for the fun. Plus commercial fishermen pay exponential more in license and fees. Fees being the cost to obtain the license. Recreational fishermen need to make some concessions to help the fishery. I feel the same way about crabs.

[5th Tuition]

Originally Posted by Shore Thing

To each his own but I think fishery rules and regs should be skewed toward the commercial fishermen. They are doing it to make a living. Rec fishermen should be in it for the fun.

Are you serious? In todays world, everything has to be fair!!! We can't have something skewed toward one group.

Do you want to turn on your TV to watch BassMasters or Roland Martin and see recreational fishermen with their hands up and saying "recreational fun fishing matters"



Just my attempt at humor Shore Thing
If the slot keeps me from bringing home a full cooler this year, but makes more fish available next year (and for years to come); all is good.
5th

[B-Faithful]

Originally Posted by Shore Thing

To each his own but I think fishery rules and regs should be skewed toward the commercial fishermen. They are doing it to make a living. Rec fishermen should be in it for the fun. Plus commercial fishermen pay exponential more in license and fees. Fees being the cost to obtain the license. Recreational fishermen need to make some concessions to help the fishery. I feel the same way about crabs.

I am someone who believes strongly in individual freedoms. We need to protect the access and opportunity to do for oneself. People shouldnt have to buy their fish if they are willing and able to fish themselves. Open access to the public resource should be provided for ahead of any special limited entry. (google: public trust doctrine)

This is the model for most public state resources too. Fish such as redfish, rockfish (in nearly half the Atlantic States), snook, etc. are all allocated to benefit individual access first. It is also how other resources such as wild game like deer, goose, etc. are all managed as well.

As far as sport fishing being merely for ones pleasure. I suggest you ask Bill if he builds boats for his mere pleasure, ask Keith if he runs AllTackle for his mere pleasure, or Billy at ShoreTackle, ask Jim at BOE who he sells the bulk of his electronics too and if he does it for pleasure, ask the owners of many marine businesses (such as marinas boat dealers, guides, charters etc.) in this state if they operate out of mere pleasure. Do you insure recreational fishing boats for your mere pleasure? Our state sport fishery is driven by striped bass. I know people arent buying 100k 27 Judge's to fish for white perch, catfish and croaker.

You also bring up fees.. resource management is mostly paid for on the backs of sportsmen due to the shear numbers of people participating. Go to the DNR site and see where the money is generated. The sport fishing industry drives far greater tax revenue. State sales tax (fuel, gear, boats, trucks, trailers, etc.), license and fees, 10% federal excise tax on all our gear (wallop breaux),... Heck, DNR is desperate to raise the numbers of recreational license sales so that they qualify for more Wallop Breaux money from the feds- Like $2 mil more) Most commercially harvested rockfish are going out state and we never see sales tax. Cost of gear is written off against profits and there are far fewer of them due to limited entry.

Given your philosophy, maybe I should run with it and advocate we go to limited entry on the sportsmen side and only let those with limited professional guides licenses to fish the trophy season If you want to keep a fish during the trophy season you need to fish with licensed charter. After all charters are just trying to make a living You just have all the money wrapped in your boat merely for pleasure so you dont count (at least as much).

[5th Tuition]

Again; I can live with either option. I am no longer associated with a charter (as mate). I am strictly a rec angler, and what I say is strictly opinion.

1) I was (and still am) confused as to why the specific group who initiated and got behind PSCR restrictions (the Md Charter Boat Assoc.) and testified so strongly against it; now wants to impose a slot limit (C/R) on trophy fish.

2) Yes, it was Brian Keene who testified (on record) that all the slot fish the charters returned to the water, died. A panel of other charter captains, commercial fishermen, and rec. organization (MSSA and maybe CCA also), sat there and NOONE disputed this comment. PSCR was vilified. I had to sit and listen to stories about trollers dragging the cows through the water and stressing them to the point that they possibly released their eggs, or even died.
Now, the MCBA wants to C/R trophies 36 inches to 40 inches. Why?

3) I truly believe that most (maybe 95%, with cold water) survive C/R. Therefore, I think for the sake of conservation, the slot option will benefit the rock population.

4) I don't want to get into a pissin contest over this, because as I said, I can live with either option. I just scratch my head and wonder why? Perhaps, the MCBA believes that all those 38-39 inch fish we caught last year have grown another couple inches and we will see many more over 40 fish this year. Perhaps, the MCBA was afraid that even more restrictions were coming down the pike, and this was a way to "get ahead" of more restrictions. I don't know.

5) If the slot option is adopted, I do fully intend to ask DNR to "scope" the rod restriction for PSCR. DNR will have, in effect, supported C/R as a CONSERVATION tool.

These types of topics allow "speculation" to run rampant on fishing boards. My original post was to inform those on CBA that a new option was being thrown into the mix at what I consider, a late date. I had been lead to believe that the 36" and over was going to be the option presented. I guess I should know by now that "it ain't over till it's over"; and anything can change in Md. if you have somebodies ear.

the end
5th