Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer4reel
Every manufacture gives a ton of money to the ASA to fight for fisherman’s rights .
I believe it’s actually a decent percentage of all net sales .
It’s up to groups to approach the ASA for funding for lawsuits .
.
|
One last post I'd like to leave the board with and it'll be my last regarding regulations. The use of increased size minimums to handicap the recreational sector is at the center of all that's wrong with this fishery. It creates a huge disparity in the harvest rights of the biomass which I'll illustrate. Its the cause of significantly more females being harvested proportionately both recreationally and commercially which is a contributing factor of why recruitment levels have tanked and discard mortality levels have gone through the roof. That's not to say I agree with all the data, but it is the data being used to make policy decisions and regulate this fishery.
The last reported biomass in 2018 was 121 million fish. Of that, ~70 million were age groups 0 (new recruits / eggs) or 1 year old fish and under the 14" threshold for the commercial sector as well. Age two exceeds the 14" threshold so commercial had ~51 million fish to harvest from the biomass. Conversely, an 18" fish (NJ size minimum) allows for 4 yr old females and 6 year old males to begin being harvested. Based on the biomass population by age that gives NJ recreational anglers ~13 million fish to harvest, an almost 40 million difference in the number of fish available between sectors. Use NY and Ct. at 19". the disparity is even greater.
So the question. If size minimums create a 40 - 45 million disparity in fish eligible to be harvested by sector and if the funding is there to support a law suit against marine fisheries, why haven't those funds been used to argue a 4" to 5" size minimum difference between commercial and recreational is a violation of MSA National Standards 4 addressing fair allocation of the resource. It seems to me from reading the legislation, that standard was enacted to prevent precisely the unfair allocation size minimums have created between sectors. There's no guarantee a lawsuit would be successful but based on the complete inequity size minimum differentials have caused in this fishery along with the negative impacts to the stock itself, why not at least try. Curious what others opinions are.