PDA

View Full Version : Higher Size Regulations Do Not Rebuild Stocks


Gerry Zagorski
02-04-2017, 11:23 AM
Every year we are basically forced to horse trade for more favorable regulations. The trade is typically smaller fish and a shorter season or larger fish and a longer season.

Here is an interesting article which would indicate that trying to rebuild stocks with higher fish size regulations does not work.

http://fisherynation.com/archives/55332

tautog
02-04-2017, 12:04 PM
I do not think that minimum size limits in general hurt fisheries so long as they have a biological basis, i.e. make sure fish spawn once. However when the limits get so high that it massively throws off sex ratios in a population, that is when the trouble arises.

Rocky
02-04-2017, 12:37 PM
What seems to be common sense to fishermen with half a clue, seems to be gibberish to the law makers who are destroying our fishery.

Yes it is "OUR" fishery.

Ttmako
02-04-2017, 12:58 PM
Just another example of why our fisheries "managers" are so arrogant.
There is no critical thinking or thoughtful analysis of looking at the potential they are anything but 100% correct and without error.
The SSFFF submitted the data 95% of fluke are female. Data ignored.
Other NMFS services personnel seriously question the information related to RV Bigelow and Witch flounder harvest. Data ignored.
MRIP is still a running joke and Council admits it is seriously flawed. Flaws are ignored and they forge ahead using knowingly false data.
Vessel trip reports from party boat captains, real time information is collected, but ignored.

These people are spineless, ignorant hypocritical morons that need to be called to the carpet. Everybody from the SSC, TC to council members are guilty of fraud! I can almost guarantee they are being funded somehow by Pew, EDF and other well funded organizations that want to stop us from fishing.

bigal427
02-04-2017, 04:13 PM
They have no clue. We should be releasing the big fish and keeping the 16" fish.
every fluke I caught last year over 5 pounds was a female with eggs

Reelron
02-05-2017, 06:57 AM
Just more "Anecdotal" information. If it isn't derived from their "scientific findings" it don't mean crap to them! :mad: