| |||||||
| Striper Central For all you chasers of the linesiders, here is your "special" place to chat 'bout schoolies to cows. Long live the Striped Bass !! ... at least until it's baked with butter and bread crumbs. |
What have you got to say about the topic of: "SNESA - Pogy Bill Proposed for Narr. Bay". Here's how is started: "Originally Posted by B? Tackle Dom, I can't read them even with my super vision. "
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-03-2007, 09:47 PM
| #51 | |||
  Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,091
| Quote:
The constituoonality of the moratorium is not in question, as states have the right to govern licensing of marine fisheries, provided the put in place a provisional system which allows movemnet into the industry when other licenses are retained from retirement, death, violations, etc....RIGL Title 20 is in its entire form online at the RI DEM website.......It details not only the Freedom to Fish Act, but also the processes by which marine fisheries laws must employ to ensure fair and equal input from all players..... Simply put, this congressional push is directly in violation of RIGL as clearly spelled out in Title 20. Oh yeah, I remember Rietsma...I also had a really fun experience last year with my Black Salty project(goldfish as saltwater bait) and I was less than impressed, but as with any big government or corporate body, there are good apples and bad......
__________________ CAPT. DOM PETRARCA COASTAL CHARTERS SPORTFISHING NEWPORT, RI (401)-862-0358 www.coastalcharterssportfishing.com  | |||
|  |
|
04-03-2007, 10:19 PM
| #52 | ||
| NBS Member  Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bikini Bottom
Posts: 841
|
__________________ I really don't care what you have to say about me, just as long as you mention my name  | ||
|
| |
|
04-03-2007, 10:32 PM
| #53 | ||
| Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,091
| Sent the email just now....looking forward to hearing your take on it..... I failed to mention that I do not agree with the moratoriums on either the state or federal levels, but they are at least fair and as best they can be considering the current state of the fisheries......
__________________ CAPT. DOM PETRARCA COASTAL CHARTERS SPORTFISHING NEWPORT, RI (401)-862-0358 www.coastalcharterssportfishing.com | ||
|
| |
|
04-10-2007, 12:14 PM
| #54 | ||
| Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,091
|
Raymond Gallison's letter (Rep RI district 69 out of bristol) to W. Michael Sullivan. It illustrates why politicians should leave science to the qualified scientists. This letter cites absolutely no science whatsoever, it is merely one very vocal, very uninformed state politician trying to use a very far stretched legal definition to use a shore access provision of our state constitution to try and protect a federally managed, part time migratory visitor to our state. This guy goes so far to imply that once the menhaden are gone from our waters(they leave on their own by early July, every year, after showing up for a month or two) the recreational fishing industry suffers because the Bass leave with them??LOL  (WHAT A JOKE) He also goes one step further by claiming that the menhaden will still be able to be harvested by other commercial fisherman.....Meaning GILL NETS, with no limitations as to how many they can take....and no limitation as to where they can lay their nets, unlike the voluntary closures Ark has agreed to throughout a good portion of the upper Bay......It is almost as if this guy didn't even read the reports, and the science from which they came, including the graphs, which show the exact opposite to be true as to Gallisons claims. Recreational fishing has increased steadily in RI, while Ark has enjoyed its best 4 years in a long while(again points to the elimination of the reduction vessels in NJ) yet Gallison claims it is hurting recreational fishing. Lobstering here in RI has gotten progressively better the last 3 years, after the record crashes of 1998-2000, not worse, despite the huge increase in striped bass population. They try and claim that stripers are thin because there is no menhaden, yet federally they have determined that the menhaden stock(which is one single stock, not state or regional schools) is abundant and healthy, and juvenile surveys and recruitment are at a 23 year high.....The stripers are thin because there are too damn many of them, and too many small ones competing for food becuase they make everyone harvest the adult full sized breeders, instead of finding a good management program with slot limits taking the most abundant year classes on a n individual year to year basis........ He also tries his Lawyer BS by claiming Section 17 "as he interprets it" gives the states General Assembly Plenary powers to protect the states natural resources, which means absolute authority or power.....sounds sort of Fascist or Communistic doesn't it???? What happened to the same General Assemblies ruling in Title 20, specifically dealing with marine wildlife issues, and that same General Assemblies handing off of the regulatory procedures and powers to the DEM, specifically the director in that same title 20 of RIGL???........ Classic Political Rhetoric.  His claim that his personal witnessing of a "purse seining method completely surrounding an ENTIRE(EMPHASIS ADDED) school and taking every last fish all at once" is absolutely preposterous, claiming that "after that, the school is gone, and so is one of the most beneficial species to our waters".....This guy smokes his breakfast if you ask me.  Anyone wishing to view this letter, please PM me as I cannot get it to upload for some strange reason......
__________________ CAPT. DOM PETRARCA COASTAL CHARTERS SPORTFISHING NEWPORT, RI (401)-862-0358 www.coastalcharterssportfishing.com | ||
|
| |
|
04-10-2007, 02:13 PM
| #55 | ||
| NBS Member  Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: East Bay
Posts: 1
| Capt, I have a few questions,if you don't mind,before i get involved in this discussion. #1 How many trips(personal or charter) do you make to the upper bay in an average season(north of providence point)? #2 Can you specify which areas ARK has voluntarily stopped fishing? and #3 Have you ever personally witnessed the activities of the ARK boat in the upper bay? Thanks | ||
|
| |
|
04-10-2007, 04:05 PM
| #56 | ||
| Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,091
| Hi there, I generally fish 15-17 times average in the upper bay, as it is quite a hike from newport most years(17 miles to Sabin Point), although the Prudence run last year(2006) was my first time getting a solid 4 weeks in the upper reaches catching and releasing a ton of nice stripers, as well as a great bluefish run. From the second post of this thread quote: "When they first started fishing, Ark Bait fished seven days a week with open access to all areas of the bay. The last several years, Ark Bait has negotiated in good faith with the recreational sector and DEM. They no longer fish weekends or holidays, have agreed to not fish in East Greenwich Bay, can't fish in the Providence River after Aug.15th, (which in the beginning of the agreement was no fishing in the Providence River, but had access to Greenwich Bay, then two years later the recreational people asked it be changed, which Ark Bait did), no fishing south of Prudence Island from the southern tip of the T-warf to the northern tip of Jamestown over to Quonset Point near the airport, from the beginning of the season until Aug. 15th. They have also agreed to take observer in the plane anytime. In short, they have done everything they can to be up front, open, hand honest about the fish harvest, and most importantly they have been responsible. " And yes, i have personally witnessed the harvest by the Ark Boat many, many times. If you go through the entire thread,(I know its long  ) you should see my position pretty clearly.-Dom
__________________ CAPT. DOM PETRARCA COASTAL CHARTERS SPORTFISHING NEWPORT, RI (401)-862-0358 www.coastalcharterssportfishing.com | ||
|
| |
|
04-10-2007, 06:22 PM
| #57 | ||
| NBS Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bikini Bottom
Posts: 841
| First off, I apologize for not responding to the Gibson letter Dom so graciously provided me. Too many irons in the fire. Upon review, a few thing occur to me..
Every little bit counts... Let them catch the menhaden outside the bay. By all accounts, although bay populations of menhaden are low there is still a healthy biomass outside the bay along the coast. Err on the side of caution.... leave the bay alone.
__________________ I really don't care what you have to say about me, just as long as you mention my name | ||
|
| |
|
04-10-2007, 07:19 PM
| #58 | ||
| Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Blue Planet
Posts: 1,091
| Jason, I hear your sentiments, but I still have one question for you: If the water is so clean, what will happen if another epic run of menhaden enter the Bay, and find no detritus in the water for them to filter and therefore feed, and what will they breathe more importantly? Without the harvest, the mass could become critical with warm upper river temps and little to no run off very, very quickly....... Can anyone say Fish kill?  Again, thanks for taking the time to ponder the facts, and I do enjoy the debate on this issue.....
__________________ CAPT. DOM PETRARCA COASTAL CHARTERS SPORTFISHING NEWPORT, RI (401)-862-0358 www.coastalcharterssportfishing.com | ||
|
| |
|
04-10-2007, 09:38 PM
| #59 | ||
| NBS Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bikini Bottom
Posts: 841
| Dom, there's plenty microorganisms for them, the bivalves and a host more. I doubt there is much concern there.... I see plenty of possible benefits to closing the menhaden fishery. I see few drawbacks. Quotes from the Gibson letter: "Surveys indicate that adult abundance remains low, but several large year classes have been produced in the Bay in recent years" It seems each time I read something that could give the proposed ban a shot in the arm, Gibson diffuses it with some gamble or other tidbit. Here he minimizes the fact with a hope large year classes will fill the void. Which by his own account is not likely... "The connection to Striped Bass is reasonable given their great increase in abundance in RI waters and Hartman's finding (2003) that striped bass were capable of limiting their prey populations along the Atlantic coast." Also:... "Projections indicate that at the current level of striped bass abundance, menhaden abundance will remain low. This conclusion holds even if the commercial fishery is eliminated provided that striped bass abundance remains high" So, there are so many bass that what the commercial harvest takes it is just a drop in the bucket... In other words, supply to the striper is already low so what difference does it make... what's a little lower. Anyone else see logic in there that I missed? I like this one.... "Current menhaden biomass is about three times the amount consumed by striped bass although the menhaden/bass ratio is much smaller than existed in the past" So, striped bass consume about 1/3 the biomass. There are not as many of them as there were previously and adults are not as abundant as they once were. BUT continuing to harvest them in great numbers in the bay is a good idea???? BTW.... striped bass are but one species in the food chain that predate upon the menhaden. So, if the beloved striper eats 1/3 of them, what other fraction of the biomass is consumed by the other predators? I also have to make a point of mentioning the fact that "Landings data for menhaden in recent years are confidential by NOAA/NMFS rules because of the limited number participants in the fishery" Isn't that just great! We can't be told what is being harvested and we need to trust that the Govt is being straight with us!!!! Good Lord!!!! There are so many possible issues here that we should proceed cautiously. How long before the Bay here suffers the ills of the Chesapeake? I for one do not want to take that chance. Microbacteriosis is likely due to stress. Of which, poor nutrition may very likely play a big role. I don't gamble my earnings nor do I want to gamble the health of the bay knowing full well my children deserve to have at least what we received from our forefathers. In all honesty, we should be striving to leave it better than the state we found it in. The sewage project currently underway will do wonders in cleaning the waters. let's do all we can to make the bay the wonderful resource it once was. The few that have to pay the price for that dream are minuscule in comparison to the whole of our citizenry.
__________________ I really don't care what you have to say about me, just as long as you mention my name | ||
|
| |
|
04-10-2007, 09:53 PM
| #60 | ||
| NBS Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bikini Bottom
Posts: 841
| BTW... Gibson's science isn't worth a penny. Nowhere does it disprove beyond a doubt that the proposed ban will be ineffective. I see a few statement s that read something to the effect "it is unlikely" but what the heck does that mean? To me, it means there is a possibility. I guess what I am saying is that I too want scientific proof. Proove to me that shutting them down will not have the desired effects. Gibson comes up as short there as those asking for the ban. Match, game draw.... Err on the side of caution. What do we have to lose? All I see are just a few jobs and lobsterman having to resort to groundfish racks. So what. Lobster are the vultures of the sea. If it's dead, they'll eat it. Tourism is a growing revenue here and we should do all we can to help it out. Manufacturing is all but gone and commercial fishing is running at it's heels. Y'all are performing CPR on a dying man. Time to pull the plug! Recreational fishing is where it is at, and I know you know that better than anyone. Give it the help that it is in dire need of. Jason, stepping from his soap box. 
__________________ I really don't care what you have to say about me, just as long as you mention my name | ||
|
| |
| Ads Do NOT Show To Registered Members | |
|
| Tags |
| bay, bill, narr, pogy, proposed, snesa |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
