Striped Bass Closures in Nov and Dec

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by dales529

Not sure how that comment helps? Do you have a better idea and if so please share as i went there twice like Capt Ron / not sure I saw you? While all you do for freshwater is admirable all you do on SW is be negative with one line statements that do more harm than good and minimize the effort of others trying to make a difference so with all due respect if you have nothing to offer on the SW side please stick to what you best.

Again I respect your efforts on the FW side of fishing!

Dave, Andy was replying to my comment "the decisions already been made" so I deserve some of the angst from your reply which I take responsibility for. The buses and Washington are Andy's words.

Should people not send in comments or attend the meeting? I'm wasn't saying or implying that. After seven years trying and one door after another slammed in my face, even in certain cases by "recreational leadership", it's difficult staying positive. And with today's economic climate, fishery decisions prospectively will be made even more based on economic impact. The problem as I see it is the recreational communities impact on the economy isn't viewed equally or for the same reasons the commercial sector is. The federal government in my opinion believes recreational anglers will spend money and fish regardless of how much they catch or can retain, and to some degree they're correct. Commercial on the other hand needs "harvest" in order to create "catch value", their contribution to the economic benefits of the sector and that's where the problem starts. I think the government is completely underestimating the impact to the economy and social impacts if recreational fishing one day goes away or becomes a shadow of what it's been for decades.

My frustration, like most, is I don't think anyone in Washington gives a shit and I don't think any one or handful of politicians will change the process or views of the bureaucrats in Washington. The Department of Commerce and NMFS won't change their ideologies or focus and certainly won't admit they've been and still are wrong with these regulations. That's why I have so much disdain for Michael Waine and ASA. We, meaning you, me and Dan along with a dozen or so others, presented them with issues they said they'd take to the Hill and as far as I know it was all BS and they didn't do a dam thing. Waine said to me leaving that meeting "you need to be more diplomatic in your approach" meaning be more respectful in my correspondence. Management incompetency and too much diplomacy is what got us here. As I said, when the commercial sector has a problem, they sue and usually win. Maybe that's because the Dept. of Commerce values them more, don't know. Recreational has a problem, we complain and say thank you sir may I have another. I know all we have is our voice but truly don't know what the answer is other than it's probably going to take a whole lot more radical approach than signing petitions and attending meetings. Doesn't mean we shouldn't utilize what's available, I've just lost hope those same approaches which haven't worked in past will for some reason cause change today.

Economic impact statistics from NOAA:

Sales impact: $321 billion
Jobs supported: 2.3 million
Commercial sales: $183 billion
Recreational sales: $138 billion
Source: NOAA Fisheries

In my humble opinion, this is the primary reason why the recreational sector gets the short end of the stick religiously and why catch decisions tend to favor the commercial sector. That and the fact mentioned earlier which is Washington views our impact based on how many days we fish, not on how many fish we harvest since we don't sell our catch. As a matter of fact, the more we catch the less we'll buy retail so it's in their best interest to limit catch to our sector. Fair and Equitable allocation of resources as mandated by MSA, it's just a slogan and not how sectors are really being regulated.

To Capt Ron's point, in my opinion NMFS wants recreational anglers on the water spending their hard earned money, what they don't want is the sector harvesting our proportionate share of the resource. It's a problem which will impact sector regulations and the overall health of stocks until management moves from the Department of Commerce back to the Department of the Interior where it belongs which with the amount of money involved will most likely never happen.

Just my two cents.

[bunker dunker]

we need more "common sense and less dollar and sense".we need to flush the toilet and clear the offices of those who are making the marine decisions.i feel like the bird and glass door.should we have to have this conversation every season????should we have to have this conversation about every fish???i may be a bit older but man this has been going on forever.this is like a bad movie that the they keep making sequels for.i hate to say this but with this constant parade
of bs,golf is looking better and better.

[AndyS]

Maybe I'm just being a realist here but looking back over the last 20 years:

Bluefish-CUT
Yellowfin tuna-CUT
Ocean Pout-CUT
Striped Bass-CUT
Blackfish-CUT
Atlantic Herring-CUT
American Shad-CUT
Mako shark-CUT
Black Sea Bass-CUT
Weakfish-CUT
Winter Flounder-CUT
Golden and Blueline Tilefish-CUT
Bluefin tuna-CUT
Mackerel and Whiting- ?
Fluke- annual shell game

Hard to stay positive with this track record.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by AndyS

Maybe I'm just being a realist here but looking back over the last 20 years:

Bluefish-CUT
Yellowfin tuna-CUT
Ocean Pout-CUT
Striped Bass-CUT
Blackfish-CUT
Atlantic Herring-CUT
American Shad-CUT
Mako shark-CUT
Black Sea Bass-CUT
Weakfish-CUT
Winter Flounder-CUT
Golden and Bluefin Tilefish-CUT
Mackerel and Whiting- ?
Fluke- annual shell game

Hard to stay positive with this track record.

They have a track record for screwing up every fishery they manage. If you and me were in these positions we'd be fired.

[dales529]

https://asafishing.org/advocacy/poli...dern-fish-act/

BB any thoughts on ASA being part of a Federal lawsuit for Summer Flounder, Seabass , scup and Modern Fishing Act?

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by dales529

https://asafishing.org/advocacy/poli...dern-fish-act/

BB any thoughts on ASA being part of a Federal lawsuit for Summer Flounder, Seabass , scup and Modern Fishing Act?

I'll do my best answering your question. Below are the federal fishing Acts adopted over the years since the Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA" was adopted in 1976. I believe the original intent of MSA was to establish a 200 mile limit and keep foreign factory ships out of our waters to prevent the exploitation of our salt water natural resources.

There's been three significant amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act since 1976:

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996: Strengthened requirements to prevent
overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks

MSA Reauthorization Act of 2006: Established annual catch limits,
accountability measures, and strengthened the role of science in fishery
management

Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018:
Improved recreational fishing data and management of mixed-use
fisheries

Moving Russia and other European Block countries out of our waters back in the 70's was an enormous win for our ground stocks (cod, whiting, ling, pollock, sea bass etc.) but truthfully all these other reauthorizations if you compare them to what's happened with local stocks, with a few minor exception, have failed to accomplish their intended charter when compared to the condition of fisheries over the same time frame. I think it's a lot of lip service with very little substantive change, government rhetoric in a nutshell. The proof is in the results and the devil in the details. The proof is we have more declining fisheries than growing fisheries today and recreational access has been slashed and catch limits severely limited. Case in point from the ASA link you posted:

One of the key tenants of the Modern Fish Act was allowing for “alternative management” approaches that differ from the traditional system that is based on commercial fishing, while adhering to federal requirements to prevent overfishing. That pretty much sums up what's brought us to this point in time over the last fifty years, decisions focused and based on commercial interests thanks to the Department of Commerce, NMFS, ASMFC and MAFMC.

We'll see how the complaint proceeds and what changes it effectuates, if any, to the recreational community. MSA was adopted to protect domestic salt water resources, manage those stocks prudently and provide a "Fair and Equitable" allocation of those resources between the commercial and recreational sectors. Would you agree that was the primary intent? If so, do you agree those are the results we've seen over the last 30 years? Personally I see just the opposite.

You're familiar with the saying, "Money talks, bullshit walks". I think most of us are done with the BS we've been fed for the better part of three decades. I know I am. Not just in terms of more restrictive regulations, decreased access to fisheries, declining stocks, reduced seasons, different weight values assigned to the same age classes with summer flounder between the recreational and commercial sectors, an enormous problem in the management of summer flounder not on anyone's radar screen, and now the high probability of a closure in arguably the most important recreational fishery to all coastal states striped bass. And lets not even get into what hasn't been done to push Cooke Inc. out of Chesapeake Bay. I think it's a good thing ASA has thrown their hat in the ring with this complaint but their true measure is what are the results of their involvement. From a holistic perspective, I'll ask you a question, what has ASA done over the last ten years locally to improve the rights of the recreational angler or the health of extremely important stocks to shore communities and recreational anglers which seem to be declining at historically alarming rates. If I'm overlooking something here, please enlighten me.

As I said, the entire process from top to bottom is corrupt and driven by economics and political graft. Sorry to be a wet rag but that's what I see based on real life experiences dealing with people more concerned with their personal agendas and status as opposed to the job they were elected or appointed to carry out. We tolerate that process and until something is done to change it there's no plausible reason to believe the immediate or distant future will be any different than the last two decades filled with one disappointment after another to the recreational community and more fisheries being pushed to the brink because they simply are not being managed prudently.

I remember Gerry posting his interview with the Town about I believe working for the zoning board, tax board or some comparable department. He was asked, what is your primary goal if you get this job and I believe he answered to reduce taxes for all residents of the Town and make the Township more affordable and attractive to property owners and potential buyers. The guy stopped him in his tracks and said "No, your job is to make sure the Mayor is re-elected". Something along those lines, Gerry you can add color if I presented it in the wrong light. You said right then and there it was the shortest interview on record and you knew you didn't stand a snow balls chance in hell of getting the job.

Fisheries management is no different. They protect their turf, retain their own, insure the corrupt system prevails and exploit our resources so they can all benefit from the last gold rush on the planet. Until that changes, there will be no "Fair and Equitable" allocation of salt water resources as mandated by MSA and I believe the Modern Fishing Act will be yet again just another attempt to mislead the public that change is on the way when business as usual will prevail. Sorry to be negative as it's not typically my style but corruption has no boundaries or limitations and we'll need a sledge hammer to change it as it pertains to fisheries management.