UPDATED Please take a moment to read and respond. Important

[tafts ta]

In a few weeks I have a meeting with some state senators and representatives and hopefully our incoming governor. I have seen many environmental issues that need to be addressed in this state and too often the get overlooked by politicians and abused by sportsmen. I have finally caught the ear of the powers that be and have the opportunity to have my voice heard one on one with people who can do something to fix it.

Here are my main questions to you as fellow anglers and sportsmen.

1. I feel there should by creel limits implemented on Yellow Perch, White Perch, Crappie, Bluegill. Most states have them but not mass. Could be a combined limit or each species seperate. But something should go on the books. Do you support this?

2. The Mass Environmental Police is grossly understaffed and under budgeted. They need more officers in the field and less behind the desks. I think the vast majority of is as sportsmen encourage law enforcement on the water and in the woods to protect what we love so much. Yes / no?

3. More should be done with the stocking programs in this state. We have a very healthy bass population but species like Walleye and Salmon are big draws for anglers and even if the salmon are not returning to spawn, raising them to be caught like they do for the trout should be a good way to increase license sales and or justify the cost. Good idea? Bad idea?

Please keep comments respectful as I am reaching out for comments and concerns so that hopefully our voices can be heard. Please stay off the soapbox and make your comments suitable to be heard in a political forum

I appreciate your time in responding

UPDATE AS OF 01/05/2015

So I had an extremely informative and important meeting today with Senator Ben Downing. I think that everyone will be happy to know that he is very receptive to ideas and has actually ordered a few studies to be done in his office. First and foremost being exact spending and output numbers on hatcheries, stocking, DCR, Environmental police funding.
I have also had some very informative conversations with some of the State Biologists regarding stocking.

Unfortunately... Walleye won't happen any time soon as we do not have enough suitable waters in MA for them to survive consistently as several people actually alluded to in this thread.
Trout stocking already has been increased and they are being raised in state as well as being imported from a couple of other states as well. There ARE currently being studies done as to whether or not it may be cost effective to raise salmon for put and take...The numbers right now do not support it, but hearing from anglers, especially out of state anglers who would travel to catch them is helpful to the cause. MA actually did do a limited Kokanee stocking several years ago, but the survival rates were limited and growth rates were dismal...probably not in the cards again.

Pike actually is another story. The State WANTS to do more Pike and Musky stocking, however they were getting them from a hatchery in NY which was battling an outbreak of VHS and had to exterminate a lot of fish. A few hundred fish were imported last year and all dumped into Cheshire Res. As more become available, more will be stocked.

I have another appointment coming up with the Senator and some Reps as well as the Vice Chair of the MA Ways and Means Committee (budget guy) to discuss license fees and possibly removing them from the General Budget (not likely) or possibly creating a stamp program like several other states have.

Please keep feedback on here, It is helpful to have as many opinions as possible so that as many people are represented.

Paul

[Papa Sly]

Hey Tafts , here is my opinion even though I now live in Ct. I grew up in Ma. fo 50 years and still purchase out of state every year.
1.) definatly should be a dailt creel limit on all pan fish.
2.)The more supervision the better(unless you have something to hide)
3.) I believe we should have different management lakes like CT. has where size and daily bag limits are limited in order to insure not only great fishing but also good sizes of these managed species.

[GrizlyGarou]

Yeah, why not put a limit on panfish. Then, the extra ECOs can spend their time counting them, which would make an increase in their numbers pointless. As for the stocking programs for other species, they'd have to do a lot of water testing, requiring people to be taking water samples and doing stuff in labs or else the fish they put in just end up dead before they get caught. Don't forget about the hatcheries that would need to be built and staffed. And all the beuacracy that goes along with more tickets being written, more staff and more facilities to maintain.

The cost of the fishing license would have to go up. They can barely support what they're doing now! I know it's not a lot of money for a license right now, but building hatcheries is going to end up in the millions. Then there's more trucks and boats to maintain, plus the salaries, benefits and pensions (which the ECOs definitely deserve!) on top of that.

I'm not against any of the ideas, I'd love to have a local walleye pond that gets patrolled more than once a month, I just don't see where the money would come from unless they charged a good deal more for the license.

[tafts ta]

Yeah, why not put a limit on panfish. Then, the extra ECOs can spend their time counting them, which would make an increase in their numbers pointless. As for the stocking programs for other species, they'd have to do a lot of water testing, requiring people to be taking water samples and doing stuff in labs or else the fish they put in just end up dead before they get caught. Don't forget about the hatcheries that would need to be built and staffed. And all the beuacracy that goes along with more tickets being written, more staff and more facilities to maintain.

The cost of the fishing license would have to go up. They can barely support what they're doing now! I know it's not a lot of money for a license right now, but building hatcheries is going to end up in the millions. Then there's more trucks and boats to maintain, plus the salaries, benefits and pensions (which the ECOs definitely deserve!) on top of that.

I'm not against any of the ideas, I'd love to have a local walleye pond that gets patrolled more than once a month, I just don't see where the money would come from unless they charged a good deal more for the license.

All valid points. Ultimately I think that if the resources were better managed on all fronts, many issues could be smoothed out over time.  Nothing gets perfect overnight. And unfortunately for too long nothing had been done.  But we need a starting point. Until WE come together to make our voices heard, THEY will assume they can get away with doing nothing.

[BaitBucket]

Tafts, I think a mention of biodegradable plastic baits is worth a mention. With how many fish are being caught loaded up with plastics its a matter of time before they do something drastic.

[knotreelly]

1. yes
2. yes
3. good idea
4. thanks for what your trying to do. john

[big scott]

-no
-no
-yes

[tafts ta]

-no
-no
-yes

Do you mind if I ask why you wouldn't support creel limits? I just want to accurately gauge what people are thinking.
I see thread after thread year after year about people composing about certain people raping our lakes of fish. Unfortunately 90% of the time those people have actually not broken any law. I've seen states with a 50 perch limit per person... High, but it still sets a limit.

[Svengalli]

I don't have a horse in this race but good on you.  As for hatchery costs, there are hatcheries already existing that you could import from.  It would likely be far easier and more cost effective to increase the output of an existing facility, even if it means expansion at the existing site, than to build a new one.  A cost sharing scenario and/or PPP would be an effective means.

[big scott]

Do people actually keep 50 perch? 40? 30? 20?
Like bass I believe there are plenty of perch,pickerel,blue gill in practically every swamp/pond in the state.
As far as maintaining a sustainable fishery for future generations, well, only time will tell. If these or any other species are ever threatened we can all be assured proper protective measures will be enacted and enforced( more epo's). I just don't believe that time is now.
.... I practiced catch and release today  , the fishing was good.

[MrE1979]

Yeah we need a size limit on Bass.  I think if the fish is OVER 19" it should be put back.  With the amount of time it takes a fish to reach that size it should be put back in to breed.  A 5lb Bass in Massachusetts waters is anywhere from 25-30yrs old.  Those Bass deserve to live not be mounted on a wall or fried up by someone.  It would be a totally different story if it was like Florida or another southern state where a 5lb bass is 5-6 years old. 

I also feel that there should be more EPO's and they should RESPOND when they are called about something illegal going on.  They have no problem going to derbys and asking everyone there to see a fishing license but when they are called about something illegal they don't respond and they had 4 hours to respond,  I got a "We will see if there is someone who can get out there". 

Good luck with them but unless you are a lobbyist with tons of money they will yup you till the cows come home and do nothing.

Do people actually keep 50 perch? 40? 30? 20?
Like bass I believe there are plenty of perch,pickerel,blue gill in practically every swamp/pond in the state.
As far as maintaining a sustainable fishery for future generations, well, only time will tell. If these or any other species are ever threatened we can all be assured proper protective measures will be enacted and enforced( more epo's). I just don't believe that time is now.
.... I practiced catch and release today  , the fishing was good.

Have you conducted studies on the numbers of those fish?
Cause why do something to ENSURE a sustainable fishery for future generations?  We will find out it is to late to fix it, then what?

Congrats 

[Tmuskie]

1. yes
2. yes
3. good idea

I'd definately like to see more officers out in the field. There are certain places I used to fish that got ruined, do to people keeping everything they caught. Most of the perpatrators were also unlicensed.

[tafts ta]

Do people actually keep 50 perch? 40? 30? 20?
Like bass I believe there are plenty of perch,pickerel,blue gill in practically every swamp/pond in the state.
As far as maintaining a sustainable fishery for future generations, well, only time will tell. If these or any other species are ever threatened we can all be assured proper protective measures will be enacted and enforced( more epo's). I just don't believe that time is now.
.... I practiced catch and release today  , the fishing was good.

I'm not sure how much fishing you do in western mass scott. There are certain groups who have been fishing here over recent years literally leaving with hundreds and on some days thousands of fish per day depending on how many showed up. I took a picture one day to show to to the EPO of the back of an S-10 truck literally full of bluegill and perch. I'd estimate close to. 5-6 thousand fish from a group of about 18-25 guys fishing on a lake.  There was nothing she could do as they hadn't broken a law.
You might like to think that is an extreme example, I would too. But in varying degrees we see it in the berks from first ice to last ice every year. 

Yes I still have that picture and yes I plan on showing the senators.

And no...the fishing in said lake has never been the same since. 

[striper50trout]

1.   Yes/maybe.   Every body of water in the state has different thresholds of what can be taken. There are certain ponds/lakes that can support heavy harvesting ( and they would benefit from them) and others that are a shell of what they used to be. I understand that it would be impossible to set different regs for each pond/lake in the state. We need more fish surveys to determine what is acceptable statewide
2. YES!!!
3.  YES, I love to fish for trout but whats up with the pike program? We see a few still hanging around  ( AND REPRODUCING) in my area but nothing is going on with stocking.  Please!!??   As far as walleye.....I dont live in an area where walleye can be introduced but would love to see them have a plan for stocking them.

[ICEHOLE]

Creel limits on perch and panfish really would depend on populations of fish. I dont keep any or know anyone who does. But these fish seem to thrive without limits. If it aint broke dont fix it.
bass however I kind of agree with ed, I think only certain sizes should be kept. maybe to help with stunted bass problems. But again i dont think too many bass are taken as it is
More epos couldnt hurt but I dont think its necessary.  Responsible sportsman can pick up the slack and report what they see
And im all for working on fisheries, I dont even care if I have to pay more.  Im 28 and would love to see fishing get better in my life, not worse. Sick of hearing about how "back in my day, they were big and plentiful" no offence 

[big scott]

I'm not sure how much fishing you do in western mass scott. There are certain groups who have been fishing here over recent years literally leaving with hundreds and on some days thousands of fish per day depending on how many showed up. I took a picture one day to show to to the EPO of the back of an S-10 truck literally full of bluegill and perch. I'd estimate close to. 5-6 thousand fish from a group of about 18-25 guys fishing on a lake.  There was nothing she could do as they hadn't broken a law.
You might like to think that is an extreme example, I would too. But in varying degrees we see it in the berks from first ice to last ice every year. 

Yes I still have that picture and yes I plan on showing the senators.

And no...the fishing in said lake has never been the same since.

Well of course I'm opposed to that !!  Sure people keep fish, but I was thinking more like, a dozen! Not hundreds, let alone thousands !! What the hell do they do with them

[MrE1979]

Creel limits on perch and panfish really would depend on populations of fish. I dont keep any or know anyone who does. But these fish seem to thrive without limits. If it aint broke dont fix it.
bass however I kind of agree with ed, I think only certain sizes should be kept. maybe to help with stunted bass problems. But again i dont think too many bass are taken as it is
More epos couldnt hurt but I dont think its necessary.  Responsible sportsman can pick up the slack and report what they see
And im all for working on fisheries, I dont even care if I have to pay more.  Im 28 and would love to see fishing get better in my life, not worse. Sick of hearing about how "back in my day, they were big and plentiful" no offence 

Matt I have the number programmed into my phone and when I have called and reported issues the response is ALWAYS "We will TRY to send someone to check it out".  How about "Ok someone is on the way." 

[tafts ta]

Matt I have the number programmed into my phone and when I have called and reported issues the response is ALWAYS "We will TRY to send someone to check it out".  How about "Ok someone is on the way."

Bingo

[masspike]

I would like to see more brook trout habitat or a increased effort to make them a sustainable habitat. Native brook trout numbers have gone down and they are a true native species of this area. A pike and pure strain musky program or hatchery would also help bring people to this state to fish. We could always use more game wardens I would like to see a lot more of them

[fishermantim]

I don't have a horse in this race but good on you.  As for hatchery costs, there are hatcheries already existing that you could import from.  It would likely be far easier and more cost effective to increase the output of an existing facility, even if it means expansion at the existing site, than to build a new one.  A cost sharing scenario and/or PPP would be an effective means.

2X EXACTLY...the state already buys their trout from Vermont, so it makes sense.

[flaggs]

Tafts
Great opportunity! Congrats and thanks for asking… I am deeply engaged with the NEFMC which is "managing" (some would say)  the GoM ground fish fisheries and HMS fisheries and so I don’t have a lot of fresh water open experience, (45+yrs on ice though). But a few things come to mind that apply to any fishery salt or fresh.

1.  "I feel there should by creel limits implemented…"
I only support bag and size regulations if a fishery is 30-40 % below a sustainable level . The trick is basing this number on solid science used to assess the particular species and body of water.  The science is way less complicated in the majority of lakes and ponds in Mass; however, the larger bodies of water may require  different approaches for accurate assessment.  Then, see #2 below.
Bottom line for me on #1. It depends on the root problem and its severity, if there is one.

2. "The Mass Environmental Police is grossly understaffed and under budgeted."
There's absolutely no more truthful and accurate statement you can make about both EPO and DCR resources in Mass. I believe the background info here is understanding what % of our licensing fees go directly toward the management of our fresh water fisheries. (100% of our Salt licenses go to mass department of wildlife and fisheries, not a 'general fund'). Having managed a large federal technology program with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, refuge law enforcement - I can tell you one thing certain,  its not just mass and other states; it’s the SAME issue at the federal level and so if someone can figure this one out, please! GO!.
Bottom line for me on #2: It's a harder problem to solve than what meets the eye. I have always said, we (fishermen - fresh or salt) need leadership that were, and still are fishermen.  not likely.

3. "More should be done with the stocking programs in this state..."
The easy thing here is refer to number 1 and number 2. as they both most definitely apply here as well. Some color;   In my opinion, I believe this is an educational opportunity for our public, charter, and private schools. I don’t know how realistic it would be, but my point is you need both staff and funding for such a program. It would be interesting to poke at this a bit to see if the partnership could be monetary as well.
Bottom Line for me on #3: There has to be a way to continue to invest at the same rate in which the sport is growing. Partnerships/sponsorships etc. may be an option.


I've been invited to Bakers inaugural ball on the 8th of January and in the recent past, have had some good conversation with Charlie about the GOM Cod and Haddock  fisheries (he understands the good science, bad science mantra) and I will tell you this, he says the right stuff... but like anything else, actions speak louder than words. Best of luck with your opportunity to be heard. It's guys like you that demand change and the only way to get it, is to speak knowledgeably and be heard. we all know it’s not easy… we have to grind and grind and when things get just a little better, grind some more! Thanks again... your passion is commendable.

Good Luck
Flaggs!

aka Capt Rog

[fishermantim]

Yes, because you can't tell me that a guy or group of guys, eats every fish they catch! It's like a child being shown a bowl of candy, and after being told they can only have a couple pieces, ends up taking as much as he/she can carry! Just because you can catch that many fish doesn't mean you should keep that many fish!

Yes and No. Sure, an increase in field officers sounds like a sound idea, but at what cost? The state closed many of their fisheries and cut their field staff and spend $$ on obtaining land. The Marine fisheries began requiring a $10 salt water fishing "permit", and we are still waiting to see an increase in field staff. We did see a new EPO boat and SUVs, but that must have been from some "other" money...RIGHT?

No. Massachusetts ALREADY had a slew of fisheries and closed them because of cost and the need of $$ for land acquisition.
They already buy most of their fish from other states, so it's not far fetched to say they could add other species.
The problem will be whether these new species could survive in our waters and would they displace an existing species?
Frankly, by adding new fish to out stocking program, they would only be asking for increased poaching problems, and with the prior two topics, it would destined for failure.

[five fathoms]

Tafts,

  I applaud your initiative.
  I am not opposed to measures meant to improve our fisheries. I'm concerned about how far in the other direction this could possibly swing. Consider the extremes.  I balk at too much intervention and involvement; you never know what fanciful and ludicrous notions someone may try to impose. I fear for the loss of what I cherish and am accustomed to. Intensive regulation could conceivably ruin fishing in Mass.  I shudder at the thought of sportfishing becoming so rigidly legislated as to have lost all of its charm.
  The decisions made should not be arbitrary or implemented without the unequivocal consent of MA anglers. And some contentious topics are sure to breed division and strife (ie use of soft plastics). How to hurdle that?
  I do not credit politicians and officials with enough temperance, restraint, or prudence to be trusted with this. If they wrest control of this, we will probably regret it.
  To address the topics you mentioned:
  Instating a creel limit on panfish. I support this, provided  ample advance notice is declared, and those most guilty of flagrant overharvest are apprised of the impending change. (We were given a 2 year advance notice before the lead ban took effect. Something similar would be nice in this instance.)
You and others on the site have been outspoken on the subject of the much-reviled "Russians". You deplore the damage they have inflicted on local waterbodies, and are taking steps to preempt further damage, and possibly restore suppressed fisheries to their former glory. Good for you.
 Now, that level of harvest in unjustifiable and unsustainable. I have yet to see anyone starving in the U.S. There is no need to deplete a lake simply because it's possible. It demonstrates a wanton disregard for the fishery. With that said, these folks should not be set up to be victims. While their perspective on harvest if skewed, and needs ammending, in the end, they are also outdoorsmen. I assume they pay for their licenses just as everyone else does. They are drawn to the pursuit of fish, an attraction common to us all.
  Someone may contend that ignorance is no excuse. I don't buy that, in this case. One can't obey the law, if one does not know the law. Willfull transgression, on the other hand, is deserving of punishment. Which segues neatly into the next topic...
  A bolstered and more active environmental presence is a good thing, provided Mass does not become a police state. The law-abiding majority should not be needlessly badgered in the course of enforcing regulations. We should not be confronted every time we venture onto the water. ( The exception being only to verify the possession of a valid license.) We should not be objects of suspicion. A detached, "hands-off" mode of policing would be ideal, wherein law enforcement intervenes when and if a violation is occurring, not merely to justify its existence and expense.
  Diversified stocking. I support this, but again, with reservations. There have been times when I was envious of Connecticut's stocking policies. I believe that state furnishes its anglers with walleye, trout, catfish, and maybe pike. We only get the trout and a shadow of the pike. Still, I'm grateful to be a resident of Mass. I'm legally allowed to pursue trout and bass year-round, from ice-up to ice-up. There doesn't have to be an off season. As a multi-species angler, I would welcome the opportunity to target a new and previously uncaught species. The novelty of a new fish to catch will probably be a significant draw for many. I worry that this could conceivably devolve into something like our pike scene. (This is only my secondhand interpretation; I don't fish for pike. I only know what I've read on this site.) The  fisheries capable of supporting stocking would be plagued with insane fishing pressure, with crowds and clowns abounding,  which would not make for a satisfactory experience. How could this be avoided? How would the fish be doled out?

[flaggs]

All valid points. Ultimately I think that if the resources were better managed on all fronts, many issues could be smoothed out over time.  Nothing gets perfect overnight. And unfortunately for too long nothing had been done.  But we need a starting point. Until WE come together to make our voices heard, THEY will assume they can get away with doing nothing.

Flaggs!

[gof1sh]

Yes
Yes
Yes

[airplanejig]

tafts   years ago when the state  started stocking tiger muskie  / pike they did it for  2 reasons   1st was to introduce a new  hard fighting  gamefish to anglers of the commonwealth.  2nd was to  control  an overpopulated panfish population  such as bluegill pumpkinseed yellow perch  etc. It worked to some extent  as  pike  muskies  were chewing on them pretty good.  Now there are very few  tiger muskies in  say  spy pond  and  lake quannapowitt  and  few pike in  Charles  river watershed. newton Waltham places lke that.    Instead  we have  a population of fisherman who now target those species  and have them for dinner. What I have noticed  is  an increase in the size of largemouth bass being taken in these ponds   due to the reduction in  the panfish population    I agrre with others  that  some lakes or ponds might need a little more restrictions  But  generally  panfish will take care of themselves   When is the last time anyone was happy pulling lots of tiny  4 inch perch thru a hole.  Let them get thinned out in lakes  and ponds that need to be thinned out,Dont worry they will make more   quick   Ps  am definitely in favor of restoring all wild brook trout habitat in the state.  And One more thing I have learned  be  careful what you wish for. I remember  going to all cod  spawning closure meetings  afew years  back   Now we cant  even fish for them  THE SACRED COD massachusets

[formerSDguy]

So I grew up in a State (South Dakota) that took these topics very serious. I think limits on fish are a must if you want to get serious about management. From what I've seen so far Mass doesn't put the management of their fisheries as in a high priority category. If this State wants to become a destination for sportsmen then you would have to make some sweeping changes. Limits in this State would need to be managed lake by lake for a while. Stunted lakes would need to be fished out, drained and set aside. Slot limits are important as well. The way the Midwest has started to manage lakes more effectively is by putting length limitations on high producing fish and growing fish (walleye specifically). Yellow perch are limited to 10 per day.

I would say I support more management but I don't think that's done through more policing. What concerns me more than anything is the mercury levels in water in Mass. If people want to take a pick up load of fish that you are supposed to limit your portion due to high merc content, apply Darwin's rule.

I think they should look at some States that do it well. South Dakota is vastly different than Mass I understand but the pressure on fisheries is 200% higher in SD and the lakes produce big healthy fish. They don't have near the resources but they started to manage 20 yrs ago and wow has it paid off. This is an investment none of us should shrug. It's for our kids.

[F.R.E.D.]

1. Yes, length and limits should be imposed based on individual bodies of water. If the state needs some numbers ask us, make a bi-annual creel survey mandatory for licence purchase.

2. Yes, I would like to see more EPOs.  I'm in the woods or on the water every weekend, normally in Masswildlife's backyard. It is embarrassing that I cannot recall the last time I was asked to produce my license. I would gladly fill any open posts!

3. Yes the stocking programs need to be adjusted. Put and take does not cut it for me.

I look to other states; Maine, SD, Texas and Florida and wonder why Mass cannot emulate. Access is terrible, ramps are in rough shape, trash everywhere, no hunting on Sundays,  no bait or dogs for bear, no leg hold traps and no enforcement of the current laws. Plain and simple it's a no fun state. I'm constantly disappointed by our elected officials and have zero confidence that they will make any changes.

[tafts ta]

tafts   years ago when the state  started stocking tiger muskie  / pike they did it for  2 reasons   1st was to introduce a new  hard fighting  gamefish to anglers of the commonwealth.  2nd was to  control  an overpopulated panfish population  such as bluegill pumpkinseed yellow perch  etc. It worked to some extent  as  pike  muskies  were chewing on them pretty good.  Now there are very few  tiger muskies in  say  spy pond  and  lake quannapowitt  and  few pike in  Charles  river watershed. newton Waltham places lke that.    Instead  we have  a population of fisherman who now target those species  and have them for dinner. What I have noticed  is  an increase in the size of largemouth bass being taken in these ponds   due to the reduction in  the panfish population    I agrre with others  that  some lakes or ponds might need a little more restrictions  But  generally  panfish will take care of themselves   When is the last time anyone was happy pulling lots of tiny  4 inch perch thru a hole.  Let them get thinned out in lakes  and ponds that need to be thinned out,Dont worry they will make more   quick   Ps  am definitely in favor of restoring all wild brook trout habitat in the state.  And One more thing I have learned  be  careful what you wish for. I remember  going to all cod  spawning closure meetings  afew years  back   Now we cant  even fish for them  THE SACRED COD massachusets

Pete, I agree with almost all of this but again I say, start slow, allow changes to be made and allow then the laws to catch up. Nothing gets done overnight well, it takes time to create the appropriate policy and then enforce it.
Just ask one of our friends in common Richie... I first met him the Day I popped his Ice cherry on a guided trip. I took him to a lake that was teeming with Perch and Bluegill and Pickerel and virtually every one was a Bronze pin quality fish. We used to bring 7-8 dozen bait, use most twice or more, and run out before sundown. Now only 5 years later due to a lack of a limit on what people are LEGALLY keeping, it's rare to catch a Pickerel over 20 inches and you might spend all day to use two dozen bait once. Furthermore jigging for panfish has slowed to the point where almost all are tossbacks and it's rare to catch a gill over 9 inches anymore.

As for the Sacred Cod....Yeah...It really Su@#s that they've virtually closed the fishery to try to protect it. I know a lot of guys are extremely upset and are having their livelihood threatened by this. So this will be an unpopular statement but does anyone remember where the Striped bass was 30 years ago? Look where it is now.

Maybe...Just Maybe... if Fisheries and lowered limits or tried to protect the species of Cod BEFORE it became critical, they wouldn't have had to shut down the fishery almost completely and it would still be viable for people to make their living off it.

It boils down to this.
The Commercial fishery in Mass rules and it has a HUGE LOUD lobby so they created their own problem by not allowing anything to get done for so long that now the only solution is painful.
We as freshwater fishermen have NO ONE to make our voices heard except ourselves and if WE keep staying silent then we have no right to complain about the outcome. I am sorry, but I refuse to do that. This is how I MAKE MY LIVING, so I will stand up before it's too late.

It's great that we all get on here and mafishfinder and complain to each other, but something needs to be said to the right people. The people who talk to themselves the most talk FOR themselves the least....not me.

[TheBigPickerel]

1. Yes limits on panfish across the state. Make it an easy regulation to understand.  50 fish in combination or a five gallon bucket full.
  I have fished in New York and I find the lake specific or county specific regulations a pain, as I always have to read the regulation book each time I fish.

2. I think we need more enforcement out there. But I hate having an EPO check my license and looking into the windows of my car to try and find something illegal, "police fishing".  It would be nice to go back to wearing our license on our clothing so the EPO can see it a 1/4 mile away with binoculars.  I would like to see more enforcement with regards to littering, and people trashing beautiful places.

3. I think we need to focus efforts on stocking native species like brook trout to places they may reproduce, rivers and streams.   Walleye are pretty much only found in the CT river, I would like to catch more walleye, stock some walleye. Bass may not be native, but are great for catch and release in ponds, I think we should stock them in highly pressured ponds. The bass can help build a sustainable population.