Mass. weighs tougher protections for striped bass

[CowHunter]

Saltheart, Im on the other end, most everybody I know keeps their fish.... Question for you, How many Rec Guys up and down the coast keep their catch and sell fish black market to cover expenses and so on???
Some on this board put Charter Captains in the same boat as Commercial Fisherman.... I strongly disagree with this. Are charter captains in Mass "Contributing" to the 1.1 million Pounds of commercial Allocation? Absolutely not. They do not in any State. As a charter captain I can do 1, 2 or 3 trips a day if I can book em. 7 days a week if I can. I can take the boat limit over and over and despite what MakoMike says you dont have to report your catch in MOST states, (There are other areas besides the SW corner of Block where Stripers Live)....MakoMike might not like this but as a charter captain, Im saying I kill way to many fish and I feel strongly that MANY Other do to. It is what the law allows though...They dont shut down the charter captains, or rec guys when Their quota is filled, (Cause there really isnt one). What if Charter Captains had a quoat? What if Rec Guys have a quota? Shut them down like they do commercials when its hit? Even on the reporting system that exists in most states, you wont get "rewarded" if you send a catch report in so its easy to get lazy and fudge inacurrate numbers. Commercials get paid for every pound they bring in and so it is tallied and despite what is said by stripersforever it is reported. You dont have rec guys bringing their catch in to tackleshops or anywhere else to get wieghed and accounted for. In NJ you have to pay for a bonus tag, you dont get "Rewarde" or anything when you send the tag in, so in return guys will use one tag to catch an extra 5, 10, 20 fish, (Some More). I wonder what the 321K quota really is. Stripersforever should be putting thier energy to putting together a more accurate reporting system on fish killed. Not worry about catching 80 fish or so until your arm are tired. does this make Sense to ANYONE???? I feel like nobody else sees any of this but me??? Despite what SANDMAN may think I really want whats best for the fishery as a whole, (I Even want sandman to make more money on his Tide logs!). I would have no problem with one fish at 36" from state to state as a Charter Captain. My business would not suffer one bit. Now if it was a gamefish only It would suffer, so would alot of the businesses up and down the coast. Alot of people do fish for Meat, and a large Majority do not understand catch and release and never will...I find no better example than the Chesapeake bay, when they shut it down, its a ghost town...

[CowHunter]

Ill go back to the NJ Bonus Tag... The State doesnt care about anything except collecting the $2 bucks a fish. They rely on anglers sending in the tags and buying another one for every single fish they catch. As I said it is a joke, (The gift that keeps on giving). I really truly believe that the number of fish killed would way exceed the NJ Commercial quota, (It is what it is - Commercial quota). I think it would be a staggering number, more than 2, 3 times the quota.... But agian thats myopinion and it dont mean %$%$%$%$ because I dont have any scientific data to back it, (Niether does the State)....

Stripersforever does have NJ as a little green state on their website where no commercial quota exists...

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

Saltheart, Im on the other end, most everybody I know keeps their fish.... Question for you, How many Rec Guys up and down the coast keep their catch and sell fish black market to cover expenses and so on???
Some on this board put Charter Captains in the same boat as Commercial Fisherman.... I strongly disagree with this. Are charter captains in Mass "Contributing" to the 1.1 million Pounds of commercial Allocation? Absolutely not. They do not in any State. As a charter captain I can do 1, 2 or 3 trips a day if I can book em. 7 days a week if I can. I can take the boat limit over and over and despite what MakoMike says you dont have to report your catch in MOST states, (There are other areas besides the SW corner of Block where Stripers Live)....MakoMike might not like this but as a charter captain, Im saying I kill way to many fish and I feel strongly that MANY Other do to. It is what the law allows though...They dont shut down the charter captains, or rec guys when Their quota is filled, (Cause there really isnt one). What if Charter Captains had a quoat? What if Rec Guys have a quota? Shut them down like they do commercials when its hit? Even on the reporting system that exists in most states, you wont get "rewarded" if you send a catch report in so its easy to get lazy and fudge inacurrate numbers. Commercials get paid for every pound they bring in and so it is tallied and despite what is said by stripersforever it is reported. You dont have rec guys bringing their catch in to tackleshops or anywhere else to get wieghed and accounted for. In NJ you have to pay for a bonus tag, you dont get "Rewarde" or anything when you send the tag in, so in return guys will use one tag to catch an extra 5, 10, 20 fish, (Some More). I wonder what the 321K quota really is. Stripersforever should be putting thier energy to putting together a more accurate reporting system on fish killed. Not worry about catching 80 fish or so until your arm are tired. does this make Sense to ANYONE???? I feel like nobody else sees any of this but me??? Despite what SANDMAN may think I really want whats best for the fishery as a whole, (I Even want sandman to make more money on his Tide logs!). I would have no problem with one fish at 36" from state to state as a Charter Captain. My business would not suffer one bit. Now if it was a gamefish only It would suffer, so would alot of the businesses up and down the coast. Alot of people do fish for Meat, and a large Majority do not understand catch and release and never will...I find no better example than the Chesapeake bay, when they shut it down, its a ghost town...

These are good and fair points.

[sokinwet]

Hey Cowhunter...welcome back...again. Been trying to watch your back...with limited success.

Before and after the commercial season I rarely keep a fish unless it's a bleeder...and I have to argue with my 87 yr. old father over every throwback (old school...he still thinks 16" and it goes in the box...or to the pretty neighbor!) but the vast majority of the casual rec's I know are dying to catch that keeper and fillet away. I admit that's not many because virtually all my fishing friends fish commercially...I guess for all of us it's a "birds of a feather" thing!

"But again thats my opinion and it dont mean %$%$%$%$ because I dont have any scientific data to back it,"

I wish everyone would be this honest and would rely on those "with the data"

[Saltheart]

[QUOTE=CowHunter;729676]Saltheart, Im on the other end, most everybody I know keeps their fish.... Question for you, How many Rec Guys up and down the coast keep their catch and sell fish black market to cover expenses and so on???


I have no idea how many.

I know people do it.

I know nobody I fish with does this. I know that if I found out someone I fished with does this , they wouldn't fish with me anymore.

I'm all for the guy who does whatever he does within the rules and regulations. If a guy keeps 30 fish on a Com license because that's what the law says . I have no issue with him. I do have an issue with the law and those who make these laws allowing such a high limit but I have no issue at all with the guy who keeps and sells the legal limit.

[inTHERAPY]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

"I would say it 2 to 1 the people who just keep everything vs the people who actually sell fish with their license"

I for one would have no problem with those who check "DNF" on their catch reports for over 1 year being required to explain the circumstances prior to renewal.

Just curious guys...what would you say is the ratio or C&R bass fishermen to fisherman who put their 2 in the box whenever they can?

I will sell everything I catch if a legal market is open for them. As far as recreationally, I will keep maybe 1 a week, or a bleeder.
In the number of marinas I've been in, during the last 7 years, I've talked with a lot of fishermen. A large majority of which would consider a 30 # fish as a monster and 5 fish in a day as a awesome day. Good for them. These people always return to the docks with whatever stripers they catch. These are the anglers i would say make up the vast majority of the fishing community.
The guys and gals who participate on this site are not these anglers. I do not think what "we" do with fish is the norm.
If you have not read Amendment 6, asmfc, do so. You can find quite a bit of info at the asmfc site.

[numbskull]

The state has this wrong. What they need is a $4 tax on each bunker and eel sold..........then the bass would be fine.

[jmac]

The new Mass commercial regs for 2010 indicate all vessels will need to submit trip level reporting either by mail or electronically. Not sure about other states or charter ops though.
This may help alleviate some of the over runs in the quota as there will be a "real time" tally going versus waiting for the fish houses to submit thier data weekly or longer.

In RI, We are required to have a trip log on board, that must be filled every day; (Bass, Fluke, Scup, etc), where we sell, where we fish, etc. Those log book entries must be sent to RIDEM every quarter.

I believe next year in MA, catch reports must be submitted monthly.

Cowhunter, like you, I have a MA boat permit, bass endorsement, no charter endorsement(my fee is $380); my RI license is $275 with all the endorsements......

[BasicPatrick]

Those that attend the actual ASMFC S-B management board meetings know that there are some valid concerns coming from the scientists and that these concerns will most likely trigger a motality reduction in 2010/2011. Most with some knowledge are predicting a return to the 1 fish at 28" standard for the coastal migrating stock.

For those that like to state how such and such a state can take smaller fish please read up on the term conservation equivalency and get an understanding of how the Striped Bass Management Plan works with regard to mortality numbers. Also please note the scientific differences between the coastal migrating stock and the small local resident populations.

For those throwing slot limit and minimum size numbers around please quote the mortality reduction numbers that are related to your position and from what source you got them. If mortality reduction is the goal we should at least hear what gain you are claiming your numbers will produce.

The real issue the SF moles have this thread all convaluted and confused is to avoid the debate on should the state of MA get into setting fisheries regulations. Anyone that cares about fish from any perspective must answer this questions with a loud HELL NO!

These guys have you all argueing comm vs rec while they lobby hard for a bill that will devastate all fisheries once the lobby for the big business fleet gets their legislative machine working fisheries legislation. Anyone want to argue that big buisness does not beat all in the MA State House.

Does anyone think it is ironic that the largest boats in the state control most of the state funded piers in both Gloucester and New Bedford. Does anyone think the SF folks and their little movement are going to be here when the Midwater Trawl fleet lobbyist wants to target and sell everything they can catch in the name of conservation. These 20 boats and their Alaskan and Irish uber corporations will shut down every small commercial operation in every town on the coast. They will still dump mixed catch as being to dirty to sort for value and devastate the ocean but now they will do it with legislative approval.

Sorry SF, you guys like to blame your lack of fish in Maine o MA while omitting the fact that the combination of purse seiners and other fleets that are dead set on making sure there is more lobster bait for your unregulated trap numbers than is even possible to use have devastated your inshore bait supply to the point that the Striped Bass have left your shores.

If you want a comparison to your brilliant idea, please see the State of Virginia where all regulations must pass the legislature. Anyone want to know what state has the absolute worst fisheries conservation record on the whole coast. Could it be the home of Omega Protein. Bingo. Good job SF...way to make things better, copy the sucessful conservation system of Virginia.

I challenge SF to show up at ASMFC and lobby for regulation change like the rest of us do. Particpate in the system that brought back Striped Bass and continues to manage a fishery that is getting harder to manage by the day. Despite our imperfections, the democratic system of fisheries management continues to work, and will as long as fishermen show up.

The real problem is that this thread will generate more written input than testimony will be spoken at the next ASMFC S-B meeting.

If people only cared enough to show up at one meeting per year we would run management of all fisheries. If all this yap on the net was backed up by one paid membership to one rec advocacy group per person we would run management.

Come on guys...the SF bunch has you all missing the big picture. Don't be fooled.

[numbskull]

These are very good and valid points, Patrick, and clarify your reasoned objection to this bill.

It does raise some questions, however. If the recreational sector's quota is (appropriately for sure) reduced to 1 fish, is the commercial quota also likely to be adjusted (fairly or not) downward as well? How much? What consequences do you foresee if not?

As for stock mortality based on fish size, any proposal would have to reduce mortality to meet required targets, and any proposal could be made to work.......but would require the implementation of a season as is seen in other fisheries (not something most people seem anxious to happen).

I'm also having difficulty understanding how this bill will open all fishing to legislative regulation. Isn't it limited to Striped Bass alone? Isn't it already much easier and cheaper for the industrial fishing interests to influence regulations through political appointments to the ASMFC board? Isn't that what has been going on for years and led us to this point?

Undoubtedly your ideal of increased recreational representation in our fishery management is the best option, but to date it has not worked. The industrial interests know and exploit that. What do you see that is now different and gives you confidence things will change in the future?

To continue a system that has failed and hope it will change may be noble, may feel right, but may also be wrong. To tear down a system that could work and replace it with one that may do worse is not necessarily better either. It comes down to opinion. That it has gotten this far is a sign of the trouble we face. I don't pretend to know an answer, just thinking out loud.

[Doublerunner]

Hopefully the next asmfc meeting will not be in the middle of the day on a weekday.

[MikeToole]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I challenge SF to show up at ASMFC and lobby for regulation change like the rest of us do. Particpate in the system that brought back Striped Bass and continues to manage a fishery that is getting harder to manage by the day. Despite our imperfections, the democratic system of fisheries management continues to work, and will as long as fishermen show up.
.

Patrick, you still putting fish stink on your plugs?

I understand your point but I have to disagree with this. We are doing a terrible job managing the fisheries, especially on the east coast. The best we can seem to do is get a fish stock to cycle up from near depleted, to a number where they are just getting by in most cases. Stripers are a little different because of the high interest in them by recreational fisherman. If ASMFC would bite the bullet and do the right thing in the short term, we could greatly improve the amount of fish we take both commercially and recreationally. Look at cod, fluke, whiting, ling, weakfish and wolffish. Would you say we are doing a good job with any of these, let alone bait fish. The democratic process biggest failure is it's focus on the short term.

I don't make very many meetings because of my work. But I take the time to read the reports and minutes from the meetings. I write letters when I see request for input. But I don't think in the end it means much. ASMFC does not manage the fishery to maximize take, they manage it on the short term trying to make everyone happy.

[beaver]

Don't attack me guys I'm just curious, and haven't read the other 240 something posts in this thread. Without protection could our bass population end up like our cod population has? Although cod have made a tiny comeback, and warming water temps have an effect on them moving further north or offshore, they were seriously over fished. It was only 20 or 30 years ago that they could be caught in the canal, from Hull Gut, and other shore places. Global warming, maybe, over fishing def.

I really have no facts though. As a kid growing up we would take the boat out, inside Boston Light and catch all the cod we could want, now, not so much. Just what I think. Don't want to take this thread off topic, just curious if that would ever happen. I wasn't alive for the moratorium, and I don't want to be alive for any moratorium.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by numbskull

These are very good and valid points, Patrick, and clarify your reasoned objection to this bill.

It does raise some questions, however. If the recreational sector's quota is (appropriately for sure) reduced to 1 fish, is the commercial quota also likely to be adjusted (fairly or not) downward as well? How much? What consequences do you foresee if not?

If my guesss that there will be a need for a mortality reduction managment action to respond to scientific concerns that come out of the pending stock asessment update, then the norm is for an across the board reduction of fishing mortality...including the commercial quota will be reduced...unless I am missing an angle but I do not think so

As for stock mortality based on fish size, any proposal would have to reduce mortality to meet required targets, and any proposal could be made to work.......but would require the implementation of a season as is seen in other fisheries (not something most people seem anxious to happen).

There is no question seasons for many marine fish are coming to a management plan near all of us in the near future. For S-B I think we are a couple of management steps away from a season but eventualy that will be on the table as the next best management option.

I'm also having difficulty understanding how this bill will open all fishing to legislative regulation. Isn't it limited to Striped Bass alone? Isn't it already much easier and cheaper for the industrial fishing interests to influence regulations through political appointments to the ASMFC board? Isn't that what has been going on for years and led us to this point?

I'm going to try and answer this with a simple version of a very complex question. Reason one is that the legislation will set legal prescedent. Reason two is that once the legislature is involved in something it tends to clamin that turf for itself. Reason three is that once the lobbyists see that the legislature is willing to pass a fisheries regulatory action they will naturally see that as a new option to make advancement for their agenda and the flood gates of legislation, ammendments and the lot will be opened. WE do not need to be reminded that big buisness clearly can outspend all others on Beacon Hill and next in line will be the extreme greens wiht the rec and conservation minded amongst us being wayyyyyyyyy in the back of the line .

I would suggest that there is different track record with influencing political appointments as opposed vs passing legislation. We have passed very few pieces of legislation as opposed to influencing many political appointments.

Take the MA delegation to the ASMFC. We have three Comissioners. One is a legislator, one is a Governor appointee and MA DMF is the third. Last year we had a major gain (my opinion) from the rec/conservation angle. The Governor's appointee remains Bill Adler from MA Lobsterman's Assn, DMF is DMF, and until he lost his seat the legislative appointee had been Tony Verga from Gloucester who gave proxy to Vito Calamo who has always been a kill it all and sell it all commercial rep of the worst kind. When Tony Verga lost his seat a major effort at the state house between enviros and rec leaders got Rep. Sarah Peake from P-Town as our new ASMFC legislator. FYI...Rep Peake has regulary participated in her county league of sportsmans clubs for the past ten years and after two lunches with her I am can not tell you how important the gain we just made is for us.

My point is that at the ASMFC the rec commnity has a say and a shot at success. We have a decent (not great) track record at ASMFC but moving actions to the state house will clearly be a HUGE step backward.[/B]

Undoubtedly your ideal of increased recreational representation in our fishery management is the best option, but to date it has not worked. The industrial interests know and exploit that. What do you see that is now different and gives you confidence things will change in the future?

I do not see increased interest and that is why our best option is the current rulemaking process as oposed to the legislative process for fisheries management.

To continue a system that has failed and hope it will change may be noble, may feel right, but may also be wrong. To tear down a system that could work and replace it with one that may do worse is not necessarily better either. It comes down to opinion. That it has gotten this far is a sign of the trouble we face. I don't pretend to know an answer, just thinking out loud.

I agree we need serious improvements to fisheries managmeent but I also am absoutely certain involving the legislature is the completely wrong direction.

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I agree we need serious improvements to fisheries managmeent but I also am absoutely certain involving the legislature is the completely wrong direction.

If the legislation (Congress) hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

[DZ]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

If the legislation hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

Great point Mike.

JFI - It seems snook and redfish have been protected by legislative action in most Gulf of Mexico states. Rec anglers in that area have reaped the benefits. We tend to be a little "gun shy" up here in the NE.

DZ

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by Back Beach

If the legislation (Congress) hadn't gotten involved in 1982 we'd likely have no fish today, so be careful what you wish for.
Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION to be accurate...This is my point exactly...If one state gives up it's fish the other states will divide it up. Banning the commercial harvest in MA will only get VA, NJ and other states more commercial quota. This question has been asked and anwered many many times and no matter how SF spins the answer it is what it is.

The place to get improvemet in the S-B management Plan is the management body responsible for the overall management pland and that is ASMFC. Like it or not they manage Striped Bass.

If the SF Legislation is so good why are they always shopping it from State to State and have not passed it anywhere.

[Sea Dangles]

Let's not forget that a portion of the MA quota comes from fish caught in RI and CT.Lots of anglers willing to take their catch over the line to cash in.The night time is the right time.I don't think this is news to contender cop.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

The place to get improvemet in the S-B management Plan is the management body responsible for the overall management pland and that is ASMFC. Like it or not they manage Striped Bass.

Absolutely correct, but very possibly unrealistic. Since the ASMFC manages other stocks other than Striped Bass its representatives always include people who make a living from commercial fishing (of types other than striped bass) and marine fishery employees who work closely and are friendly with (and sympathetic to) the commercial industry. This is not wrong, commercial fishing provides food and benefit to the non-fishing public. These people, however, will naturally have a bias towards full utilization of a species.....to do otherwise represents a harmful waste from their perspective.

If the board were composed of people ONLY interested in striped bass there would be a chance for change. Unfortunately, I don't see that as very likely to happen. People who value striped bass most highly as a recreational resource will always be a minority on the ASMFC.....and its management decisions will continue to reflect that.

The ASMFC is a political creation. Changing the priority of striped bass management will likely require a political solution. If not, then a legal one driven by non-fishing interests will eventually happen (in my opinion).

[Back Beach]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

If the SF Legislation is so good why are they always shopping it from State to State and have not passed it anywhere.

I don't agree with it, but I'm suggesting if your sentiments represent MSBA's stance (opposing it due to fear of the legislature being involved) then it doesn't make sense to me...its simply political posturing.

Opposing the bill due to the fact its not a solution to a perceived problem makes a little more sense to me. With either case you're opposing it (good), but there's got to be more meat on the bone, so to speak.

As an add on to the above, I would imagine the legislature doesn't want to be involved anyways.

[sokinwet]

"Autonomy is good to a point, but opposing this bill simply because the legislature is involved makes no sense to me. The current system is all over the map with regard to its priorities."

Any individual or group can submit a bill to their legislator for introduction. Is that a system that makes more sense than scientific management of the resource?

"Without protection could our bass population end up like our cod population has? "
No protection? Size limits, bag limits, quotas, R&R harvest, etc.

[sokinwet]

A permit $ increase isn't really going to do much more than put a few more dollars in the states pocket at the expense of all fisherman be they full time or p.t. (cost of the permit is deductible under business expenses so the guys selling and paying their taxes get a little relief.) Yes, it may eliminate those guys who still hold a permit but don't fish commercially (no quota impact) and those who might be using the permit to take over their rec. limit, but I still can't believe that's a big number...especially if the price is up! I mean really..if you're doing it for food, 20 lb. x $3 buys you more groceries than a couple of fillets.

"So, what do you want to see? A compromise and we all get to keep fishing or a moratorium?"

I'm all in support of compromise but this bill is what's on the table and it's not about compromise.

[Mr. Sandman]

No compromise. Game fish or Complete moratorium.

[dannyplug1]

Why is a striped bass different than a migritory game bird like a duck or a goose? They are managed by the federal govt. Stripers should be managed by the federal govt and not at the mercy of states that are dominated by those who would kill each other over the last bass (not an original thought, It is a rehash of a paragraph in Dagnaults book eastern tides). Striped bass belong to all the people and should be a game fish. Or atleast there should be a slot limit. The commercials esp in Mass kill the fish with the best genes in terms of survival and egg production (30 fish is just not right)! Just like the deer hunter who allways goes for the big buck and ten years later wonders why their are no deer with nice racks. Knot head you took the best genes out of the population. I know this is a rambling poorly spelled post but I am enraged. I think the bass population is going the way of buffalo and we are to blame!

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

No compromise. Game fish or Complete moratorium.

Gamefish = No Harvest

Complete Moratorium = No Target

SF Legislation = Allocation Grab with almost no mortality reduction

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

...and those who might be using the permit to take over their rec. limit,

FYI...Harvesting over a rec limit to take home is illegal..there is no commercial permit that makes that third fish legal in MA...the commercial harvested fish must be sold and counted on the quota without exception...anyone that tells you different is misinformed....this a HUGE problem and I would bet good money that we hear a rulemaking to fix this and some other issues in the MA system in the coming months

[CowHunter]

Why do some people insist that the commercials only target the biggest fish with thf best genes and so on???I know I want to get my 30 fish and get off the water, if they are 34" or bigger they go in the box... The bulk of the fish during the com season comes off the cape. I am willing to bet that the usual average on a com catchOn the cape is about 16-17lbs...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[inTHERAPY]

Originally Posted by CowHunter

Why do some people insist that the commercials only target the biggest fish with thf best genes and so on???I know I want to get my 30 fish and get off the water, if they are 34" or bigger they go in the box... The bulk of the fish during the com season comes off the cape. I am willing to bet that the usual average on a com catchOn the cape is about 16-17lbs...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

shouldn't you be doing something a bit more productive?

[sokinwet]

"(30 fish is just not right)"
What is hard to understand here...we're dealing with a quota ...a million pounds is a million pounds...one at a time or 30 at a time. The main purpose of the weekly 30/30/30/5 open days & quota was to spread the catch out for a longer period during the season to avoid flooding the market, depressing the price and to allow the market/buyers to plan for a consistent supply over a longer period. If we went to 10 a day it's just more time on the water and $$ in gas.....same million pounds.

[Mr. Sandman]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

"(30 fish is just not right)"
What is hard to understand here...we're dealing with a quota ...a million pounds is a million pounds...one at a time or 30 at a time. The main purpose of the weekly 30/30/30/5 open days & quota was to spread the catch out for a longer period during the season to avoid flooding the market, depressing the price and to allow the market/buyers to plan for a consistent supply over a longer period. If we went to 10 a day it's just more time on the water and $$ in gas.....same million pounds.

***lighting match, stand back BEGIN FLAME ***

You comm guys with "the quota is the quota no matter how fast we take them" mentality make me laugh. Why not take them all in one day then? Unlimited? 3/d is not enough, 10/d is not enough, you guys said 30/d is really not enough, 50 is a minimum you would like per day...But no, you need to get yours as fast and as many as possible befor the next guy can catch his...jezz... to me this spells personal greed. (Not to mention 14" comm fluke is a HOAX as well )

If you dropped it to something like 3 fish/day the $/lb would be even higher, the season would be more than just a few weeks and the fish would be taken over a much larger area, more people would be involved over a longer period . What we have now is 60+ boats working an area the size of a football field hard for 10+ hours a day putting a big dent in a local fish population leving next to nothing after the season is over. Also I think it would reduce the pressure on the bunker that get up this way. If you just need to get 3 fish, you don't need to go net a 1000 to put a 300 dead bunker in the water every other day to do it. Heck if you are any good, you can catch 3 fish with no bait. If you need 30+ fish, you need a lot of bait on board. (BTW what is RI's daily limit? )

Heck, forget this bogus R&R bass fishery all together, if the "quota" is the be all and end all, then if they just made the draggers sell the bycatch (instead of dumping it overboard dead unreported) they could meet the easily meet the quota ALONE without ANY R&R comm fishing. The money the state would SAVE from not having to give the juicy (and mostly bogus)tax write-offs to the comm R&R's (who we all know fish recreational with the gear they are writing off with, also I would suspect there is a little fibbing going one with regard to write offs as we all know fishermen tend to lie a bit) would more than make up for any loss due to loss of no SB lic fees. Moreover the charter guys should be counted under commercial, they are a commercial operation, they are getting paid to catch bass, that is commercial bass fishing.




Most comm R&Rer's just don't see the the beauty of the SB and don't think of it as a special fish that should be around for EVERYONE to catch, not to remove at some bogus maximum yield theory for the benefit of a few. It is just something to catch and sell to them. Most comm guys are doing to this to write off their equipment (boat fuel slip gear, etc) and put a few bucks in their pocket. Why should the public be forced to subsidize your hobby? End this farce once and for all. shut it down.

GAMEFISH IS COMING
***burn baby burn, END FLAME***