BASS BARN banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
JIM HUTCHINSON HAS ANOTHER GREAT ARTICLE IN THIS WEEKS FISHERMAN on summer flounder problem

He also provides address and e-mail addresses in effort to get the American Sportfishing ASSC support for congressman Pallone's HB 5425

takes 5 minutes to send a polite e-mail asking for their support

Getting this bill passed will be difficult without their support so please take the 5minutes
ASA e-mail address [email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,715 Posts
email sent to them...i will have to read the article when I get home
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Thanks Willie.

Here's the fight we're in - today's APP highlights a press conference yesterday touting stricter adherence to the timeframes (ie., opposed to HR 5425) in addition to increased no-fishing zones throughout the world (also known as marine protected areas or MPA's).

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080410/NEWS/80410065

This is not environmentalism or conservationist theory - it's an animal rights movement, pure and simple.

By the way, the person who is handling the circulation of media materials following the press conference on Thursday is Tara Losoff - perhaps you remember that name too.

The fight is on - hope folks are going to help get involved!

JH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Since you are supporting this bill. And I would assume you would not support something you don't understand.

Can you please tell me what effect it will have on the stock rebuilding times of menhaden, scup and herring?

How long will it take for menhaden to be rebuilt once deemed overfished under HR 5425?

Anybody?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
sunnydaze said:
Since you are supporting this bill. And I would assume you would not support something you don't understand.

Can you please tell me what effect it will have on the stock rebuilding times of menhaden, scup and herring?

How long will it take for menhaden to be rebuilt once deemed overfished under HR 5425?

Anybody?
I believe it has wording in it that would enable flexibility in the rebuilding period of a stock whose been experiencing a positive trajectory in order to soften the blow on the local economy?

RyanF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
I see. Maybe something like this?

====================================================
the maximum time allowed for rebuilding the stock of fish concerned may not exceed the sum of the following time periods:
  • `(A) The initial 10-year rebuilding period.
    `(B) The expected time to rebuild the stock absent any fishing mortality and under prevailing environmental conditions.
    `(C) The mean generation time of the stock.
====================================================

So roughly for menhaden; A = 10, B = 5, C = 5
10+5+5=20

So passing this bill could permit the menhaden stock rebuilding period to be extended to 20 years. For a fish that could have been fully rebuilt in 10 years.

Now what do the predatory fish populations we are growing eat over those additional 10 years? You see where I'm headed.

And that is just what the bill would do with the rebuilding of overfished stocks.

Additionally, HR 5425 does not help with the overfishing definition and that is what will shut down summer flounder.

What does HR 5425 do to help the recreational community with this equation?
OFL > OY > ABC >=ACL


If the goal is to keep a fishery open then you must create language that allows scientists to maintain definitive goals (ie: 'possible') while keeping us fishing when slamming up against that OFL value. Essentially, what is needed is a OFL rev limiter. The scientists devised one and it's spread across ABC, OY and OFL.

Now we need to add another rev limiter on the right side of ACL.

If you are looking to double rebuilding times from 10 years to 20 then create language that reduces ACL no more then say 10% each year when the stock is substantially improving.

So instead of being shut down, the catch is reduced 10% each year until the rebuilding goals are met.

If you infinitely take 10% of something it will never be 0.

In the case of flounder, that would have slowly reduced the allowable catch each year by roughly 1.5 million and over the last 5 years we would be right on target with the recommendation.

Have a nice day.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
sunnydaze said:
If you infinitely take 10% of something it will never be 0.


:)
But it will be a 23" minimum size, which is pretty much zero because they squeeze you out of even trying to put a catch together.

RyanF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
RyanF said:
But it will be a 23" minimum size, which is pretty much zero because they squeeze you out of even trying to put a catch together.
RyanF
I share your frustration with increasing size limits. But HR 5425 does not direct minimum size determination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
sunnydaze said:
I share your frustration with increasing size limits. But HR 5425 does not direct minimum size determination.
Yeah I know, it was in response to the 10% theory. How else do you reduce the landings 10% a year without shortening the season, increasing the minimum size and reducing bag limits? I see that working in theory but what do you do after the stock is rebuilt, go back to square one with the regs? You dont see too many regs going backwards.

RyanF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
sunnydaze said:
So passing this bill could permit the menhaden stock rebuilding period to be extended to 20 years. For a fish that could have been fully rebuilt in 10 years.
A completely unproveable statement. Yes, in a vacuum, assuming NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER FACTOR THAT CAN EFFECT STOCK GROWTH didn't change, then yes it is theoretically possible to rebuild it in 10 years.

Of course, any fish can be rebuilt in as short a time frame as possible, as long as you could care less what happens to the fishery (meaning the PEOPLE) as you do it. That is what this is all about, helping BOTH instead of just ONE at the expense of the other.

Now what do the predatory fish populations we are growing eat over those additional 10 years? You see where I'm headed.
Perhaps we should build those fisheries slower? Or, we can try and build them all at the max rate possible and simply shut down fishing (or restrict it to the point that it is a de-facto shut down)

You see where I am headed.

And that is just what the bill would do with the rebuilding of overfished stocks.
According to you. I can name a few thousand people that disagree with that assessment, but we are all certainly entitled to our opinions.

Additionally, HR 5425 does not help with the overfishing definition and that is what will shut down summer flounder.
Actually, that is but ONE THING that can lead to a shut down in flounder. In the absence of ANY overfishing (including the years we wer told we were not overfishing but in retrospect the science says we were) the fishery could VERY EASILY be shut down simply becuase is falls short of the target on the specified date.

it could be 10% short, 20% short, you name it. As written now, the law could shut down a fishery THAT IS NOT OVERFISHED and where OVERFISHING IS NOT OCCURRING simply because of a number that "needs" to be reached by a date on a calendar.

THAT is what HR 5425 is about.

Spin it any way you wish, thems da facts.

In the case of flounder, that would have slowly reduced the allowable catch each year by roughly 1.5 million and over the last 5 years we would be right on target with the recommendation.
Again, a completely unproveable statement, except in a vacuum.

According to EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE we should be "right on target", but in reality it doesn't work that way.

How about the leveling off of recruitment? Can't attribute fishing pressure or recreational overages to that one, but at the time we were given our quotas the SCIENCE had to assume steady recruitment. It did not happen, becuase the fish do not live in that vacuum that the science has to assume they do.

In the end it is the mentality of "save the fish screw the humans" vs. "save the fish AND the humans.

I am of the school of thought that supports the latter. I wish I could say the same for others.

Have a nice day.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,295 Posts
I agree with Sunny and Ryan, but my personal objection to the size limit. And, as was mentioned, eventually a size limit becomes a prohibition on the fish.

A similar way of thinking is the crazy incentives built into NFL player contracts.... McNabb and His Agent can claim a bigger contract, when in reality the contract will only be fully realized if he completes some impossible set of objectives... (Ok - McNabb gets 3M if he returns 2 Punts in the state of Arizona or California)

The same thing goes with the fishing rules... You can keep 10 fish per day and fish all year round, but they must be 22 inches... It's effectively a ban on the fish as it is unrealistic that such a standard will ever be met.

In economics, they can do the same thing with Tariffs. At first a tariff might generate revenue (aka cause the fish population to grow), then it might become protective (aka cause population growth and cause people to fish for other species) and finally it becomes prohibitive (Meaning it would be foolish or impossible to target the fish)....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Those who have no interest in fluke, but entirely in stripers should have an interest in the short seasons and the like. Even as it stands now, people who would otherwise fish for flounder in April, May and October are fishing for stripers because they can't keep a flatty. More pressure on da bass. Good artilcle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
If you have no interest in summer flounder ,HAVE NO FEAR, the bastards we are up against will move onto another species if they win the summer flounder war
Have no FEAR,they have pulicly stated they want an end to all fishing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
sunnydaze said:
Can you please tell me what effect it will have on the stock rebuilding times of menhaden, scup and herring?

How long will it take for menhaden to be rebuilt once deemed overfished under HR 5425?

Anybody?
Sunnydaze...

Can you please tell me what effect the MSA, as currently written, will have on stock re-opening times once they are closed?

Can you tell me how long Seabass or Scup would be closed if and when they did not reach the target on-time?

How long will Summer Flounder remain closed once deemed "not rebuilt" under the current law? (that is of course assuming for the moment it does not reach the target on time)

Can you tell me how long ANY fishery will remain closed if and when it passes the current 10 year deadline and has not reached the target?

Anybody?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,464 Posts
I'm under the assumption that the fishery will be closed until the target is reached. If we are 1 pound under the fishery will still be closed. Then when it reaches the target (if it ever does) then we will have a season with much more relaxed regs (my guess). Definately not a well thought out plan, but that's government bought by the NGOs!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Assuming that the CURRENT science says a particular stock can rebuild in 10 years...

CaptTB wrote:

Can you tell me how long ANY fishery will remain closed if and when it passes the current 10 year deadline and has not reached the target?

Anybody?
Tony,

Remember, under current law, if the biology of the fish won't allow it to rebuild within 10 years absent fishing, then an exception/extention is made to give it an added "mean generation" to rebuild.

I would imagine, in your hypothetical, (hey, I thought you don't do theoreticals??) that once a fishery is closed because it couldn't make the targets in the standard 10 year rebuilding requirement, then the clock would start.

If 10 years then passed with a closed fishery and it still wasn't rebuilt to the specified target, then I think that the government would have to admit that they were wrong in their position that the stock could rebuild in 10 years. Of course, this is a worst-case hypothetical and hopefully the stock would rebuild well before that.

However, let's say it didn't. Then the government would have to re-evaluate how long it really does take said stock to rebuild (as best they can). This would also include ascertaining a new/updated "mean generation" of time for the stock.

Under this worst-case hypothetical example, since it would in fact take more than 10 years to rebuild said stock, then, the "mean generation" exception/extention would be applied. And that would allow for the fishery to be reopened under the regs needed to rebuild it in the new timeframe alotted.

The key here being though, that the new/updated "mean generation" would be a real number (like it is now) and therefore while allowing some responsible flexibility in rebuilding, it would not be open-ended as the Jones and Pallone bills are.

I hope this helps. Again, this is just my take on it. I could be wrong. If I am, then please feel free to demonstrate how so.

- Mike F.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top