Home

 
     HOME     ARTICLES     Frank DAIGNAULT     TROPHY RIGS     CONTENTS     FAQs     FLY FISHING     OFF ROAD 4 X 4     STRIPED BASS    SURFCASTING
 
Go Back   StriperSurf Forums > Main Forums > MAIN FORUM

MAIN FORUM We want You! - This is the place for general discussion of fishing for striped bass, bluefish, albies, weakfish, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 12-18-2003, 04:19 PM
BENTROD BENTROD is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,574
Default

JUST for your record mr COWBOY, I came onto this thread when i read about the no fishing zones. its a real issue and groups like your s.f are leading the charge in a political sort of way. then educated nuts like you apear and bash others because their spell checker isnt working. but the great s.f cant be wrong about nothing because they cant see past their IGNORANT EGOS. IGNORANT HATEFUL ATTITUDES as you have mr cowboy is destroying our world. you sound like a good politician if your not one already.

BENTROD
__________________
BENTROD
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-18-2003, 04:24 PM
splions splions is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Posts: 190
Default

In other words, hearing both sides of an issue is the wrong approach to come to a well thought out conclusion? Never thought they taught that in law school but maybe they did at yours. That might be the prerequisite for the course in Pompous 101 which you appear to have Aced.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-18-2003, 05:35 PM
Fish Picker's Avatar
Fish Picker Fish Picker is offline
SS/Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wildwood, NJ good ol USA
Posts: 4,373
Default

Bent is referring to The mass mailing that we received from SF I cut n pasted it on the comm forum .I think that it is very leading and the questions that are being asked can be twisted very easily.

Fish Picker
Director,OHGNA
OTTENS HARBOR GILLNETTERS ASSOCIATION ><>XXX
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-18-2003, 07:31 PM
Gamakatsu Gamakatsu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 28
Default

I couldn't find the report from this year which showed explosive growth in the stock, but this report from a year ago shows a 30% increase in the stock. The report I had read said that the stocks had increasd at an unprecedented rate over the year, although the size of the fish has not recovered--YET.

quote:
The assessment shows that growth in the biomass has surpassed expectation, increasing from a level of 65 percent of its healthy stock size to 94 percent


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/magazine/stories/mag68.htm


As for your friend down in Islamorda, he must be the one smoking the funny stuff. My friends down in Miami are AVERAGING 1 - 3 swords per 6 hour night and have had as many as 9 in an evening...
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-18-2003, 07:36 PM
Fish Picker's Avatar
Fish Picker Fish Picker is offline
SS/Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wildwood, NJ good ol USA
Posts: 4,373
Default

Gamakatsu "As for your friend down in Islamorda, he must be the one smoking the funny stuff. My friends down in Miami are AVERAGING 1 - 3 swords per 6 hour night and have had as many as 9 in an evening..."

That is what I heard from a very good friend of mine down there.

Fish Picker
Director,OHGNA
OTTENS HARBOR GILLNETTERS ASSOCIATION ><>XXX
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-18-2003, 07:53 PM
Gamakatsu Gamakatsu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 28
Default

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publ...10/crd0110.pdf

quote:
...Spawning stock biomass declined from about 93, mt in the early 1980's to a record low of 18,000 mt in 1995 and has since increased to 29,000 mt in 2000...


Sounds kind of similar to what I posted, doesn't it, Surf Cowboy. It's time for me to go nurse my bong for a while now.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-18-2003, 08:25 PM
Loper Loper is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 27
Default

There is no doubt that numerous Atlantic stocks are recovering, and it's great to hear that about swords. Where the debate come now is knowing how much a particular stock needs to come back before fishing restrictions can be loosened, and by how much. 30K mt is still only one third of the stock in the 80's, for instance - when are things considered "better"? It's tough to know. What we're getting now is a generation of fishermen whose firsthand knowledge is restricted to what are historic lows in stocks. They see things getting better, and want at it. Managment says "hold off", which must be a terrible thing to hear when you have mouths to feed. Nonetheless - even with such a large % increase (which is misleading since a 100% increase only rectifies a 50% decrease), we are still near historic lows.

Whatever you think of NMFS - trying to make sense of that is an unenviable task.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-18-2003, 09:55 PM
CarpenterSteve's Avatar
CarpenterSteve CarpenterSteve is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bellmore, NY USA
Posts: 7,157
Default

The way I see it, most if not all of the commercial and recreational fishing would be gone today, if not for the enviornmentalists. What we need isn't a solution today, but rather a way to monitor and adjust the solution as necessary, with economic reasons always taking second seat to a threatened extinction or decimation of a fish's stock.

Unfortunatly, the trend in the commercial industry is towards large efficient factory ships, and probably too many increasingly sophisticated small comms competing for a decimated stock. This hurts the small comm just as the consolidation of the defense industry hurt the Grumman workers and small machine shops here on LI. the machine shops that are left here, gave up on the defense sector long ago.

Survival is all about adaptation, what works thrives, and what dosen't dies. thats nature and its been going on for millions of years.

Commercial fishing, as it has adapted over the last 75 or so years, can't survive without regulation. Maybe the guy supporting his family by buying a boat and hiring a crew has been around for centuries, but the industrialization of fishing is a new-commer. Whether they like it or not, they are in the same industry, and the industry is in trouble. We can now clean out the oceans with terrifiying ease , and if left unregulated, thats exactly what will happen. Whether the comms want to recognize it or fight it, its just the way it is. So whats the guy who depends on fish for a living to do? Adapt, and go on, or refuse and watch their industry collapse under its own pressures. Maybe look at the state of their industry as the problem, not the rec fisherman, who has been around as long as the family business comm. regulating the industry is its only chance at survival. Maybe "Trying to make a living in a dying industry" should be a reason to try and change the way you do business, or move on!

There is room for all of us, just not to everyones pleasing. Adapt to changing times.

there were alot more manufacturing jobs before globalization, so those workers either retrained or they are unemployed. (I was in manufacturing, but i moved on and now have a sucsessful construction company that supports a few families. It was painful, but i chose not to complain but adapt to changing business climates.)

there used to be a great whaling industry, we know what happened to them.

there used to be many blacksmiths, before the car, now there are auto mechanics.

there used to be many wooly mamoths before we hunted them into extiction.

There used to be dinosaurs, now they are all in museums.

Change or die, harsh, but thats the way it works! Its called evolution, and darwin didn't invent it, he just figured it out!

Sorry to break the news!
__________________


The Pickens Plan

"Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it" - Jean-Francois Revel

Steve

Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-18-2003, 10:09 PM
StriperKnight's Avatar
StriperKnight StriperKnight is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, New Jersey
Posts: 2,312
Default

Good post Carp-Steve. Adapt or die runs through many industries in this country.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-18-2003, 10:40 PM
Fish Picker's Avatar
Fish Picker Fish Picker is offline
SS/Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wildwood, NJ good ol USA
Posts: 4,373
Default

I agree StriperKnight That is a great post Carp-Steve.
My hole point wasn't about bashing environmental nuts.What has happened and is happening to us.Isn't being done by the enviro-nuts there are also lots of greedy state officials and politician's involed.That is where the problems start.MONEY/GREED/EGO

Fish Picker
Director,OHGNA
OTTENS HARBOR GILLNETTERS ASSOCIATION ><>XXX
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-19-2003, 11:31 AM
surf cowboy surf cowboy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 159
Default

Splions:

No, hearing both sides of an argument is something that attorneys are pretty big fans of. However, there's this thing that attorneys and judges are pretty hung up on, and that is competent evidence. Opinions are worthless without the evidence to back them up. Do me a favor and show me where, in this thread, other than your most recent post, where anyone other than myself has referenced any type of evidence supporting their conclusions. I don't have a problem with both sides of an argument; however, I do have a problem with truckloads of b.s. with no evidentiary basis.

With regard to your post citing the "recovery" of the Swordfish:

I guess it's time to open the Atlantic to former levels of Swordfish harvest again, right. I mean, since the stocks are now back to "normal", huh? I mean they have increased 66% from their ALL TIME LOWS.

Just do the math. 93,000 metric tons in 1980. 18,000 metric tons in 1995. Now 29,000 metric tons. So an increase of 11,000 metric tons in a devastated fishery makes it all better. Nevermind that at the current rate of increase, the stocks will not reach what they were in 1980 until 2010, when the stocks should reach 95,000 (admittedly a conservative estimate--it could happen by 2008). Yeah, things are great. Consider this, when a fish stock is as low as the sword's in 1995, where can it go other than up? Extinction, that's where. If those stocks were to have continued dropping for just a few more years, we may not have had any left. By the way, what is the average size of the fish your friends have been catching? Big ones, like the 80's, or, like the reports I've been reading, little 90-pounders?

What about the swordfishermen up north, where the original stocks used to be. I note that you seem to avoid discussion of the North Atlantic. How are those stocks doing?

BENTROD: It's not that you can't spell (I don't care, I can still make out your posts), it's that you can't argue. You just insult and berate, foisting up opinions which you refuse to back up. Look at how Sploins uses data to try and shut me up. It almost worked until I did the math. Now that's an argument. Atta boy, Sploins.

Carpenter Steve:

The way I see it, most if not all of the commercial and recreational fishing would be gone today, if not for the enviornmentalists.

You're probably right on.

surf cowboy
__________________
surf cowboy
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-19-2003, 11:53 AM
Gamakatsu Gamakatsu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 28
Default

Surf Cowboy, do you know how to read? Swordfish stocks are at 94% of what is considered by ENVIRONMENTALISTS to be a healthy stock size. Maybe it isn't 100%, but that does not constitute a "collapse" as you stated. Did you read any of the reports from the tuna trips in the Northeast this fall? There were more reports of swordfish being caught than I ever recall and that's without a directed fishery. The reason you don't see the same explosive growth in the swordfish population up here is that longlining is still permitted in the Northeast. OTH, it is banned in the SE United States. As far as cod, you're right, the stock is not healthy, but it is recovering.

It's the fish that are in a downward spiral that need help and it's funny how you hear so little from the enviros about those fish. They're more interested in inflicting their will where the public will feel it the most (fluke) than in fish that really need help (winter flounder, whiting and even ling).
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-19-2003, 12:05 PM
Gamakatsu Gamakatsu is offline
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 28
Default

Surf Cowboy, if you want to believe doomsday reports, have at it, but they're not reality.

Three years ago there was a report from Jim Chambers, who's opinion I respected a lot, that white marlin would be extinct in five years in they were not put on the ES list. Do you think they're two years away from extinction now, despite the fact that they are not on the ES list now?

Recently the University of Miami did a stock assessment on hogfish which stated they were near extinction and that 90% of the harvest was taken by recreational anglers. Two bigger pieces of misinformation can not be found. There are hogfish in large numbers on every reef and hogfish rarely bite hook and line. Most of the harvest is taken by spearfishermen. The report was very extensive and they showed all their fancy formulas they were taught in college. In the end it was just a couple of pencil neck geeks who probably never touched a fish, creating a worthless document...
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-19-2003, 12:15 PM
surf cowboy surf cowboy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 159
Default

Gamakatsu:

What do you suggest we do, then: ignore "doomsday" reports, and just focus on the positive?

Were it not for "doomsday" reports, would there be enough support to regulate?

Should we just not regulate?

I understand that you don't give any credence to the reports that say fishing is off. But what do you give credence to, then? Are we just supposed to give up on the whole thing because we can't agree on the science?

Since you think the current methods are useless, what do you suggest we do?

I don't know what else we should go on. I guess I'm from the "abundance of caution" school of thought when it comes to the environment. I mean, after all, it's only the health of the planet we're talking about, right?

What, if any, science do you trust? And don't say the opinions of those who spend their time on the water. There is too much water, and those who spend enough time on it to actually have enough information for an opinion are what you would call "interested parties."

surf cowboy
__________________
surf cowboy
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-19-2003, 12:41 PM
Scooby's Avatar
Scooby Scooby is offline
SS/Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: East Rutherford NJ
Posts: 1,453
Default

Gamakatsu said Bong... Hehehehe

scooby@stripersurf.com
__________________
Especialista en Tequilas

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2016 StriperSurf.com, All Rights Reserved