[dwk2252]

Scoops
[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I am not a commercial fisherman, I am a scientist.
Second, I wasn't taking "pot shots" at anybody. If you understood the law you would know that negative economic impact is a valid reason to decrease the quota so the statement that we had to accept size and bag limits (and poundage limits on the commercial side) that we knew would put us over the quota the past two years is what is BS. The reason that recreational and commercial fishermen wanted the largest limits possible is short term greed.

What is going to suffer here is the public and the ocean. A lot more people eat fish than go fishing and when they no longer have fish available in the grocery

 

[fishon2407]

Short term greed???

Why?Just because when we go out on the water and spend money at the local b&t's and deli's,we would like to come home with some fresh fish to show for our effort.I'm not greedy at all,but I would like to keep a couple for the cooler!

 

[bravajo]

Why does everyone seem to talk about all of those unfortunate people who "like to eat fish but don't go fishing" ? Not too long ago you couldn't get fresh Maine lobster in South Dakota. You could only get seafood near a sea

****, lots of people like to eat Prime Grade Fillet Mignon but don't have the opportunity to do that either. I don't hunt but fresh quail might be nice once in a while?

It is almost like painting a picture that commercial fishing is some kind of charity meant to bring food to the masses.

I don't have a problem with sustainable commercial fishing but seriously...is it some kind of charity to bring food back to the seafood-challenged? I don't think so.

J.

 

[happyfisherman]

What kind of scientist are you? School attended and degree? For data sampling just go out on a boat fishing for summer flounder there are plenty out there. Who do you work for? Answer these questions and we can see if you are biased and have an agenda.

 

[MakoMike]

bravajo wrote:
Why does everyone seem to talk about all of those unfortunate people who "like to eat fish but don't go fishing" ? Not too long ago you couldn't get fresh Maine lobster in South Dakota. You could only get seafood near a sea

****, lots of people like to eat Prime Grade Fillet Mignon but don't have the opportunity to do that either. I don't hunt but fresh quail might be nice once in a while?

It is almost like painting a picture that commercial fishing is some kind of charity meant to bring food to the masses.

I don't have a problem with sustainable commercial fishing but seriously...is it some kind of charity to bring food back to the seafood-challenged? I don't think so.

J.


Could it be because all those people who don't go fishing are still paying to manage the fisheries? ould you imagine what a fishing license would cost if only fishermen funded the entire NOAA fisheries structure? None of us would be able to afford it!


This post edited by MakoMike 09:55 AM 01/25/2008

 

[reelfisher]

I absolutely beleive that the resource belongs to ALL americans... those on the coast and those away from it and I have no issue with commercial fishermen making money from providing the resource to those who don't/can't fish for it. I agree however, that some commercial guys take the stance that they have more of a right to the resourse because they are providing food to that group of non fishermen and that is total crap.

As to this "scientist's" comments... the comms and recs are not looking for a limit that will harm the fishery. It would be nice to have enough quota to survive and as long as that is not hurting the biomass (which it absolutely is not in the case of fluke) then that consoderation should come first and not some stupid target number and timeframe that someone pulled out of their a$$

 

[togmaster]

thats there solution

thats there solution cut the regs and push us all out.
then the Gov. can control it and make more money
So whos the greede one here now

finally figured out the true plan there john

 

[OceanChaser]

fishon2407 wrote:
Short term greed???

Why?Just because when we go out on the water and spend money at the local b&t's and deli's,we would like to come home with some fresh fish to show for our effort.I'm not greedy at all,but I would like to keep a couple for the cooler!

No...but when everyone wants to keep a 17 inch fluke when it is common knowledge that they grow in excess of 30 inches easily that is short term greed. A 20 inch fluke is not a prize fluke by any means but rather one that can be caught often if all states relooked at their regs.
I used to get mad when we could not keep a 27 inch Tuna...then I realized it was a baby and that if left to grow would increase the population and the sizes of fish.
There is no thought as to the impact that keeping a small fish would leave on stocks.
Honestly...I for one am in favor of researching the optimum reproduction sizes for species and adjusting quotas based off this...not just minimum size limits.

 

[MakoMike]

OceanChaser wrote:
Honestly...I for one am in favor of researching the optimum reproduction sizes for species and adjusting quotas based off this...not just minimum size limits.


What does that mean?

 

[outrageous21]

Anybody know what size/age a fluke starts to reproduce? I feel bad for oceanchaser he is about to get attacked by the masses. I somewhat agree with what he is saying. A species should have a chance to reproduce once, before being fried. If they reproduce when about 17in then that should be the size if 20in then that should be the size. I dont feel the same for commercials, they would have to much bycatch trying to get those sizes.
I am sympathetic towards the party/charter boats, maybe if they were counted in the commercial quota instead of the recreational, they would be able to keep smaller fish with a slightly larger bag limit, and there business would flourish. Just a thought. Maybe they should fight for that because where they are now seems like a losing battle.

Ok go ahead jump all over me (outrageous name fits your comments)
Im ready, the gloves are up.

 

[OceanChaser]

that's OK. Maybe the attackers will all be female.
I'll take it.
MakoMike...What I would propose is this and I am speaking having not really put much thought into this.
I would like to see us gain knowledge of what are the optimum size ranges and times of year that most fish would reproduce.
IE: Fluke between 16 and 20 inches from April to May being prime time.
With that being said I would put restrictions on these fish specifically as doing so would optimize their lifespan here.
Maybe a longer season with 20 inch fish and a 2 week window or so at 17".
Obviously there is much refining to do. I'm just not sure simply putting a minimum size will create the effect we are looking for.
My opinion would be to allow a maximum or 1 or two fish per trip but this is just that...my opinion.


This post edited by OceanChaser 01:35 PM 01/25/2008

 

[MakoMike]

outrageous21 wrote:
Anybody know what size/age a fluke starts to reproduce? I feel bad for oceanchaser he is about to get attacked by the masses. I somewhat agree with what he is saying. A species should have a chance to reproduce once, before being fried. If they reproduce when about 17in then that should be the size if 20in then that should be the size. I dont feel the same for commercials, they would have to much bycatch trying to get those sizes.
I am sympathetic towards the party/charter boats, maybe if they were counted in the commercial quota instead of the recreational, they would be able to keep smaller fish with a slightly larger bag limit, and there business would flourish. Just a thought. Maybe they should fight for that because where they are now seems like a losing battle.

Ok go ahead jump all over me (outrageous name fits your comments)
Im ready, the gloves are up.

IIRC fluke spawn for the first time around 14 inches. The current regs aren't designed to simply allow the fish to spawn once. They are designed to limit the catch.

 

[OceanChaser]

MakoMike wrote:
outrageous21 wrote:
Anybody know what size/age a fluke starts to reproduce? I feel bad for oceanchaser he is about to get attacked by the masses. I somewhat agree with what he is saying. A species should have a chance to reproduce once, before being fried. If they reproduce when about 17in then that should be the size if 20in then that should be the size. I dont feel the same for commercials, they would have to much bycatch trying to get those sizes.
I am sympathetic towards the party/charter boats, maybe if they were counted in the commercial quota instead of the recreational, they would be able to keep smaller fish with a slightly larger bag limit, and there business would flourish. Just a thought. Maybe they should fight for that because where they are now seems like a losing battle.

Ok go ahead jump all over me (outrageous name fits your comments)
Im ready, the gloves are up.

IIRC fluke spawn for the first time around 14 inches. The current regs aren't designed to simply allow the fish to spawn once. They are designed to limit the catch.




Is there a point where reproduction slows down in these fish??

 

[MakoMike]

OceanChaser wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
outrageous21 wrote:
Anybody know what size/age a fluke starts to reproduce? I feel bad for oceanchaser he is about to get attacked by the masses. I somewhat agree with what he is saying. A species should have a chance to reproduce once, before being fried. If they reproduce when about 17in then that should be the size if 20in then that should be the size. I dont feel the same for commercials, they would have to much bycatch trying to get those sizes.
I am sympathetic towards the party/charter boats, maybe if they were counted in the commercial quota instead of the recreational, they would be able to keep smaller fish with a slightly larger bag limit, and there business would flourish. Just a thought. Maybe they should fight for that because where they are now seems like a losing battle.

Ok go ahead jump all over me (outrageous name fits your comments)
Im ready, the gloves are up.

IIRC fluke spawn for the first time around 14 inches. The current regs aren't designed to simply allow the fish to spawn once. They are designed to limit the catch.




Is there a point where reproduction slows down in these fish??



I don't know for a fact, but I would assume that, like most other fish, at some point late in their life cycle the fecundity of the females begins to decline.

 

[CaptTB]

dwk2252 wrote:
Scoops
[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I am not a commercial fisherman, I am a scientist.
Second, I wasn't taking "pot shots" at anybody. If you understood the law you would know that negative economic impact is a valid reason to decrease the quota so the statement that we had to accept size and bag limits (and poundage limits on the commercial side) that we knew would put us over the quota the past two years is what is BS. The reason that recreational and commercial fishermen wanted the largest limits possible is short term greed.

What is going to suffer here is the public and the ocean. A lot more people eat fish than go fishing and when they no longer have fish available in the grocery

Clarification

This was NOT a quote from ANYONE who spoke at the SSFFF meeting.

This IS a quote from an unnamed, unidentified person from a WEBSITE based in NJ.

The only scientist who spoke at the SSFFF meeting was from NJMSC during the Q&A session after the meeting, and it was about them pledging potential support to do more science.

There were no scientists speaking at the meeting. The quote about "negative impact" is also completely out ofg context.

What WAS said at the meeting is that negative economic impact can only LOWER a quota. In other words, you cannot maintain a HIGHER quota just because of the negative economic impact a lower quota would have.

This post edited by CaptTB 02:24 PM 01/25/2008

 

[SinkerBouncer]

OceanChaser wrote:

No...but when everyone wants to keep a 17 inch fluke when it is common knowledge that they grow in excess of 30 inches easily that is short term greed. A 20 inch fluke is not a prize fluke by any means but rather one that can be caught often if all states relooked at their regs.
I throw all the 30s back cause the 20s are sweeter tastin.

 

[OceanChaser]

SinkerBouncer wrote:
OceanChaser wrote:

No...but when everyone wants to keep a 17 inch fluke when it is common knowledge that they grow in excess of 30 inches easily that is short term greed. A 20 inch fluke is not a prize fluke by any means but rather one that can be caught often if all states relooked at their regs.
I throw all the 30s back cause the 20s are sweeter tastin.


that's obvious einstein.

 

[CaptTB]

Here is another quote from the supposed "scientist"

quote:
Specifically, if everyone knew that the stock assessment data was bad and that fishing was way better than predicted by the models that NMFS is bound to use by law then why did the same people who are running the SSFFF support size and bag limits for the past three years that they knew would put us into a situation of having "overfished" the fishery?

First off, NMFS is not "required by law" to use the "models" they use in assessing a stock. There are many, many , many different ways abnd "models" that can be used. A "scientist" would know the law does not mandate what models are used.

Second, a "scientist" would know that the size and bag limits were "scientifically" determined to NOT make us go over quota.

Third, a "scientist" would know that the bag limit is the LEAST effective means of controlling harvest, that the VAST MAJORITY of anglers catch less than half the bag limit in say NJ for example, and that the "sizes and bag limits" for a specific state have nothing to do with the potential closure in 2009 or beyond. It's the rebuilding deadline and target, not the fact that an individual state exceeded it's annual harvest target in the recreational fishery.

Yeah, some scientist

 

[togmaster]

the picture says it all>>>>>>

This post edited by togmaster 03:04 PM 01/25/2008

 

[fishon2407]

OceanChaser wrote:


No...but when everyone wants to keep a 17 inch fluke when it is common knowledge that they grow in excess of 30 inches easily that is short term greed. A 20 inch fluke is not a prize fluke by any means but rather one that can be caught often if all states relooked at their regs.
I used to get mad when we could not keep a 27 inch Tuna...then I realized it was a baby and that if left to grow would increase the population and the sizes of fish.
There is no thought as to the impact that keeping a small fish would leave on stocks.
Honestly...I for one am in favor of researching the optimum reproduction sizes for species and adjusting quotas based off this...not just minimum size limits.


Where you been fishin?