ASMFC meeting yesterday - striped bass
 

I am told that the issue of increasing the coastal commercial allocation is going to public comment. This will be an important test to the recreational fortitude. This will be an allocation issue as in order to increase the commercial allocation it MUST be taken from the recreational side. In other words, they will take fish away from recreational anglers to give to the commercial side. This is crazy given the growing need and desire for these fish on the recreational side and the far greater socio-economic benefits of recreational fishing over commercial fishing. I hope if this is the case that the hornets nest is beat and recreational anglers speak loudly and clearly!

This is what I have been told but I am waiting for confimation to see if this actually the case. Keep yer eyes pealed!

I hope it is not true. Especialy since two from our DNR/ Maryland group voted for the increase in commercial quota, or was that a political move?

Any idea what the rec limit is now???

Maryland law, yes law is 42.5% recs.... 42.5% commercial. The proposal is for ocean fish and ocean commercial catch, not the bay.

BTW the sportfish status has been tried before. It won't happen here.

Reds, you are correct this is the ocean quota that they are asking to increase.

The question is why would they want to increase the quota. It is my understating that they have not reached there max quota in years. The fishery hasn’t been shut down because of quota limits. If you’re not maxing your quota why would you want an increase? In the past the ocean commercial fishery has asked for a roll over of there unused quota from the year to the next. This has been denied the past few years. Now there is a push to increase quota. I am confused.

Yes, but if the increase in the ocean fish is increased, aren't they taking from some of the fish that will come up the bay to spawn? Indirectly affecting all Rec fishing (Charters and private boaters)???

Why increase it when the data presented shows a decrease in the rec take and increase in commercial take over the last 3 years? (I know we have gone back and forth on that but that is the data I have read and am sticking by until you send me data to the contrary)?

It seems crazy to increase the commercial quota when they have no idea what kind of impact the EEZ poachers are making on the Rockfish numbers.

Since the moratorium was lifted the rec harvest has increased 700 %. The commercial harvest has increased about 25%. It all in black and white on the ASMFC website, all you have to do is look it up. The data you have read comes out of a magazine, read it from the horses mouth.

Sure they would be taking from some of the fish that come in the bay, but aren't the rec's doing that now? My understanding is they don't want the quota increased, they just want a bigger share of what is being caught.

Fish Nut said. "The question is why would they want to increase the quota. It is my understating that they have not reached there max quota in years."

Read the info on the ASMFC site, your understanding is not correct.

It is important to note that my understanding is that the desire is to not increase the size of the pie, just change the size of the slices along the coast. It wouldnt directly impact the Chesapeake Bay, only the coastal fishery. However it would show a mindset that commercial fishing for striped bass is gaining in value to ASMFC, NOAA, and the Dept of Commerce. I dont see how it can be justified given the far greater socio-economic value of the fish as a gamefish vs. the commercial market. It is clear that if anything the trend should continue to grow for the recreational allocation at the expense of the commercial side as there is no indication that market needs arent being met for the fish commercially. There are many clear indications that the needs for the fish on the recreational side arent being met.

Reds, While i am not sure where I stand on gamefish only status, you said it has been tried in Maryland. I am a born and raised NJ boy so I missed those actions and cannot find anything on that. Was there a legislative bill at one point and time or was it something that was attempted through DNR?

B-Faithful is right on (as always) and so is Reds.
 

I was there yesterday as a Commissioner to the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and agreed that we, PRFC, as a voting member SHOULD vote yes in favor of the plan to put this to public comment. And that is all this is.

The issue is more complex than meets the eye. In the end, it is a re-allocation issue to the coastal commercial harvest which is a very small component of the overall harvest. I believe the total coastal harvest is around 9%.

Reds is correct in his statment, recreational harvest has incresaed many times over. In fact, recreational discards account for more than commercial harvests in some fisheries. There is no parity in striped bass allocations, rec's win hands down.

Do I want to see more commercial harvest - not really. Would I prefer striped bass as gamefish? Absolutely. Did I support yesterdays "yes" vote. Absolutely.

Now the ball is in the court of recreational fisherman to GET OFF THEIR ASSSES and let their voices be heard. I think this is the same thought process taking place by MD DNR. Is this a political move - you bet it is, ASMFC is a political entity, hence the politics.

As a recreational fisherman and a fishing guide I take my VACATION time to attend these things for the betterment of recreational fisherman. My pay is $0. I will be the first to oppose the increased allocation but will do so through the democratic process and because of my greedy desire to catch more and bigger fish striped bass. What will my fellow anglers do, - pound their chest on the internet and talk about how unfair this whole thing is?

Even if this re-allocation does pass, it really is status quo for overall harvest. It just comes at the expense of recreational allocations being given to commercials.

As for poaching - ASMFC is working on this issue as well. But before we get holier than thou, who is doing the winter poaching off of Virginia and North Carolina? It is done by commercial fisherman, charter fisherman and recreational fisherman. All user groups. Just recently, NOAA has urged the USCG to suspend the USCG Captains License which requires license holders to obey US laws, and fishing for striped bass outside the 3 mile limit is against US law. No license - no business.

Once again, this whole thing is way more complex than meets the eye. Come join the process, get educated and be part of the solution.

So I am not hiding behind an internet screen name, my personal info is: Dennis Fleming - Mechanicsville, MD (240) 538-1260
Maryland Commissioner - Potomac River Fisheries Commission - Fishamajig Guide Service

"It is easy to find fault - much harder to find solution." - Henry Ford

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope this is a stick that disturbs the hornets nests of rec anglers.

I missed yesterdays meeting due to the fact that I cannot leave any stones unturned at work right now but I was at the Feb meetings. I appreciate you being there! :)

I will read the site, I assure you of that. But you are talking 700% since the moratorium, when the harvest was.....0???? I am sure you are right, the data I am looking at, yes from a Magazine shows a decline in Rec harvest and discards and increase in Commercial Harvest and discards in the LAST 3 YEARS!!! I read, yes from a magazine, that the data above was presented at ASMFC. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get to the bottom of it..

Believe me, I am not anti comm at all..but I am for common sense to be applied.

and yes, I agree with Dennis said Recs need to stand up and come out, I agree...but if last winter during the C&R was any indication, I doubt that it will happen....most will just sit here and *****...I'll be at all that I can make for sure..

Here's some applied common sense.
#1 We have been in a recession for the last 3 years. Recs don't have the money to fish. Charters are off because of it, tackle sales are down. Boat sales are in the toilet. Surprise, surprise the rec catch is off.

#2 Commercial Ocean Striped Bass harvesting has a quota (unlike the recs),
the harvest can only go up to the quota. If it is exceeded, the overage comes off the next year.

Part #2 I buy.
part #1 I dont buy...I saw more boats out last year than I've seen in my time on the bay. People may not be buying new boats, but they are using the ones they have. People are getting more efficient at catching fish. if 10% less people are fishing, but the remaining 90% are 50% more efficient, you are looking at more fish caught. I don't buy the recession is the cause for the Commercial catch % going up

people I know of that couldnt buy a bite 3 years ago are catching their limit damn near every trip now...why, because they are learning, mostly via the internet..

but again, why raise the quota? Show me a good argument why, as of yet I have not seen it...why not leave it alone? whether it be MD Bay or Offshore? I can only assume you are a Comm by your defense of this, which is fine, but the only motivation and response I can see is more $$$

I think while overall you may be correct there are some key things to consider.. Despite the down economy fishing license sales have been up in Maryland. According to mrfss data, there were more rec trips taken in Maryland in 2009 than the previous year (I havent checked to see data revolving around other areas). Also areas like VA beach are seeing huge economic growth around the recreational striped bass fishery. Hotels, charters, restaurants, etc are now busy in the winter months where they were generally quiet only a few years ago. Recreational fishing is a 1.3 Billion dollar industry to the state of Maryland according to DNR and 1 Billion according to the American Sportfishing Association.

Lets face it, striped bass on the commercial market is facing the same economic battles as restaurant industry is way down, prices for striped bass on the commercial market are stagnant at best, etc.

I really hope there is a better reason to vote for increased commercial harvest besides getting recreational fishermen off their asses. By that logic, I should go out and dump used cylinder oil in the Bay so it'll motivate somebody to support a no discharge law!

Mrfss data is flawed. That why the national fishing registry.
ASA data doesn't show the last 3 years.

Using your logic lets take it a step further.

Only those that spend $10,000 a year or more on rec fishing will be allowed to do so.
Or. Only those who have a boat of 40' in length or greater will be allowed to fish. Why not limit Striped Bass fishing to the elite?

Limiting access to a small portion of the populace sounds familiar. Didn't the CCA propose to limit Striped Bass fishing to only a portion of the rec fishermen not so long ago.

The Facts Only
 

After the moratorium was lifted, both recreational and commercial catches were even at about 7 million pounds each per year coastwide in or about 1995. Commercial catches are still about that number. Recreational catches in 2006 were about 30 million pounds and are currently about 25 million pounds.

The stock (total abundance) is currently about 52 million fish with the threshold set at 32 million fish. Fish stocks as you know have ups and downs and we have seen the abundance drop from 70 million fish in 2004 to where we are now. Is the fishing getting worse - yes - but still way above target.

You may have seen the best of the best, and that is a fact that bothers us recreational fisherman.

Flawed arguement!
 

Not really. What the ASMFC members did was this: rather than us make the decision for the constituency, let's solicit public comment from the public BEFORE we make a decision. That is all this is about.

Dumping used motor oil in the bay would be unethical and illegal! (Plus I know you wouldn't do it!) Putting an issue of striped bass allocation before the public is a very sound democratic process!

Reds,
Not sure what you are trying to get at. We are discussing a redistribution of allocation and whether or not it is justified. No one on the rec side is talking about limiting or reducing access to anyone. Although I beleive by maintaining, or even increasing the recreational allocation, it increases access to fishing for all. Increasing the commercial allocation would only stands to reduce access and opportunity to more of the public as obviously the harvest of rec fishermen will have to be reduced through creel, season length, or size limits. My point was to show that by maintaining the current allocation distribution that it benefits our society economically as well. I only wanted to do this because the regular commercial fisheries arguement tend to revolve around jobs and economic impact. Fortunately for the recreational fishing community and the industries that support them, there is a big push to understand those impacts as well and it is showing to be far stronger than commercial markets many instances. Of course I also believe that general public access to utilize our public natural resources should also be provided for ahead of any commercial industry. There is also precedent in this as far as hunting goes. Obviously access and opportunity to natural public resources for recreational hunting is provided for before that of market hunting.

In other words and to summarize, I believe reducing the recreational allocation to expand the commercial allocation limits access and opportunity to the public. This is also not justified through any market indicators or economic benefits to the states (as we are speaking of state waters).

I am not sure what proposal that the CCA made that would have limited access to only a few rec fishermen that you speak of. Maybe you can clarify. I am not active with that organization. If you are speaking of the preseason C&R issue, Lateral Line/TidalFish.com rep made a proposal that would have limited trollers to 3-4 days a week, CBF made a proposal of 1 rod per person that would have reduced the efficiency of trolling to a level that would have essentially made it useless and a non effective method of fishing, and I believe the MCBA wanted it "shut down". The CCA did say they would agree to the CBF proposal providing there were no day closures (I was told day closures were the most important issue that they put their efforts in to ensuring they were not enacted). However it is my understanding that they made it clear that they prefered to adopt the original DNR proposals that are similar to what we have in place. While I am not happy with the gear restrictions implimented on those that enjoy to troll and believe it has reduced the efficiency of the fishing method in the bay to a level that deters some/many from fishing, I personally believe there is a level of efficiency that one who trolls can have a relatively tollerable expectancy to catch a fish. The CCA never made a proposal themselves that I am aware of. Again, I am not active with that organization so please correct me if I am wrong or if there was another issue that you are speaking of. From my perspective, the CCA worked to keep access to catch and release open. Anyhow, all of this is irrelivant to the conversation of should the coastal recreational allocation be reduced to expand the coastal commercial allocation.

While it may be a very democratic process. It can also be seen as a weak move too. Since the issue was voted on at the Feb ASMFC meetings, the commission representatives have had pleanty of time to gather information and feedback from their constituents to take a position on the issue. While I have high hopes of recreational angler feedback on the issue if the word gets out that the rec allocation will be taken and given to the commercial allocation, the public is not nearly as well organized or vocal. The organization and paid lobby of the commercial side is very strong and there is a better understanding of how to get things done. However, I do believe recreational organizations are getting stronger. We will have to see what happens..

I spoke with Jim Donofrio of the RFA today and expressed my concerns about how reducing the recreational allocation in order expand the commercial allocation reduces opportunities for recreational anglers.

I don't want to sound argumentative because I know what an advocate for recreational fishing you are and I sincerely appreciate all you do. Frankly, I'm a fan of both your work on and off the water. My point is that it doesn't make sense to support the wrong side of an issue just for the sake of generating discussion. I know this is more involved and we will certainly need the future help of the states we voted with, but it still feels like a punch in the gut to recreational fishing.