[loligo]

I wanted to start a new thread, because I have something to say on this, that while related, isn't exactly in line with what we were discussing in the "other" one.

Recreational anlers unhappy with ruling

apps wrote:
John DePersenaire, research specialist with the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said he spent Monday in Trenton trying to persuade lawmakers to pressure Roberts into posting the bill, but the speaker refused.

Maybe RFA should have sent someone with a little more credibility?

I find it appalling that RFA went out of it's way to try to divide this resource off to recs exclusively, yet reached out to the very same comm'l associations for help with fluke.

This action speaks volumes of their moral character.

RFA1- the olive tree is burning.......

This post edited by loligo 10:27 AM 01/10/2008

 

[LooneyTunes]

Another slant on the same old story

Now who is driving the spike of division?

Again, only 1/2 of the story is being presented. Let me publish the second part that was conveniently left out.

Asbury Park Press wrote:

"There was no compelling reason for them to oppose us on this," he said. "We have gone out of our way to help commercial fishermen numerous times.
"We don't oppose them on tilefish, squid, butterfish, scallops, monkfish, clams, quahogs, shrimp ? we support them on getting part of our recreational quota of bluefish ? and this is the way they respond," he continued.
All we hear from the commercial lobby is that recs need to work with us. I see PROOF that recs are working with comms. Why do the comms have to be such blow hards about just 2 reefs. WHERE IS THE COMPROMISE?

Meriam Webster defines compromise:
1 a: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

This is just more commercial fisherermens "I want my cake and I want to eat it too." Compromise is a two way street.

LooneyTunes
Dave

 

[CaptPaul]

Asbury Park Press wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There was no compelling reason for them to oppose us on this," he said. "We have gone out of our way to help commercial fishermen numerous times.
"We don't oppose them on tilefish, squid, butterfish, scallops, monkfish, clams, quahogs, shrimp ? we support them on getting part of our recreational quota of bluefish ? and this is the way they respond," he continued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The commercial fishermen opposed the move, because they utilize the reefs to fish. The fact that rec fishermen don't oppose the above issues is a really silly statement- Those species are virtually meaningless to us. Giving part of the bluefish quota to the commercial sector sounds noble, but in truth, it is more like tossing the remains of a prime ribthat you couldn't finish at a restuarant, onto your neighbor's table as you leave- It is unused rec quota that gets transfered. So either they get caught by comms, or they don't get caught at all.

But, if anyone here is catching less surf clams recreationally, I do want to thank you for your sacrifice in supporting one of my off-season jobs.

I, personally, enjoy the lack of fish pots on my reef, and would oppose the re-introduction of them. It is better for my business. But to deny a sector access that they have had, well, I don't know, but, if it were done to both sectors, would that be OK? Certainly would be better for the fish, right?

Paul

This post edited by CaptPaul 05:51 PM 01/10/2008

 

[guest]

getting back to the point of the thread. Are rec anglers ever happy about anything

 

[loligo]

guest wrote:
getting back to the point of the thread. Are rec anglers ever happy about anything

Depends on if you mean - individually, or collectively?

 

[LooneyTunes]

Give the recreational fisherman his proper due

Paul,

CaptPaul wrote:
The commercial fishermen opposed the move, because they utilize the reefs to fish. That rec fishermen don't oppose the above issues is relly sill- Those species are virtually meaningless to them. Giving part of the bluefish quota to the commercial sector sounds noble, but in truth, it is more like tossing the remains of a prime rib you couldn't finish at a restuarant, onto your neighbor's table

With all due respect, I don't see minimizing a gesture by the recreational fishermen to hold out the olive branch as being prudent. Regardless of how you feel (in your own words "virtually meaningless").

I as a recreational fisherman will now ask, we gave you an unused quota of bluefish. What have you done for us recreational fisherman?

I am sorry but this just sounds like a very one sided deal that works for the commercial fishermen and does nothing for the recreational fishermen.

LooneyTunes
Dave

 

[CaptPaul]

Looney Tunes,

First, I would like to pont out that I am a recreational fisherman first, by profession (sounds funny, doesn't it?) and choice, and a commercial fisherman second, by necessity. I am not minimizing the holding out of an olive branch, but I must say, letting someone have something you don't want, don't own, and will never have an interest in, is, yes, meaningless. And as for the recreational sector "giving" bluefish to the commercial sector, that was not a choice made by the rec sector- it was made by managers. It was only reasonable that WE, as rec fishermen, did not balk at it, because it would not have changed much, and, again, the fish weren't going to be caught by the recs anyway. So what really was sacrificed?

Also, mentioning the smoke-and-mirrors olive branch in a statement attempting to ultimately leverage a productive peice of bottom from the sector is a bit of a spin, no?

As I have said, there are no fish pots on my reef, and I would not vehemetly try to stop a movement that tried to remove them if they were there. But, the facts of both sectors should not be spun wildly, in either direction.

 

[commfish]

I had something also to say,but did no want to post in the "other"thread.JR no hijacking intended here but.How can an artificial reefs help fish populations?I think artificial reefs do more to help congregate fish than they do to conserve them.Add structure that will attract fish,congregate(group) fish and publish numbers of exactly where that wreck,reef is kinda against conservation efforts,no?Now people that have no clue can go the exact numbers for a given structure,as it is published for the public and they can probably catch fish.How about attracting fish away from another structure that was already in place and fished by all user groups?I think the overall intention of the artificial reefs are good,but only to the point of increasing habitat,and increasing juvinile fish stocks.Therefore no user group should have access to it,no matter who "says" they funded it it.Again i still have a real big problem with artificials,that will pull fish from other traditionally fished structures.Nobody can tell me that reef x(artificial) if put in front of smaller reef y(been there forever) will not take away fish from reef y.A certain percentage will stop and hold on the new reef x,that may have limited access,You are dealing with a certain number of fish,some will go to x and some will go to y,dividing that number and increasing numbers of fish caught by selected user groups.Just my 2 cents....

This post edited by commfish 06:43 PM 01/10/2008

 

[CaptPaul]

Correct, CommFish. Fish make fish, rocks and tires do not. it is limke thinking that by building ten thousand forty story apartment buildings in Iowa, that the human population will immmediately grow to fill them. Contrarily, your other point may be better illustrated by the advent of cities in human culture. The building of cities itself did not cause the human population to burgeon. It did, however, make it easier for invading armies to target the populations by simply laying seige to the cities, rather than scouring the country-side, going from village to village, only engaging small numbers of people.

Back to the real world, most of the more productive reefs are those that have peices of bottom, or small peices of scattered rubble, that are unknown and never fished. the best drops are often not the ones that hold the most fish, but are the ones that are closest to areas or unfished drops that hold the most fish. When the previously unfished drop is discovered, and fished regularly, it becomes the better drop of the area, and the previously thought-to-be hot drop turns into the dog of the reef.

Paul

 

[noreast]

I think the RFA was right in trying to ban comms from the reefs, and now that they lost it's back to the drawing table.

Maybe this time they should try to ban pots from the reefs and allow commercial and recreational hook and line fishing only. According to ASMFC comms aren't taking many tog anyhow, so hook and line should be suffice.

At least we know comms will NEVER fish reefs with pots in NY again.

 

[loligo]

With all due respect George, I thought this bill would effectively remove lobster gear from these area's too. Also, correct me if I am wrong but there is basically no commercial hook fishing in NJ?

So while I enjoy your preference and recognition of commercial hook fishing as a conservative alternate harvest method, I question it's viability considering the present regulations in NJ for commercial hook fishing.

Also- isn't it against the law to catch lobsters with hook and line?