BASS BARN banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·






We have two items of importance for you today. First is our take on last week's Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission Spring meeting that took place on May 13th.
At the annual meeting of the ASMFC last fall MA State Director Paul Diodati told his fellow commissioners that one didn't need to be a fishery scientist to see what has happened to striped bass. They simply weren't there in the numbers that they had been, and that when he looked at the current data, it was apparent to him that action should have been taken to reduce harvest years ago. In fairness to the managers, the data keeps changing and the statistics didn't look as bad years ago as they really were. Under the new "models" that are supposed to more accurately estimate the population, the true condition of the fishery is now thought to be more accurately reflected, and it is not a pretty picture. Fishermen's reports, which are referred to as "anecdotal data", have displayed warning signs for the last 7 or 8 seasons, so it turns out that they were more accurate than the scientific data. Diodati suggested an immediate 40% cut across the board for the 2014 season - just the kind of sensible thing that our members would agree should have been done, but his recommendation failed.
There was substantial pushback to Diodati's proposal, mostly from commercial fishing states, but even from some recreational commissioners, who in our view hold the outdated view that people value harvest more than conservation. They wanted to go more slowly and look at the matter again in subsequent meetings. That is the scenario that has played itself out in the last two meetings. The ASMFC Management Board gave the can a gentle kick down the road by asking the scientists to come up with some options to reduce harvest by about 31% beginning in 2015 - a calculation designed to keep the spawning stock biomass from slipping into the overfished category. This ignored the scientists having told them that a 31% cut would not be enough.
Since the Winter meeting resistance stiffened behind party lines with Chesapeake Bay commercial fishermen insisting that they caught the smaller, non-migratory Bay fish and not the increasingly scarce coastal cows, and of course they played the old commercial sympathy card, complaining about how much they needed these fish to pay their bills, and how a 31% cutback would ruin them. A story in a Maryland newspaper that recently aired this viewpoint showed a gillnet full of stripers on a commercial boat; every one of them that could be clearly seen was a large female full of eggs. Also not mentioned was that the Chesapeake Bay area Young of the Year index over the last few seasons is a shadow of those in the 1990s and early 2000s which produced today's larger fish.
So that is how the battle is shaping up. Recreational fishing and environmental groups are calling for stronger conservation measures - SF went on record as asking for a 50% cutback - and commercial fishing groups along with a few old-school members of the recreational community want a go-slow approach, with the 31% cut to be phased in over three seasons and not to take effect until 2015. This delaying tactic is designed to give them time to claim that no cutbacks at all are necessary. If it all sounds a bit confusing, it should, because there is very little direction to the plan at all. Here is the ASMFC press release on the meeting. Stripers Forever will be making comments to the ASMFC commissioners prior to the August summer meeting, and doubtless we will advocate then for complete catch reductions to begin with the 2015 season.
In the meantime, Stripers Forever encourages recreational fishers to do their share to conserve large striped bass. A month ago we introduced our Release A Breeder Club program This program recognizes and rewards both guides and individual anglers who release striped bass 36 inches and larger. The RBC page explains our free program and has links to the online forms for individuals and guides to enter. Their names and catches will be listed on our website and they will receive decals and certificates decorated with Alan James Robinson's terrific striper artwork.
Check it out. If you've caught and released one of those big stripers this season - or hope to yet - why not get involved, and if your favorite guide is not listed on the SF site, then send him an e-mail and ask him to sign up today. Let's do what we can to make releasing rather than killing these important breeders the accepted way to go.
Thanks for helping.
Brad Burns, President
Stripers Forever






Stripers Forever, a non-profit, internet-based conservation organization, seeks game fish status for wild striped bass on the Atlantic Coast in order to significantly reduce striper mortality, to provide optimum and sustainable public fishing opportunities for anglers from Maine to North Carolina, and to secure the greatest socio-economic value possible from the fishery.​






Stripers Forever PO Box 2781 South Portland, ME 04116-2781
[email protected]






Stripers Forever, P O Box 2781, South Portland, ME 04116-2781, USA

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Get outta here with your garbage, you are the enemy of fishing. Soooo sick of all of you minions pushing your bullshit. Stop taking advantage of the ignorant folks that think you are actually helpful to fishing.

Stripers Forever = Coastal Conservation Association

Don't fall for their lies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
Glad to see somebody doing something to reduce the kill, especially the 30's and 40's. As I see it to balance the extreme commercial groups you need a extreme conservation group. Common sense has no clout, everything has to be fought for.

I voluntarily started to release all my biggest bass this year and the practice seems to slowly catching on with those who score regularly. The concept of this needs to be introduced to more fisherman so that they can decide for themselves ahead of time if they want to kill or release their big ones. Good luck with the launch of the RBC program, this is the first I've heard of it but I sincerely hope it gains momentum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
Get outta here with your garbage, you are the enemy of fishing. Soooo sick of all of you minions pushing your bullshit. Stop taking advantage of the ignorant folks that think you are actually helpful to fishing.

Stripers Forever = Coastal Conservation Association

Don't fall for their lies.
Amen!!!:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
While emotions will run high on this subject ,the data certainly confirms striped bass on a "coast wide" basis is seeing a 5 year downward trend. NJ is blessed with the fact that Delaware River spawn has increased 10 fold since the days leading to the shut down which I suspect many on the barn were not around to remember it . Prior to the shutdown polution blocked the bass run up the river ,Cheasapeake was the major contributor along with Hudson which generally we don't see that many Hudson river fish in South Jersey. Today the Cheasapeake is sick and spawning numbers down
The reason for the shutdown was becasue the Feds who should have been watching the trends ignored the data until it was too late to prevent a complete shutdown. Today every State on East Coast has better data and active biologist watching and most agree there is a downward trend that needs to be addressed to prevent a shutdown
I don't agree with a 50% reduction but I do think a reduction is needed of some type,there are way too may prime spawners being removed.
In my thinking and you can say what you like about my thinking as i have thick skin but best option to get the stock growing is to limit one bass over 32 and add a slot of something like 22-27 My 2 cents and I have been folllowing Striped bass for over 55 years
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
awesome someone like me.my bud and I let two go, 50 incher and 53 incher, how do we join your club. we started our own"50 lb catch-n-release club.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
Since when is "conservation" a dirty word?... or to who?

But even if they were potentially up to no good I would certainly trust them more than those groups that get paid $2.00 per pound at the end of the day to kill them.

The irony is the rec. and the comm. guys want essentially the same thing, to catch more bass. But the rec. guys are willing to cut back now and let the numbers recover. The commercial groups seem to always want the most right now.

***Cassapulla if possible could you please post this again on the sandy hook/raritan bay forum. I personally would like to see the RBC program catch on in the waters I fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
I'm all for catch and release, hell I rarely keep any but I will once and a while for dinner. My original post HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEALTH OR NUMBERS OF THE BASS FISHERY! That's a different topic that certainly should be talked about. This garbage has to do with all of these "foundations" and so called "non profit" groups that are all affiliated with PEW and all the environuts. Fisherman need to understand that these group have ZERO interest in you and your "right" to fish and preserving fish (rightfully so) rather they operate under the guise of being 'on your side' to push their anti-fishing agendas all the while with there slimy hands out collecting handout and donations from fisherman that they are screwing over pretending to be working in their better interests. Take a good look into these organizations, follow the money then tell me who they are working for....It ain't us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Beware of wolves is sheep's clothing.................
There are dozens of the "foundations" out there. Please understand this is a money making business or should I say CON job.These suites funnel money around tax free(donations). They figured out a win win situation for them and exploited it. It really pisses me off that they prey on fisherman that want to do the right thing but just don't know any better.

Here another fine example, How come Sarah never returned to defend her BS?
http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/6-...3754-noaa-s-april-fools-gift-rec-fishing.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
I'm all for catch and release, hell I rarely keep any but I will once and a while for dinner. My original post HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEALTH OR NUMBERS OF THE BASS FISHERY! That's a different topic that certainly should be talked about. This garbage has to do with all of these "foundations" and so called "non profit" groups that are all affiliated with PEW and all the environuts. Fisherman need to understand that these group have ZERO interest in you and your "right" to fish and preserving fish (rightfully so) rather they operate under the guise of being 'on your side' to push their anti-fishing agendas all the while with there slimy hands out collecting handout and donations from fisherman that they are screwing over pretending to be working in their better interests. Take a good look into these organizations, follow the money then tell me who they are working for....It ain't us.
Well said. Hand constantly in the cookie jar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Big Ron, I appreciate your views on releasing big bass. I share that opinion too. You had better do your homework before you go in blindly. Mission accomplished on their part, mission FAILED on your part. Seriously, follow the $$$ then get back to me. You have the right and honorable view but don' t get seduced by the sweet song of the pied pipers flute....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
I've done my homework on Stripers Froever and some positions they take I don't agree with BUT they were founded by FISHERMEN and run by Fishermen not lobbyist . There is no perfect organization but as far as stripers go there needs to be a voice for the recreational fishermen... Commercial influence on regulations is well organized and effective,Recreational efforts are splinterd ...Leading up to the shutdown there was only one voice BOB POND for the recreational fishermen trying to counter the efforts of those who were arguing there was no problem..Stripers Forever is a off shoot of Bob Pond's efforts...As I said don't agree with everything.......I also did a search and can find no money coming from Environmentilst like PEW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
I've done my homework on Stripers Froever and some positions they take I don't agree with BUT they were founded by FISHERMEN and run by Fishermen not lobbyist . There is no perfect organization but as far as stripers go there needs to be a voice for the recreational fishermen... Commercial influence on regulations is well organized and effective,Recreational efforts are splinterd ...Leading up to the shutdown there was only one voice BOB POND for the recreational fishermen trying to counter the efforts of those who were arguing there was no problem..Stripers Forever is a off shoot of Bob Pond's efforts...As I said don't agree with everything.......I also did a search and can find no money coming from Environmentilst like PEW
I respect and appreciate all your work and commitment you invest into fisheries! You have a few years on me:)

Striper forever = CCA.
I see no mention made of how striped bass, for that matter all saltwater species, are managed with respect to the law. The Magnuson Stevens Act, the ultimate law by which all fisheries are managed, is foremost at issue with what Stripers Forever is attempting. By law, all fisheries must be managed to MSY, which stands for “maximum sustainable yield,” which means, by law, fish must be used, or caught, or at least be managed in a way that is likely to lead to them being caught. So, what Stripers Forever isn’t saying is that if a state were to make striped bass a gamefish, that the managers would then have to re-allocate the commercial quota elsewhere, either to other states with open commercial fisheries or to the recreational sector. There is no language in the law that allows for fish to be kept out of the equation, so to speak.

Stripers Forever knows this, but they don’t mention it. They aren’t really seeking to save stripers, they are merely seeking to remove an undesirable and competitive factor in the fishery, in order that the recreational industry would expand, and the very fish that they claim to be saving would just be caught, but by their clients.
About Stripers Forever, they are really the Coastal Conservation Association. CCA is backed by big oil. In fact, their founder, Walter Fondren Jr., was the head of Exxon. This group, Stripers Forever, is headed by a man named Brad Burns, who founded the Maine Chapter of CCA in 1991. Make no mistake, CCA and SF are really the same. In almost every area CCA is well established, they have funded and assisted sympathetic political candidates, who will streamline permitting and take down impediments to coastal development. This has led to losses of sensitive coastal habitats, and the resources CCA claims to be championing, have declined.
SF and CCA aren’t really trying to conserve anything. Rather, they are trying to and have reallocated resources to their contributors.


Pew plays the shell game, PEW gives to several NGO's (non-governmental organizations) front groups that in turn give to other front groups that in turn give to the CCA. That way Pew can launder the money and try to keep out of the loop of money given. But it does come from Pew tagged to the CCA after its has been attempted to be laundered by other NGO's as not coming from PEW.

Since PEW has been outed as anti-fishing, PEW is trying to hide their money donation trail because they do not want to taint the other organizations that PEW is funding. Anyone who fronts for those organizations that take back door millions from PEW in exchange for a good recommendation for a Council seat is a sellout to the honest recreational cause.


Write the CCA and ask where their funding comes from and they will not tell you., they will brush you off. Now why is that? Why is the CCA not upfront on where their funding comes from? Because they don't want anyone to really see where all of their funding comes from. If they were proud of where all of their funding comes from they would have no problem showing the public where the CCA funding comes from. Isn't it just a tad bit suspicious that CCA does not want you to know where all of their funding comes from? You better believe it is. What is the CCA hiding?

PEW funded Organizations:

-Oceana
-The Ocean Conservancy
-PETA
-The Audubon Society
-Environmental Defense Fund
-GreenPeace
-Sea Shepherds
-Save The Manatee Club
-World Wildlife Fund
-Sierra Club
-Clean Ocean Action
-Tides Foundation
-Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Coalition (of which CCA, The Billfish Foundation are members. Nice, huh?)

Now why does PEW back door fund these organizations like the CCA?

"THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS"
"Program Investments"

"Before submitting a letter of inquiry about partnering with us, you should first review the Program Priorities area that most directly matches your proposed project. Please be aware that our investments are highly focused, making support very unlikely for activities that do not closely match our program goals."

Notice on the PEW website that in order to be funded by PEW like the CCA is funded, PEW's support is very unlikely unless the CCA's activities closely match Pew's program goals. And we know what PEW anti-fishing goals are. And CCA taking money from PEW now PEW goals are CCA goals. And since CCA knows if this gets out it it not a good reflection on the CCA so the CCA uses the misleading bogus press and news releases to cover their tracks.

SF intentions to be good little CCA minions and vote the way the CCA wants them to vote. And anyone who fronts, spins and/or apologizes for this guise and pretext is disingenuous and dishonest.

PEW is invested in the CCA and Pew expects a return on Pew's investment in the CCA no sound science anti-recreational fishing votes are giving PEW a return on PEW's investment in the CCA.

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is particularly worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for sportsman’s organizations and has attracted the participation of some fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. The American Sportfishing Association and the Coastal Conservation Association and Stripers Forever are among the board members of the Partnership.
Fishy....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
I respect and appreciate all your work and commitment you invest into fisheries! You have a few years on me:)

Striper forever = CCA.
I see no mention made of how striped bass, for that matter all saltwater species, are managed with respect to the law. The Magnuson Stevens Act, the ultimate law by which all fisheries are managed, is foremost at issue with what Stripers Forever is attempting. By law, all fisheries must be managed to MSY, which stands for “maximum sustainable yield,” which means, by law, fish must be used, or caught, or at least be managed in a way that is likely to lead to them being caught. So, what Stripers Forever isn’t saying is that if a state were to make striped bass a gamefish, that the managers would then have to re-allocate the commercial quota elsewhere, either to other states with open commercial fisheries or to the recreational sector. There is no language in the law that allows for fish to be kept out of the equation, so to speak.

Stripers Forever knows this, but they don’t mention it. They aren’t really seeking to save stripers, they are merely seeking to remove an undesirable and competitive factor in the fishery, in order that the recreational industry would expand, and the very fish that they claim to be saving would just be caught, but by their clients.
About Stripers Forever, they are really the Coastal Conservation Association. CCA is backed by big oil. In fact, their founder, Walter Fondren Jr., was the head of Exxon. This group, Stripers Forever, is headed by a man named Brad Burns, who founded the Maine Chapter of CCA in 1991. Make no mistake, CCA and SF are really the same. In almost every area CCA is well established, they have funded and assisted sympathetic political candidates, who will streamline permitting and take down impediments to coastal development. This has led to losses of sensitive coastal habitats, and the resources CCA claims to be championing, have declined.
SF and CCA aren’t really trying to conserve anything. Rather, they are trying to and have reallocated resources to their contributors.


Pew plays the shell game, PEW gives to several NGO's (non-governmental organizations) front groups that in turn give to other front groups that in turn give to the CCA. That way Pew can launder the money and try to keep out of the loop of money given. But it does come from Pew tagged to the CCA after its has been attempted to be laundered by other NGO's as not coming from PEW.

Since PEW has been outed as anti-fishing, PEW is trying to hide their money donation trail because they do not want to taint the other organizations that PEW is funding. Anyone who fronts for those organizations that take back door millions from PEW in exchange for a good recommendation for a Council seat is a sellout to the honest recreational cause.


Write the CCA and ask where their funding comes from and they will not tell you., they will brush you off. Now why is that? Why is the CCA not upfront on where their funding comes from? Because they don't want anyone to really see where all of their funding comes from. If they were proud of where all of their funding comes from they would have no problem showing the public where the CCA funding comes from. Isn't it just a tad bit suspicious that CCA does not want you to know where all of their funding comes from? You better believe it is. What is the CCA hiding?

PEW funded Organizations:

-Oceana
-The Ocean Conservancy
-PETA
-The Audubon Society
-Environmental Defense Fund
-GreenPeace
-Sea Shepherds
-Save The Manatee Club
-World Wildlife Fund
-Sierra Club
-Clean Ocean Action
-Tides Foundation
-Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Coalition (of which CCA, The Billfish Foundation are members. Nice, huh?)

Now why does PEW back door fund these organizations like the CCA?

"THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS"
"Program Investments"

"Before submitting a letter of inquiry about partnering with us, you should first review the Program Priorities area that most directly matches your proposed project. Please be aware that our investments are highly focused, making support very unlikely for activities that do not closely match our program goals."

Notice on the PEW website that in order to be funded by PEW like the CCA is funded, PEW's support is very unlikely unless the CCA's activities closely match Pew's program goals. And we know what PEW anti-fishing goals are. And CCA taking money from PEW now PEW goals are CCA goals. And since CCA knows if this gets out it it not a good reflection on the CCA so the CCA uses the misleading bogus press and news releases to cover their tracks.

SF intentions to be good little CCA minions and vote the way the CCA wants them to vote. And anyone who fronts, spins and/or apologizes for this guise and pretext is disingenuous and dishonest.

PEW is invested in the CCA and Pew expects a return on Pew's investment in the CCA no sound science anti-recreational fishing votes are giving PEW a return on PEW's investment in the CCA.

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is particularly worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for sportsman’s organizations and has attracted the participation of some fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. The American Sportfishing Association and the Coastal Conservation Association and Stripers Forever are among the board members of the Partnership.
Fishy....
Amen. And thank you for posting.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top