ASMFC Takes Wrong Turn on Striped Bass

[Ele]

ASMFC Takes Wrong Turn on Striped Bass
Signs pointing to cause for grave concern met with proposal to up commercial harvest

After hearing a litany of significant concerns about the health of the striped bass population presented by its own Technical Committee and by law enforcement personnel, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Striped Bass Management Board did the last thing anyone expected at its meeting last week - directing staff to draft an addendum to the management plan which would increase the coastal commercial striped bass harvest.
The stunning turn of events left conservationists shocked at the Board’s apparent disregard for strong evidence pointing to numerous problems with the Atlantic striped bass population. Unlike the 1970s when rampant overfishing was the primary cause of the stock’s crash, the current picture painted by scientists and officers is all the more bleak because of the wide variety of factors that are negatively impacting striped bass.
“This is just the latest indication that the ASMFC has lost its way as an agency committed to proper resource management,” said Charles Witek, chairman of CCA’s Atlantic Fisheries Committee. “As bad off as the stock was in the late ‘70s, the fix was rather straight-forward. What we are looking at today could be much more difficult to reverse. The very last thing anyone needs to discuss during this time of uncertainty is increasing commercial harvest.”
Among the information presented to managers was a report on the declining trend in the striped bass Juvenile Abundance Index, a report from law enforcement personnel on suspected “significant and unreported” poaching in the Exclusive Economic Zone, and a report on the potentially devastating impact of Mycobacteriosis in Chesapeake Bay, the primary striped bass spawning ground for the entire Atlantic Coast, where 70 percent of the fish sampled had lesions associated with the disease. In aquaculture, Mycobacteriosis infections are virtually always fatal, and since infected striped bass that are tagged and subsequently recovered never show any signs of recovery, the disease has dire implications for striped bass everywhere on the coast.
Such reports by fisheries professionals, viewed with the well-documented decline in spawning stock abundance and decreasing recreational harvest at the northern end of the striped bass’ range, paint a troubling picture of the species’ future.
“This stock has problems mounting on all fronts, and managers seem content to wring everything they can from it before the party ends,” said Richen Brame, CCA’s Atlantic Fisheries director. “This is not the stance anglers have come to expect from the same commission that was widely credited with making the hard decisions needed to save striped bass just over three decades ago. They say those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and that is a road anglers don’t want to go down again.”

###
CCA is the largest marine resource conservation group of its kind in the nation. With almost 100,000 members in 17 state chapters, CCA has been active in state, national and international fisheries management issues since 1977. For more information visit the CCA Newsroom at www.JoinCCA.org


Ele

[27 sailfish]

Unreal how stupid - smart people can be sometimes.
ASMFC is a bad joke. They talk about early C/R fishing being a huge problem - then do a 180* and want more commercial catch limit.
Seem to look the other way on all the big Rock proven to be poached in Md waters a few years ago. None of it makes sense.


Oh , that's right - I forgot who sits in the chairs of ASMFC.

[goose70]

Unreal how stupid - smart people can be sometimes.
ASMFC is a bad joke. They talk about early C/R fishing being a huge problem - then do a 180* and want more commercial catch limit.
Seem to look the other way on all the big Rock proven to be poached in Md waters a few years ago. None of it makes sense.


Oh , that's right - I forgot who sits in the chairs of ASMFC.

ever have one of those bad dreams where you're trying to warn someone of danger, but they can't hear or understand you? Amazing how often life imitates fiction.

[Wild Bill]

<TABLE width=580><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center width=42 align=left>STATE








</TD><TD vAlign=center width=4 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=center width=156 align=left>ADMINISTRATOR








</TD><TD vAlign=center width=4 align=left>








</TD><TD vAlign=center width=153 align=left>GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE








</TD><TD vAlign=center width=10 align=left>








</TD><TD vAlign=center width=168 align=left>LEGISLATOR








</TD><TD width=7></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD width=156></TD><TD></TD><TD width=153></TD><TD></TD><TD width=168></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>ME</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>George Lapointe
ME DMR
21 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Phone: 207/624-6553
FAX: 207/624-6024








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Patten White (pwhite3@maine.rr.com)
1 Pine Island
York, ME 03909
Phone: 207/363-6783
FAX: 207/363-6783








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Senator Dennis Damon (dsdamon@panax.com)
Maine Senate District 5
256 Oak Point Road
Trenton, ME 04605
Phone: 207/667-9629
FAX: 207/287-1585








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>NH</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Douglas Grout (douglas.grout@wildlife.nh.gov)
NH FG
225 Main Street
Durham, NH 03824
Phone: 603/868-1096
FAX: 603/868-3305








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>G. Ritchie White (r-dwhite@comcast.net)
30 Lang Road
Rye, NH 03870
Phone: 603/964-2211
FAX: 603/964-2212








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Rep. Dennis Abbott (denevel@comcast.net)
199 Ash Swamp Road
Newmarket, NH 03857
Phone: 603/659-3175
Chair, ASMFC Legislators








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>MA</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Paul Diodati (paul.diodati@state.ma.us), Vice-Chair
MA DMF
251 Causeway Street, #400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617/626-1530
FAX: 617/626-1509








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>William A. Adler (mla@lobstermen.com)
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association
PO Box 397
Green Harbor, MA 02041
Phone: 781/545-6984
FAX: 781/545-7837








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Representative Sarah K. Peake (Rep.SarahPeake@Hou.State.MA.US)
State House
Room 473F
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Phone: 617/722-2210









</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>RI</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Robert Ballou (robert.ballou@dem.ri.gov)
RI Fish and Wildlife Division, DEM
3 Fort Wetherill Road
Jamestown, RI 02835
Phone: 401/423-1926
FAX: 401/423-1925









</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Senator V. Susan Sosnowski (sen-sosnowski@rilin.state.ri.us)
680 Glen Rock Rd
West Kingston, RI 02892
Phone: 401/276-5547








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>CT</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>David Simpson (david.simpson@ct.gov)CT DEP, Marine Fisheries
333 Ferry Road
PO Box 719
Old Lyme, CT 06371
Phone: 860/434-6043
FAX: 860/434-6150








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Dr. Lance Stewart (lstewart@canr.uconn.edu)
University of Connecticut
CANR/CES, Avery Point
1084 Shennecossett Road
Groton, CT 06340
Phone: 860/887-1608
FAX: 860/886-1164








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Representative Craig A. Miner (craig.miner@housegop.ct.gov)
House Republican Office
L.O.B. Room 4200
Hartford, CT 01606
Phone: 860/842-1423
FAX: 860/240-0207








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>NY</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>James Gilmore (jjgilmor@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
NYSDEC, Marine Resources
205 North Belle Mead Road
East Setauket, NY
Phone: 631/444-0433
FAX: 631/444-0434









</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Pat Augustine (%20paugustine@erols.com)
25 Stuart Drive
Coram, NY 11727
Phone: 631/928-1524
FAX: 631/928-3540








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Senator Owen Johnson
23-24 Argyle Square
Babylon, NY 11702
Phone: 631/669-9200
FAX: 631/669-9007








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>NJ</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>David Chanda (dave.chanda@dep.state.nj.us)
NJ FW
PO BOX 400
Trenton, NJ 08625-0400
Phone: 609/292-9410
FAX: 609/984-1408








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Tom Fote (tfote@jcaa.org)
22 Cruiser Court
Toms River, NJ 08753-6246
Phone: 732/270-9102
FAX: 732/506-6409








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Assemblyman Nelson Albano (AsmAlbano@njleg.org)

1028 East Landis Avenue
Vineland, NJ 08360-4041
Phone: 856/696-7109
FAX: 856/696-7159








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>PA</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Douglas J. T. Austen (dausten@state.pa.us)
PA Fish & Boat Commission
1601 Elmerton Avenue
PO BOX 67000
Harrisburg, PA 17110-7000
Phone: 717/705-7801
FAX: 717/705-7802








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Loren W. Lustig (llustig@ccg.carr.org)
795 Stone Jug Road
Biglerville, PA 17307-9790
Phone: 410/386-2103
FAX: 410/876-8282








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Rep. Curt Schroder (cschrode@pahousegop.com)
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
315 Gordon Drive
Exton, PA 19341
Phone: 610/524-5595
FAX: 610/524-5667








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>DE</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Patrick J. Emory (patrick.emory@state.de.us)
DE DFW
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
Phone: 302/739-9910
FAX: 302/739-6151








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Roy Miller (fishmaster70@comcast.net)
31421 Melloy Court
Lewes, DE 19958-3863
Phone: 302/645-7103










</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Senator Robert L. Venables, Sr. (robert.venables@state.de.us)
116 Hearn Avenue
Laurel, DE 19956
Phone: (302)744-4298
FAX: (302)739-6890








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>MD</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Thomas O'Connell (TOCONNELL@DNR.STATE.MD.US)
MD DNR
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410/260-8281
FAX: 410/260-8278








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>William Goldsborough (bgoldsborough@savethebay.cbf.org)
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
6 Herndon Avenue
Annaplois, MD 21403
Phone: 410/268-8816








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Senator Richard F. Colburn (richard_colburn@senate.state.md.us)
5210 Heron Road
Cambridge, MD 21613
Phone: 410/228-1137
FAX: 410/376-3737








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>VA</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Steven Bowman (steve.bowman@mrc.virginia.gov)
VMRC
2600 Washington Avenue, Third Floor
Newport News, VA 23607-4317
Phone: 757/247-2278
FAX: 757/247-2020








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Catherine Davenport (dymer@crosslink.net)
1005 Poplar Neck Road
White Stone, VA 22578
Phone: 804/435-2173








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Delegate Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr.
PO Box 760
23349 Cross Street
Accomac, Virginia 23301-0760
Phone: 866/787-1094 or 757/787-1094
FAX- 757-787-2749








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>NC</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Louis Daniel, Ph.D. (louis.daniel@ncmail.net)
NC DMF
3441 Arendell Street
PO BOX 769
Morehead City, NC 28557-0769
Phone: 252/726-7021
FAX: 252/726-0254








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Willard Cole (wcole1976@triad.rr.com)
406 Penrose Court
Greensboro, NC 27410-3114
Phone: 336/294-3919








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Rep. William L. Wainwright (Williamw@ncleg.net)
532 Legislative Office Building
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
Phone: 919/733-5995








</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>SC</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>John E. Frampton (FramptonJ@dnr.sc.gov)
SC DNR
PO Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
Phone: 803/734-4007
FAX: 803/734-6310








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>Dr. Malcolm Rhodes (rhodesmm@musc.edu)
7 Guerard Road
Charleston, SC 29407
Phone: 843/556-4731
FAX: 843/571-2787
Chair, ASMFC Governors' Appointees








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Robert H. Boyles, Jr. (boylesr@mrd.dnr.state.sc.us), Chair

SC DNR
PO Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
Phone: 843/953-9304
FAX: 843/953-9159








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>GA</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Spud Woodward (spud_woodward@coastal.dnr.state.ga.us)
GA CRD
One Conservation Way, Suite 300
Brunswick, GA 31520
Phone: 912/264-7218
FAX: 912/262-3143








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>John Duren (jwduren@aol.com)
8 Calico Crab Retreat
Savannah, GA 31411
Phone: 912-598-7966










</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Rep. Bob Lane (blane@legis.state.ga.us)
226 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: 404-656-5115









</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>FL</TD><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top width=156 align=left>Jessica McCawley (jessica.mccawley@myfwc.com)
FL FWCC
Division of Marine Fisheries Management
2590 Executive Center Circle E, Suite 201
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Phone: 850/487-0580 Ext. 217
Fax: 850/487-4847








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>


</TD><TD vAlign=top width=153 align=left>William R. Orndorf (William_Orndorf@ml.com)


1950 Palomino Road
Melbourne, FL 32934








</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left></TD><TD vAlign=top width=168 align=left>Senator Thad Altman (ALTMAN.THAD.S24@flsenate.gov)

Florida Senate, District 24
6767 N. Wickham Road, Suite 211
Melbourne, FL 32940
Phone: 321/752-3138








</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[5th Tuition]

No wonder they want to INCREASE the commercial catch; it's because they are going to REDUCE my number of rods to 6 during PSCR. With me not HARRASSING as many fish; that leaves more for them to KILL. It should make sense to everyone!!! 5th (Marty)

[Wild Bill]

No wonder they want to INCREASE the commercial catch; it's because they are going to REDUCE my number of rods to 6 during PSCR. With me not HARRASSING as many fish; that leaves more for them to KILL. It should make sense to everyone!!! 5th (Marty)

It makes no sense to me Marty. Sorry the above chart came out so big but I could not do much with it after copying it from the AFMFC site.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The only one of these people I have every met was Bill Goldsborough and he was pretty reasonable. I do not mind making some calls on Tuesday and see what some of the commissioners have to say. I would like to hear their reasoning.<o:p></o:p>

[crabby and son]

Makes perfect sense to me. Want to save............spend more:eek2:..............Gary

[27 sailfish]

Bill - fwiw - I've been to a couple ASFMC meetings in Alexandria , Va. The senators were not there when I went. They sent someone else - a proxy.
You really need to go and see first hand what goes on - then form your own opinion.

IMHO - our fishery management needs an overhaul. The fox should never guard the hen house. Other then Rockfish - few other species have done well. I think we all see Rockfish heading downhill - fast.

[Brandon]

It astounded me. What astounded me more is that Maryland voted for the motion. Specifically MD DNR Fisheries Director Tom O'Connell and Russell Dize (Sen. Colburn has Russell sit in his spot for him), Bill Goldsborough voted against, but with two votes for, MD's vote went to supporting it. I asked what the heck was going on with the MD representatives and got a response from Bill Goldsborough telling me he voted against it with some details. I do not have permission to post his email response so before I did that I would have to ask. But it would be a great question to ask at the SPAC meeting coming up in two weeks. I will not be there because of my travel, but hope to have my proxy Richie Gaines be there. I tried to plan all my travel around being home for the meetings, but with the snow this meeting got rescheduled and there is no way I can take a 16hr one way trip back to make it. Long story short, I am as confused as anyone, so DNR moves ahead with C&R regulations and cuts back on the recreational season this past year (2009) cutting out the last two weeks in December and then votes to increase the commercial catch along the coast. I am not being anti commercial, I would have questions any which way.

The real question that needs to be answered which I do not have an answer to yet is because no one seems to be able to give it to me is,

a) is the proposal to increase the commercial catch going to involve increasing the total overall allowable coast wide catch

or
b) is the commerical increase going to come out of the existing total allowable coast wide catch.

My reaction, and I would suggest anyone's, to this addendum hinges on the answer to these two questions. if they are going to increase the overall total allowable catch, that is a fisheries fisheries management issue. If it is to move some of the recreational catch to commercial anglers under the existing total allowable catch then that is an allocation issue .

Before anyone gets too upset and wastes a lot of energy on getting upset,I's suggest we need to have an answer to which is which; trust I am asking the questions. While either might make you mad, I would suggest that if it is a fisheries management issue there are going to be some VERY VERY upset people. If it is an allocation issue, that is simply a rec/charter vs. commercial debate.

[27 sailfish]

If you drink 5-6 shots of rum , bang your head against the wall 3-4 times - then hold your breath until you see the sparkles - it all starts to make sense.

Man to man - Brandon , you got played.
Good thing - one battle does not win a war.
Time to regroup and hit back 10 times as hard.

[Brandon]

Skip

I think its too early to tell if I got played, I'll admit it if I did in which case I will have gotten played along with the SFAC and even the MCBA, it will be a big got played thing.

But, like I said, you need to get an answer to one of my two questions before you, me or anyone can really make any judgment. One is a fisheries management issue, one is an allocation issue. Two very different issues. When we get the answer then we'll be better able to react.

Brandon

[Wild Bill]

Skip

I think its too early to tell if I got played, I'll admit it if I did in which case I will have gotten played along with the SFAC and even the MCBA, it will be a big got played thing.

But, like I said, you need to get an answer to one of my two questions before you, me or anyone can really make any judgment. One is a fisheries management issue, one is an allocation issue. Two very different issues. When we get the answer then we'll be better able to react.

Brandon

Brandon-<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I doubt the average rec will make the distinction between allocation and management. I think I see your point, but couldn't it be both? If they add to the overall quota, that is management. If that addition is given totally to the comms, it is also allocation because it would change the ratio between comms and recs. Am I viewing that correctly?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I think everyone is getting played by the politicians. It all comes down to where the money is spread. It seems citizen committees are just feel good shows. The real decisions are made in the back rooms no one sees. Transparency is just an illusion.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I think recs are very naive. We should have an organization that has no social component, no tournaments, no banquets, no general meetings, no raffles, no magazines, no bull sh!t. We just donate money and they lobby for recreational interests. It is coming down to putting our money where our mouth is. That is the new normal whether we like it or not. I am not going to criticize those who work hard for our fishing organizations, but it really seems they are not in the game at all. They could still have them for the social aspects of fishing, but we need a new approach to fighting for rec fishing interests.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I know most fishermen do not want to be bothered with the political aspects of rec fishing, but if we do not get organized we are going to lose what we have now as stocks diminish. I do not need a fishing organization to drink beer and have fun with my buds. I need a fishing organization that gets down and dirty and fights for the interests of rec fishermen. I see those two goals as being quite different.<o:p></o:p>

[2 Jims]

:rolleyes::helpsmilie::wacko::censored::surrender: :death::death::death::death::death::death::death:: death::death::watchout6:

I couldn't find the WTF?!? smiley.

Beyond Dumb!

You stupid C/R people! (you injure some fish...shame on you). Buy a TFL and you can SLAY 'em!!!!(buy your license now, it will surely go up in price now that you can haul in more!)...but Recs, please don't hurt them fish....

Jim

[Brandon]

Hey Bill

One might argue that it could be both, but there is a distinction that really needs to be understood. If its a fisheries management issue, ie they raise the overall total quota, in effect it does effect the "allocation" percentage, but it also makes the issue a lot bigger. It would mean increasing total allowable catch, which would go against everything we are worried about in the striped bass population.

If they keep the total allowable catch the same and just move some over to the commercial side, then it is a total allocation issue because the total allowable catch stays the same, the percentage allocation changes.

The fights are in many ways different depending on how they approach it and answer the questions I proposed.

One should be aware that the current distribution of rec to commercial catch along the coast is currently I believe 80% rec, 20% commercial.

Your comments about one organization with no other agenda other then getting things done is on the money, I have been on that rant for a while and have certainly changed my personal tactics to get things done as a result of learning how it works. Until we get one group, with one mission of getting things done there will be too many conflicts of interest that get in the way of doing just getting issues done.

I'll leave you guys to figure out the fisheries management issues while I am gone: I am looking forward to tuning in and reading all the proposed solutions.

[27 sailfish]

Brandon - getting all the recs to agree will be tough. I think we all want a good population of Rockfish. After that it gets tricky.
Some guys like a whole lot of small fish.
Others like fair number of medium size fish.
Others prefer 3-4 really big fish.

Then you have all the various angling techniques - casting , flyrod , trolling , live bait , chumming , etc.
Not to be smart or rub salt in a wound - seems to me that pushing more C/R - especially of the bigger fish - should be promoted better.

One idea - is a Rockfish stamp for rec. anglers. Use the money to buy out some commercial quotas.

FWIW: I'm hoping the new MSSA director can pull everyone somewhat together.

[Wild Bill]

Brandon - getting all the recs to agree will be tough. I think we all want a good population of Rockfish. After that it gets tricky.
Some guys like a whole lot of small fish.
Others like fair number of medium size fish.
Others prefer 3-4 really big fish.

Then you have all the various angling techniques - casting , flyrod , trolling , live bait , chumming , etc.
Not to be smart or rub salt in a wound - seems to me that pushing more C/R - especially of the bigger fish - should be promoted better.

One idea - is a Rockfish stamp for rec. anglers. Use the money to buy out some commercial quotas.

FWIW: I'm hoping the new MSSA director can pull everyone somewhat together.

Skip-

I know your comment was for Brandon but he went to bed so you are stuck with me. I do not prefer any of your options. I want lots of big fish. The Thurs before the snow we had 70 fish between ten and 38 pounds. That is what I travel great distances to try for. I certainly do not achieve it every day or even every trip but often enough to make the effort.

[Brandon]

Skip

I do not disagree with you with your assessment of all the different types of anglers. Fact is if the recs do not unite under one voice the other side at the table will always have more of a chance to prevail, history tells that take. We do not change something expect more of the same and if that's the case we mind as well save our breath and just go fish.

I also would suggest that we can fight all we want about allocation, but if we do not start looking at some bigger issues like water quality (while oysters will help, they are not the solution at all. Think sewage discharge plats and run off) all we will do is fight more and more about a smaller fish population until we have almost nothing and then we'll look around and wonder what happened. Truth is if we had a healthy bay there would be fish for both recreational anglers and commercial anglers. I honesty wonder if we should re-allocate some of our invested time spent on "fisheries" and spend it on water quality, the ROI might be larger. I am not suggesting one over the other, but both in parallel. I wonder if the rec community allocation to the water quality issues were more if we could have a bigger impact overall.....I include myself. Something to think about.

[Shawn Kimbro]

I guess that settles the C&R debate. It doesn't matter if it's allocation or more dead fish, it's still means we gave up restrictions on C&R so more fish can be netted and slaughtered. I knew this was coming, but have no problem going on record to say Maryland blew this one. One more round in the rockfish wars, and this one goes to the comms.

[5th Tuition]

OK; I think it's time to play by the same INSANE rules that politicians use. Here's what I propose, we agree with the proposal to increase the quota for comercial fishermen. Hell, we can increase it to a gazzillion pounds. BUT, we also limit the number of days they are allowed to fish. Let's just say, maybe, Monday-Wed-Saturday. That way even though we have increased the quota, it would be a quota they could never reach.

We could also support this option for Omega Protien. Let them have the quota that was just recently agreed upon, however, limit access to the bay to only three days as well.

If you think this is not an option, here is what I was told by a friend of mine (hearsay). He used to be a big fresh water fisherman. He would fish Liberty from shore often. There were quite a few places that you could pull off the road and park to walk in to fish. He switched over to bay fishing for about 10 years. Unfortunately, the economy caused him to lose his boat. So, he decided to go back to freshwater. He drove to Liberty and found almost all the pulloffs were blocked by boulders or guardrails making it almost impossible to park and gain access to the resivior. So what has happened? The State still allows you to fish Liberty all you want; they just made it practically impossible to get to; that's all.

I have someone in mind that might be able to suggest limiting commercial fishing to three days a week; in fact, he has a past history of advocating this option.
5th (MARTY)

[Wild Bill]

I guess that settles the C&R debate. It doesn't matter if it's allocation or more dead fish, it's still means we gave up restrictions on C&R so more fish can be netted and slaughtered. I knew this was coming, but have no problem going on record to say Maryland blew this one. One more round in the rockfish wars, and this one goes to the comms.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Shawn-<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Now you are catching on to the MD striper conservation solution. The more you kill, the more you have. Makes perfect sense. Just do not put any back. That is very hard on the population. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Note: Absolutely every time I have used sarcasm on TF (and it has not been many) it was misinterpreted. It just seemed appropriate here.<o:p></o:p>

[Shawn Kimbro]

I read you loud and clear, Bill.

Brandon, thanks for making this a sticky.

[DirtyFrank]

So if this is deemed an allocation issue, dnr gets to put restrictions on the spring trophy season and perhaps the regular season in an attempt to curtail the rec harvest. Just what many here have been asking for. I guess we never thought managers would just move the fiah to another user group

If its a fisheries management issue, asmfc probably figures their surveys show the fishery is not overfished and overfishing is not occuring. If that's the case and there is rampant poaching by recs (EEZ) and comms (EEZ,unmarked gill nets, poaching case) and the stats hold up, there must be way more fish out there than they ever thought!! Better up the coastal catch limit so that population can't grow but maintain status quo. That's the goal right?

I wish "best for the fish" as brandon states would be taken to heart by more rather than "best for my fish"

[Brandon]

Well Dirty Frank, your last line about sums it up, not because I said it, but because it really is not any truer then that.

[Ele]

I would say this is definitely an allocation issue. It has been said that the recreational discards are more than then commercial quota.

Ele

[rla69]

There is no way these rules are being implemented because of stupidity.It is quite simply politics as usual in this country,money and greed is what motivates the powers that be.The truth is simple,people are being bought.There is no other way to explain these decisions being made.It is time to organize against these idiots.How on one hand can you worry about catch and release hurting the stock but vote to let the commercial guys have an increase.MONEY TALKS, PEOPLE ARE BEING BOUGHT.

[Bug Guy]

I also would suggest that we can fight all we want about allocation, but if we do not start looking at some bigger issues like water quality (while oysters will help, they are not the solution at all. Think sewage discharge plats and run off) all we will do is fight more and more about a smaller fish population until we have almost nothing and then we'll look around and wonder what happened. Truth is if we had a healthy bay there would be fish for both recreational anglers and commercial anglers. I honesty wonder if we should re-allocate some of our invested time spent on "fisheries" and spend it on water quality, the ROI might be larger. I am not suggesting one over the other, but both in parallel. I wonder if the rec community allocation to the water quality issues were more if we could have a bigger impact overall.....I include myself. Something to think about.

Brandon - this statement is a head-shaker for me. Written text is hard to "interpret", but it almost seems like you are stating this as a novel idea. This thinking is 20 years old and has been written about from a political, social, and scientific perspective at length.

[goose70]

There is no way these rules are being implemented because of stupidity.It is quite simply politics as usual in this country,money and greed is what motivates the powers that be.The truth is simple,people are being bought.There is no other way to explain these decisions being made.It is time to organize against these idiots.How on one hand can you worry about catch and release hurting the stock but vote to let the commercial guys have an increase.MONEY TALKS, PEOPLE ARE BEING BOUGHT.

I think that you give many politicians too much credit. Yes, some are bought and paid for. But many other politicians and policymakers are influenced simply by interpersonal relationships with people at various industries, by rigid ideology, or simply by bad information and an unwillingness (or lack of time) to really learn the issue. And as I said above, we're all influenced by an underlying desire for immediate maximization of opportunities.

Also, as I said over the past year, the rec poaching in the EEZ has likely reduced our effectiveness in preaching conservation. I'm no PR expert, but I wouldn't need to be one to make a very sympathetic case for why Capt. Gruff, Mrs. Gruff and their six kids who need to be fed ought to have more of an allocation than Thurston hobbyist with his ascot and Orvis rod. Significant, vocal members of both groups openly thumb their nose at current conservation efforts, but one group does so “to make a living feeding people.”

The shame of this is that the behavior of these groups has rendered them poor political allies to most politicians, and easier to demonize. This leaves the door wide open for some third group to march in, say the whole fisheries debacle is a mess, and just shut it all down for recs and comms alike. We may think of such groups as radical, but I'll bet that the general public who rarely, if ever, fishes could be easily persuaded to support such measures, especially if you toss in some photos of trawler bycatch in the EEZ and hundreds of rec boats fishing over the line. No cute or principled explanations could overcome such evidence in the public’s eye. As I've said, we really need to look in the mirror a bit when assigning blame for this new allocation, and for the worse results that are likely to follow.

[Ele]

I think that you give many politicians too much credit. Yes, some are bought and paid for. But many other politicians and policymakers are influenced simply by interpersonal relationships with people at various industries, by rigid ideology, or simply by bad information and an unwillingness (or lack of time) to really learn the issue. And as I said above, we're all influenced by an underlying desire for immediate maximization of opportunities.

Jeff, Mike had talked to a Delegate who had signed on as a co- sponser of one of the oyster bills and asked him why he was sponsoring that certain bill. His reply was that he was told it would be good for the bay. He had no idea what he was sponsoring, but believed what he was told so he signed on.

Ele

[27 sailfish]

Sad when the people making the laws have no first hand experience.

Think about if poaching could be elimated - how many more Rockfish there would be. Not just now but in the future as well - since a lot of huge breeders are killed every year.

[done workin]

One idea - is a Rockfish stamp for rec. anglers. Use the money to buy out some commercial quotas

Skip

Rewind the clocks. I can remember oh about 15 years ago when there was a Rockfish Stamp. I think I still have the license for prosperity purposes. Then DNR realized they could make more money if they rolled it into the tidal license and made it an automatic fee. The money, at the time, just like the pointless crabbing licenses of today, was supposed to go to research and conservation efforts. If nothing else, use it for more enforcement o cut down on the poaching.

Gee where's all that money now?

Brandon has made a good point about allocation versus management. Let's see what happens. May not want to.

Chris

[Brandon]

Bug Guy

It's not a novel idea to talk about it and I was not putting it out there as novel, I was putting it out there as let's actually DO IT. If this has been around for 30 years I'd say we've failed because it keeps getting worse not better. With the utmost respect, commenting on my comment is exactly what I am talking about, rather then do something we analyze each others comments critiquing if something is novel or not. I do not care if its novel, I just care if we do something or not.

Checking in from seat 27F at 35,000 feet on Delta Flight 1050 from Atlanta to Miami on leg #3 of my journey to South America. You guys/gals will never get rid of me, I am always connected. ;-)
I will say the net access is pretty darn fast up here:yes:

[Bug Guy]

Brandon,
I wrote out "interpret" on purpose to be clear I was essentially, putting words in your mouth. So please don't be offended. However, your perspective again shows who you are as a stakeholder...a fisherman and not a fisheries biologist and not an ecologist. I don't mean to comment on your comment, but after the points you made about the C&R trolling being a "singular" issue and then now, when it appears you may have been played (I agree, we should wait and see before judging) you turn around and talk about how we need an integrative approach that includes essentially, an "ecosystem" perspective. I can do nothing but scratch my head, that is all. I have no problem with you, I think you know that. However, don't use the word "we" when talking about the need to do something on these issues. You know what I do at UMD. I'm done with this because I have more important things "to do".
Cheers,
bob

[Brandon]

BG

what I wrote should not have you scratching your head, it is consistent with everything I have said. I always have said we need fisheries management along with working on things like water quality. Do a search on the site, you will find thousands of words I have written on it. I have also written about this in magazines I wrote for, happy to dig those articles up for you.

On the C&R issue I was working in the confines of the system of which currently is not doing so on a totally ecosystem based appoach. I am not saying the system I right, but it is what it is. If you we want the system changed that is a whole differnent thing to get thy done. I have written hundreds if not thousands of words on this on the boards, ID you do a search you will find plenty from me on this.

[Brandon]

Excuse the typos please, working from my iPhone now while waiting for my bags

[bebopper]

Well gang. isn't it nice that by buying fishing licenses we were going to be counted and the state (s) would know how big our numbers are and we will begin to have more say on issues like this. And now we have the NOAA permit and they'll shove that down our throats. It's not about saving the resource it's about raping it.

[B-Faithful]

I think Mr. O'Connell and the Maryland DNR have a major PR and message issue considering they are attempting to limit encounters with striped bass for recreational anglers while catch and release fishing!

[philk999]

I just tried sending Tom O'Connell a livid email asking what the hell he was thinking, but his email address is wrong on the DNR site and my message is undeliverable. Any got his email? I think we should flood his email box tomorrow.

[B-Faithful]

I called David Smith of the MSSA about this. I believe Mr. O'Connell will attempt to justify his message issue at the next SFAC.. Should be entertaining.

[5th Tuition]

I realy don't want "all" my posts to be synical and sarcastic; but don't we see a pattern developing in this country!!!! If you don't have any more money, spend even more to get out of the problem. In this case, if the number of fish are in decline, kill more of them.
It doesn't make sense to me; but obviously, it makes sense to somebody!!!!
I'm sure Mr. O'Connell's reply will be very convincing to many people in positions of power.
Was there a recreational fisherman in the room that didn't shake his head when the vote to reduce the seatrout harvest was denied?
How about when the comercial fishermen said it was "IMPOSSIBLE" to fish all the extra netting they were asking for; yet when asked if they intended to keep it on the boat; they replied, no, we're going to put it in the water and fish it with the other netting as well.
Take common sense, and throw it out the window.
5th (Marty)

[philk999]

The TFAC meets tonight at 6:30 and Tom is scheduled to give an update on the ASMFC winter meetings as part of the agenda.

Unfortunately I work too early in the morning to go the meeting, I hope some can update us on why he voted the way he did at the winter meeting.

[Ele]

I plan to attend, along with Mike, who is on the commission.

Ele

[philk999]

Ele, Please give us the logic he uses in justifying the vote. Thanks.

[islandgoose]

The one sure way to get something done is to put pressure on the politicans by exposing this problem by way of the media. By capitalizing on the power of the media (TV) and expose the problem and how Md.congressman voted (in support or not support) on the different bills will something get done. If tidelfish members call for a demonstation at the statehouse with signs like" Mikulskie is killing rockfish"'or "Sarbanes (our stealth senator) rockfish need you,where are you"? Signs like" Gov. Omally help save the menhaden/ help close Omega",or" Rep. Mike Miller and Rep. Baush wake up and smell the dead fish.",will raise the bar and pressure the goverment especially with the next election coming up in November.The media will cover this kind of event for free.The MSSA could do something similar or MSSA members could combine with other organizations and protest.Talking among yourselves is to small of a demographic.If Mass. can vote a republican into power Md. can do the same. Scare the democrates and send a message, either help or we will vote you out and get someone in that will.Make the politcians WAKE UP!We have the power.Again the media is key to resolve this problem and a few big demonstrations is a free way to get out the message.Heck Fox news might cover the demonstration and give National coverage and naturally ask for a spokesman to come on the program . That's even more pressure on the politicians. Who can you see being the spokesperson.Anyone on this forum qualified?????????Oh yes!!!!

[tion010]

wild Bill they did it for the money. just like the politicians in DC and all over this country. do you think we vote them in? no, Big money do. and it get it way every time. if we really want to change things it going take a whole lot of money. mr smith go;s to washington

[B-Faithful]

It astounded me. What astounded me more is that Maryland voted for the motion. Specifically MD DNR Fisheries Director Tom O'Connell and Russell Dize (Sen. Colburn has Russell sit in his spot for him), Bill Goldsborough voted against, but with two votes for, MD's vote went to supporting it. I asked what the heck was going on with the MD representatives and got a response from Bill Goldsborough telling me he voted against it with some details. I do not have permission to post his email response so before I did that I would have to ask. But it would be a great question to ask at the SPAC meeting coming up in two weeks. I will not be there because of my travel, but hope to have my proxy Richie Gaines be there. I tried to plan all my travel around being home for the meetings, but with the snow this meeting got rescheduled and there is no way I can take a 16hr one way trip back to make it. Long story short, I am as confused as anyone, so DNR moves ahead with C&R regulations and cuts back on the recreational season this past year (2009) cutting out the last two weeks in December and then votes to increase the commercial catch along the coast. I am not being anti commercial, I would have questions any which way.

The real question that needs to be answered which I do not have an answer to yet is because no one seems to be able to give it to me is,

a) is the proposal to increase the commercial catch going to involve increasing the total overall allowable coast wide catch

or
b) is the commerical increase going to come out of the existing total allowable coast wide catch.

My reaction, and I would suggest anyone's, to this addendum hinges on the answer to these two questions. if they are going to increase the overall total allowable catch, that is a fisheries fisheries management issue. If it is to move some of the recreational catch to commercial anglers under the existing total allowable catch then that is an allocation issue .

Before anyone gets too upset and wastes a lot of energy on getting upset,I's suggest we need to have an answer to which is which; trust I am asking the questions. While either might make you mad, I would suggest that if it is a fisheries management issue there are going to be some VERY VERY upset people. If it is an allocation issue, that is simply a rec/charter vs. commercial debate.

I attended the meeting last night and it sounds more like a fisheries management issue in the eyes of Maryland DNR. Mr. O'Connell best tried to justify the stance he and Maryland took at the ASMFC through a "fairness" (for lack of a better term) stance. Of course there were charts thrown up over how the coastal recreational quotas have steadily increased over the years while the commercial harvest quotas have remained flat. It is important to note that all of these charts failed to include the changes in demand for these fish commercially through market prices and/or the impacts of either fisheries, recreational or commercial, to our state economies.

The thing that concerns me most over their position is the fact that while Maryland has enacted regulations that would reduce the effort (ones opportunity to catch a fish) on a particular method of recreational fishing without quantitative justification during the catch and release only season, they cited concerns for the future of the stock citing a few indicators including YOY and spawning biomass recruitment. Given true concerns for the future of the stock and their self-proclaimed tendency to "err on the side of the resource", one would believe that our Maryland representation would have taken a different position on this issue.

What most disappoints me is that there is no real justification for their support other than "fairness" given by Mr. O'Connell. This is troubling to me because their is no shortness of supply in the commercial marketplace for striped bass or real need for and increase in commercial quota. As a matter of fact, prices have been depressed in most markets due to there being enough or steady supply for the demand.

If, in fact, Maryland DNR does see this ultimately as an allocation issue, I am again disappointed in their actions given the lack of market need for higher commercial quotas and the vastly higher economic impact of the still growing recreational striped bass fishery. In other words there is no market justifications or strong economic benefit for an increase in the coastal commercial quota over any recreational quota given what recreational angling provides to state economies, especially given the growing interest for these fish recreationally. Either way, if this ultimately is a management or allocation issue in the eyes of DNR, I believe the position taken by those that represent our state at the ASMFC have failed the state of Maryland.

Mr. O'Connell did note that their vote would do nothing more than to start discussions on the issue and that he did not ultimately know what position Maryland would take with future votes. Lets hope that Mr. O'Connell and the Maryland representation take into account the real "fairness" to what is in the best interest of the citizens of our state.

[Ele]

Isn't it the job of the MD DNR to equally allocate the resource for all user groups? Isn't this what we were all hollering about on the Yellow Perch? So, the DNR reallocated the YP catch so recreationals had their share of the fish. Now that the DNR is trying to reallocate the Stripers so that everyone has an equal share, we recreationals do not like it. From what I understand, if Rockfish are reallocated, it will be by lowering the recreational catch, rather than raising the commercial catch, along the coast.

Of course, I do not believe that the commercial catch is less that all recreational discards. But, I am not a statistician.

Ele

[B-Faithful]

Isn't it the job of the MD DNR to equally allocate the resource for all user groups? Isn't this what we were all hollering about on the Yellow Perch? So, the DNR reallocated the YP catch so recreationals had their share of the fish. Now that the DNR is trying to reallocate the Stripers so that everyone has an equal share, we recreationals do not like it. From what I understand, if Rockfish are reallocated, it will be by lowering the recreational catch, rather than raising the commercial catch, along the coast.

Of course, I do not believe that the commercial catch is less that all recreational discards. But, I am not a statistician.

Ele

Sorry but we will disagree here Ele. I do not believe it is the job of the DNR to "equally allocate the resource for all user groups." If that were DNR's role than market hunting would have a fairly large industry in Maryland. I was not involved or participated in any debate over yellow perch as it isnt a fishery that particularly interests me personally. However, equalizing allocation would not have been my arguement to justify a larger allocation being given to recreational anglers.

Please see here for the Vision Statement, Mission Statement, and wide-objectives of the dnr: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/mission_vision.asp

Notice that DNR clearly recognizes the impact that our natural resources has on a our economy. Given that I see no clear indication that there is a need or higher demand for more wild striped bass in the commercial market place I do not see any just reasoning for a reallocation of the quota from a recreational angling side, that is showing a need and growth in economic benefit from their allocation, to the commercial side. The market value of striped bass has been relatively low or stationary showing that the current commercial allocation is keeping up with demand. Increasing the allocation will only depress those values more.

Fisheries management is not about "equal shares", it is about... managing for sustainability and making sure the resource benefits society and our economy as a whole. DNR does this through first providing access and opportunity to its citizens but also does this through considering economic impact through the use of our natural resources. They have to do this while preserving, protecting, restoring, and enhancing our environment. As I stated before, reallocation from the recreational quota to commercial quota does not make for a sound management decision given where the economic demand is for these fish, nor does solely adding to the commercial quota given the concerns they have expressed during the catch and release debate.

As many have noted here, there is a lot of politics involved with how DNR manages the fisheries. Until recreational anglers unite and start arguing their political side (which is extremely strong IMHO) their arguements will not be as strong as some opposing voices that are organized and argue their political side.

[capt.george]

--Folks if your held to a 36" fish in all Comercial Fisheries All Year around , Our Poundage would be more --Everthing Closes down the 28th for spawning Run , Commercial, Dredging , Etc --Note --Dredge cut my visit short --I let him go to Breezy Job so lower Boys could get Dredged ( Breezy I Think )

[Ele]

B-Faithful, let me be clear on one thing. First of all, I, in no way believe the recreationals are catching more fish than the commercials. Second, I do not believe an increase in the commercial fishery is warranted. If anything, all quotas should be lowered.

I definitely believe this is an allocation issue and I was just trying to make a point about the YP.

Just like the oysters. Everyone has been hollering about no oysters in the bay and then when the Governor wants the DNR to improve the oysters by aquaculture, everyone is afraid it might infringe on their fishing areas. It seems like we just run around chasing our tails and nothing gets done to help improve the bay or the fisheries.