MA regulation changes for lobsters

[archman]

I may be out of date with some of these, feel free to make corrections. Fisheries science is not my strongest point.

1. Atlantic Blue Marline (U.S.)
2. Atlantic White Marlin (U.S.)
3. the majority of recreationally caught native species existing in rivers, streams, and palustrine systems within the United States and Canada.
4. Striped Bass (Nova Scotia; Hudson River, at least it was in the late '90's)
5. Inland salmon fisheries
6. Sturgeons
7. Amberjack, at least 'til the the 1980's.
8. Lingcod? I don't know, it seems to always be in heated debate.
9. Redfish (Texas; other Gulf states too I think)
10. Speckled Trout (Texas)

* also by definition anything in the United States termed a "game fish". It's supposed to be a clear-cut differentiation at the state level, but many folks confuse the term with recreationally caught fishes, which may include commercial fishery components.

Oddball international stuff I hastily compiled:
1. all species within lowland Romanian rivers.
2. marron (odd freshwater crawdad) within either all or a large portion of inland Australian waters.
3. Black Bream (Tasmania)
4. ******* Trumpeter (Tasmania, commercial bycatch only)
5. All native inland finfish (New South Wales, as of 2001)

There are also bycatch-only commercial fisheries in existence, which count technically but not functionally. In any event such species are not commercially targetted, but still reported in commercial fishery landings. Rather confusing. Pinfish I believe is one of 'em. Most other baitfishes as well.

 

[archman]

What matters is take. In MASSACHUSETTS, the "officials" have stated time and time again, backed by scientific evidence and data that the recreational Lobster take is INSIGNIFICANT.

yes, but this most certainly is not the case for many other fisheries. look 'em up, or read some of the previous posts... more slowly perhaps.

And I totaly disagree with your position that with commercial pressure on a species removed, recreational fishing would still damage the stocks. That's simply absurd.

Not merely my position, but fisheries scientists around the world. I am puzzled by your resistance to this, and heartily recommend your contacting some of these folks as apparently my statements aren't clicking. A better suggestion is to read up from some of the newer journals coming out since the late '90's. The Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences is a leading one. You can access some articles online now. Here's a common one referenced quite a bit. There are plenty more.
http://64.224.98.53/fisheries/F0201/F02016-17.PDF

I'm still using a rod and reel that hasn't changed much in 150 years.

yeah, and so are millions of other anglers throughout the U.S. alone (around 16 million I think). That's a massive increase from the 19th and early 20th century.

I would still like to focus on this thread as it pertains to the Massachusetts regulation issue...

me too! But if you keep sticking to this scientifically false statement about recreational fisheries (and don't back it up except with opinion), expect me to fix it. It IS in my profile, after all.

 

[Diver294]

yes, but this most certainly is not the case for many other fisheries. look 'em up, or read some of the previous posts... more slowly perhaps.

yeah, and so are millions of other anglers throughout the U.S. alone (around 16 million I think). That's a massive increase from the 19th and early 20th century.

Here is where and why the original post was pulled so I will refrain from the temptation to insult anyone... although it appears you did not.

If I read any of your "previous posts" any slower, they just seem more and more absurd. So "perhaps" we should simply stick to the topic and avoid the personal stuff... mmmk?

You can type until you turn into a pumpkin, and it won't change the FACT that commercial fishing has plundered the oceans and is the main reason recreational fishermen face limits at all. I won't waste ONE more second of my life researching something EVERY reasonable person knows. I'm not the kind of person that needs to stick my hand in the fire just to PROVE it's hot. Maybe you are, who knows.

If you want to quote numbers, research how many more commercial fishermen exist now as compared to the 19th century, and more importantly HOW they fish.

I used this loose comparison because it's intended to show reasonable people the differences in technology and the MASSIVE increases in commercial fishing.

If we continue this trend down to its logical conclusion, then the massive increase in world population that is expected in the next 50 years will strip the oceans of all of its life and so what is the point of conservation??

Leaving all this BS aside... it appears that we agree that the Massachusetts regulations that have held us captive the last few days in the thread are pointless, useless, infringing on our "sport", and an exercise in complete futility.

 

[archman]

PM sent.

 

[Diver294]

PM sent.

PM received. Makes sense to me. Thanks.

Here's to the next regulatory thread! :11:

 

[johlar]

Here's a link to changes that were made by the MA department of Fisheries in regards to lobstering.

Advisory

My apologies if this is a repost, it was just posted yesterday.

So I need 2 lobster gauges or use the one that measures 3 3/8 in both areas?