The high-lights of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) were just released two days ago and there's some interesting reading in the overview. Items for discussion on the agenda were: the poaching problem in the Chesapeake Bay system, an increase in the commercial quota landings, and the mycobacteriosis problem was supposed to be discussed, (if it was in there I must have missed it becasue I didn't see any mention of it). The poaching problem that was recently uncovered down south included an area of the Potomoc River system, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. It included commercial watermen, fish houses, resturants, buyers, and more. All of the accused violators have not yet been prosecuted and many are still pending. Those who have been, have received not much more than a slap on the wrist. One poacher did get 5-months in prison, one was fined $150,000 but consider that he made an estimated $6.5 million in illegal sales of striped bass. Not much of a fine for that kind of money. Maryland officals told the commission that they had enacted measures to close loop-holes, tighten regulations and restrictions, make reporting more difficult, and stated that they have made it harder for those who want to poach to do it and get away with it. I guess only time will tell if that works of it the measures are anywhere near what is needed to end this practice. Unless you are looking at loss of boat, trucks and property and big fines as well as jail time, the money is so huge its likely to continue in some form. At least the commission addresses this issue for the first time in history. They have been in denial that this situation has ever existed for the last 35-years, when they've been told repeatedly that it does. The huge public out cry likely due the reporting in newspapers and on the internet is what finally forced them to take up this issue. Two other agenda items: increasing the commercial quota by 10 to 30-percent, (at the last meeting is was 10-25-percent, where the extra 5-percent came from is anyone's guess), and a provision to roll-over any unsued or un-caught quota to the following year. The motion was split in two. On the first motion to increase the commercial quota it was defeated. The Technical Committee suggested that they wait to see what the 2009 index and stock assessment looked like before they committed themselves to a commercial increase. That was one of the more logical moments of the meeting. The second motion passed to allow a roll-over of any un-used or un-caught quota to the following year, of up to as much as 50-percent. Now let's examine this. If you have or had a history of meeting or exceeding your quota for let's say ten years or more and suddenly you don't reach it for three or four years, (which is what is currently taking place), how do you figure that by rolling over 50-percent of last year's quota is going to help you catch more fish?? Having three or four bad years in a row isn't good. Wouldn't that tell or suggest something to you? Like maybe there aren't as many fish left to catch? Maybe too many have already been caught? Maybe the bad Young-of-the-Year numbers are right and there aren't as many fish entering the fishery? Or maybe no one there has any common sense at all. If we took those numbers and statistics and applided them to the recreational fishery, they'd be hell-bent on cutting down the amount of fish that were being caught. NO you say, well just look at the fluke, scup and sea bass numbers, (which are a joke to begin with) We are now fishing for bigger fish, with less time, in a sea full of fish. So I ask you, why dosen't the same silly logic apply to the striped bass fishery? Why is it good for the other species and not for striped bass as well? How do you catch 50-percent more of something you couldn't catch before? Does it also imply that after the second year, you can roll-in another 50-percent? How about the third year and the forth year? Can you legally roll over 200-percent? It states that increased monintoring is going to be needed to manage this roll-over increase. How do you monitor such a thing? They can't manage or monitor the poaching problem so how does this fit in? When the recreational fishery doesn't met the bluefish quota for the year, that portion of the remaining quota is transferred to the commercial quota. It just happen again this year where an additional four-million pounds of unused bluefish were given to the commerical quota. So again, why doesn't this logic apply to striped bass? If you don't meet your quota for any given year, then why isn't it taken away from next year's quota? At least then you'd be SAVING fish and not allowing what's remaining to be harvested at some unknown point and time. Maybe it's just me but none of it makes any sense no matter how you look at it. They tried the same thing for years in the ground fish stock of cod, pollock and haddock and look what that lead too. Manageing for Maximum Sustainable Yeild dosen't work. It never has and it never will. Especially today when there are way too many people and too little fish to make all of them happy. Something at some point has to go. Either the fish or the people. I'm going to go back to the press release and see if I can find anything on the mycobacteria problem, which up until now hasnt' been factored in to any current stock assessment that I am aware of. THAT, is a whole other issue.
