Any of you guys that hold a commercial rod & reel license will find Zach Harvey's Editor's Log in this week's Fisherman quite interesting. Although I take umbridge to pretty much the whole article, a couple of points really jumped at me. Since being displaced from my job and trade of 30 years by Clinton's free trade antics ( nobody subsidized me or got up on a soapbox ala John Kerry to declare that the fleet had to be protected. It was THEIR heritage, although my trade, hand engraving on precious metals,) unlike net fishing, has a tradition and heritage that dates back to the days of Paul Revere.
Since then, instead of one job, I've got five. Bait shop, writing, fluke rig business, chartering and comm. rod& reel fishing. I do not R&R for "Huckleberry money" but as part of my income by which I support my home & family.
There are few "stockbrokers"', as mentioned in the article, on my dock doing much comm. rod & reeling although their are a number of anglers that couldn't run a boat without it. This judgemental article seems to have little consideration for these guys who for whatever reason ( Children, college funds, everyday living) should not be able to participate in boating and fishing and by their elimination, make it only a rich man's activity.
The most outrageous element of the article proposes that a comm. R&R fisherman should be required to show that a certain percentage of their income (40, 50, 75%) be generated by comm. R&R fishing. If not, no license. IN WHAT OTHER TRADE ARE YOU REQUIRED BY LAW TO SHOW A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME IS GENERATED BY WHATEVER JOB IS TO BE ISSUED A LICENSE? If a doctor has investments that earn him as much or more than his listed occupation, can he no longer practice. Does an electrician have to make the biggest part of his income from that trade in order to maintain his license? A plumber? A lawyer?
Doesn't this constitute a bit of "unbalance" in the law as it pertains to different groups. This is not a rant to pit comm. R&R's against recs. nor is it an attack on Zach who I've worked with as well as fished with. He's entitled to his opinion as am I. It is rather to show that every coin has two sides and that speaking in generalities can taint the actual issue.
Catch'em up, Capt. ThomCat

Well thought out response... Nice to have you on the boards.

T/C

last thing I read last nite //before crashing ;;

much of what he said may be true / BWTF .... In the USA >. I believe ... he has the freedom of speech & to some degree I thought be had some rights ;;
WGAF .. what some one does in life // if thet don,t hurt anyone ;;;
I,ll agree with him // that the RI bass quota system makes /actually making money / 75% impossible // if done legally >>>>>>>>>>>> with the 4 fish /then 3 fish max limit per day //& the way the just open & shut done the window // been catch before with fish in the truck >> because the market S/D @ Midnight / who knew ;;
classic example // they closed the JUNE opening / down two weeks early .. no reason ;;
then they opened [[3 fish]] on labor day weekend // if ya remember // it rained & blew the S $%^&* out of the water // they shut it down in 5 days anyway >>>>>>> then the opened again @ the end of the September // & they couldn,t get the quota filled // it was open right up into mid october // My dealer was getting very little fish //// I sold a 25# one day @ 1pM at that time it was the only bass brought in // a few days later I sold about 5.:30 they only had one other fisherman that day ;;
they told me when the quota was finnaly filled it was draggers ??????????
If you don,t fish & better yet live close to where your catching >>>>>>>>> PLUS you better be near your dealer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your not making money /// pure & simple ;;;
But that,s our choice // & when I was full time digging with a no limit .there was alot of times it SOA when digging sucks ;;

After reading that edtorial [sp] it seemed more to stir up %$%$%$%$ than make a resonable statment ;;;

I was throwing them back //when his dad hadn,t even made him >>>>>>>>>. toliet paper //

back to bed ><><><:wiggle:

I see all of your points, gentlemen--especially you, Clammer, because you were in fact releasing fish before I was born.

Major point I was after was that some guys who hold multispecies licenses have no business with them, and a good number of these same "commercials" have a good deall to say from the recreational side of the fence on the subject of commercial fishing.

Full-fledged commercial vessels must comply with some outlandish safety regs--survival suits, life rafts, epirbs and a variety of other gear just to keep fishing, while quite a few r-and-r guys claim commercial status without having to meet many if any of the commercial standards.

Look, I know plenty of guys who subsidize incomes with bass, fluke, scup, sea bass. Most of these guys fish in one capacity--commercial or sport--or another on a full-time basis. You'll note I mentioned "fishing" in the percentage-of-livelihood argument, a term that could be taken in a number of directions.

It is merely my opinion, and if any of y'all would like to write a formal response, I'd clear editorial space to run it. To be frank, I see part of my role as editor to present some outrageuos ideas once in a while to spark some debate.

This paticular entry was designed to stick in some craws--all I'm hoping for now is some actual written feedback in article or letter form.

As to the economic side, I can't see any logic to a 10- or 20- or 30-fish a day bass quota in Mass, a chunk that quickly sends the price into free-fall, where guys literally have to limit out to turn a buck. It irks me when scup prices, after week one of a seasonal opening, go from a buck to 10 cents. I start to wonder if there isn't some better way to manage the quota, where less fish would die for more profit.

Commercioal fishing is becoming increasingly impossible for small operations, while huge 100-plus foot draggers that need to stock out 25,000 pounds just to avoid a "broker" are still mopping up as much weight as they can, making the profit not on quality of the delivered product, but on sheer volume.

That's why so few fisheries are deemed sustainable, economically.

The editorial was just a small, microcosmic example of some much larger problem with the way our fisheries are regulated.

Please, somebody reading this inflammatory #$%^ send me a letter! It's winter. Let's talk about some of these issues.

e-mail:

zharvey@thefisherman.com

or

postal mail

ZH
The Fisherman
6 Avery St.
Mystic, CT 06355

Since then, instead of one job, I've got five. Bait shop, writing, fluke rig business, chartering and comm. rod& reel fishing. I do not R&R for "Huckleberry money" but as part of my income by which I support my home & family.
There are few "stockbrokers"', as mentioned in the article, on my dock doing much comm. rod & reeling although their are a number of anglers that couldn't run a boat without it. This judgemental article seems to have little consideration for these guys who for whatever reason ( Children, college funds, everyday living) should not be able to participate in boating and fishing and by their elimination, make it only a rich man's activity.
The most outrageous element of the article proposes that a comm. R&R fisherman should be required to show that a certain percentage of their income (40, 50, 75%) be generated by comm. R&R fishing. If not, no license. IN WHAT OTHER TRADE ARE YOU REQUIRED BY LAW TO SHOW A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME IS GENERATED BY WHATEVER JOB IS TO BE ISSUED A LICENSE? If a doctor has investments that earn him as much or more than his listed occupation, can he no longer practice. Does an electrician have to make the biggest part of his income from that trade in order to maintain his license? A plumber? A lawyer?
Doesn't this constitute a bit of "unbalance" in the law as it pertains to different groups. This is not a rant to pit comm.


You may not have soap-boxed about the loss of silver-smithing, but your stance smacks of the self-righteous stuff other commercials use to defend their historical involvement in the fishery.

PLease note that when you're going to reference an editorial, you really ougth to quote it accurately. And those who want to participate in this discussion should probably read the thing first lest all context be lost. I didn't level this thing at stockbrokers exclusively. Nor did I suggest X% of income had to come from COMMERCIAL fishing. I said "fishing."

I don't see a problem with charter guys supplementing their fishing income with more fishing income in the form of r & r fish, provided those fish aren't landed with paying customers on board.

No, you will not find income requirements in other trades, but then again, none that you mentioned involve direct harvest of federally and state-managed natural resources. A plumber doesn't have to harvest living pipes, a dentist doesn't break out a dredge to haul up a new chair.

With fish stocks strapped as they are, I don't think the free-enterprise/ hard-working American argument holds much water. That would work better if licenses were still available.

Look, we all struggle--yes, me too--to make a living. It sucks. I work two and sometimes three jobs to stay afloat. Does being part of the increasing ranks of the working poor give me some right to have fisheries permits?

Just some more food for thought....

No, you will not find income requirements in other trades, but then again, none that you mentioned involve direct harvest of federally and state-managed natural resources. ..

none of those do, but in forestry they do(Not the income part but)


Is it possible to post the editorial in a post so we can all read it?

Z/H

if I send ya a letter will ya put it in the Fisherman ...word for word ????:think:

The ocean fishery is supposed to be managed for the greater good of the public. This greater good includes financial and human good. To accomplish this you first need to maintain the core stocks at a level where it maximizes this greater good and than distribute the surplus stocks to the users where the greatest gain can be made. In some cases the commercial fishermen meets this need. This occurs when the sale of fish and the supply of food to the public meet’s the greater need. In other cases giving the surplus fish to the recreational fisherman meets this need. To me this is the case for stripers because the financial gain from recreational fishing far exceeds what the commercial fishery could deliver even if they got the whole stock. Plus, from the human standpoint the number of people who get to enjoy recreational fishing for stripers in itself meet the need.

I’m not against commercial fishing by any means but I do not believe they have any additional rights to the fishery. In any case, there is no way the present form of commercial rod and reel fishing in Mass meets any of the needs. It’s nothing short of a license to steal for a large number, not all, of the participants. What it does do is send a bunch of money to a Mass fishery commission and allows some people to get around the limits the recs face. I have even less support for the person selling fish just so he can operate his boat. Learn to surf fish.

Oh yeah, I usually keep out of these discussions but like many others the winters taking affect. Smile everybody has an opinion. One more thing, Mike Toole is not my real name, he's really a nice guy and if you meet him be sure to say hello.

M/T

very well stated :::claps:

You write a weekly ad filled magazine to encourage fishing to the masses, how does that affect the stocks?

GLASS HOUSES DUDE, you just make money a different way off the fish!!!!

fishsmith, That was the best response of all.

Again.

Send me something in writing. All it requires from the standpoint of editorial guidelines is that you attach a real name and address to you thoughts, and I'll gladly publish any and all comments. The beauty of this format is anonymity--the trick of brick and mortar publishing is that there needs to nbe accountability.

Zach Harvey

BTW- IOf you think I'm profiting massively from what I do, you've got another thing coming...

Wow,
You guys might want to lay off Zach....not trying any threats, but like Mr T. said, "Don't make the Bombas mad!"
Ok I'm out.
Don't want to make this the "in" flamewar for 2007.
Rick

OK
I have been considering obtaining a R&R license. I fish enough and catch enough, I believe, to earn enough to cover my recreational fishing costs rather easily, especially if I get out in the first week of the season when the price is still $2+. I live in a city with a fish auction right down the street at the dock. I have a full time job and do not "need" the income so much as I "want" it to cover my cost of gear/bait.
Excuse me if I missed the point of this thread but,
My question is, who could I possibly be hurting by obtaining a license?

OK

My question is, who could I possibly be hurting by obtaining a license?

maybe just yourself trading in your recreation for a job and then theres no longer a seperation...
and it looses some of the "fun" of it.


just thinkin.... carry on.. :read:

"I work two and sometimes three jobs to stay afloat" ** Zulu...

Here's my 2sense about it -
I don't see anything wrong with applying for a comm license and using it however you need to. Unfortunately that opens the door to however you'd like to, as well.
I read the article and I have to say...you were quite bias. I don't really think the guy who fishes to fill his gas tank is severely impacting the "quota". More to the point however, if the state issues him a license in which he pays for, he inherits the rights that go along with it.

"It doesn't sit well with me that say a stockbroker, say, or a plumber or the editor of a weekly fishing magazine, for that matter, is working against the quota full-time fisherman are living with".

:hs: ...I'm not sure if your write-up is geared toward protecting the resource or protecting the profession of a commercial fisherman. My interpretation of your article leads me to believe that the scale tips toward the protection of the profession. In that regard, I strongly disagree. If I am a professional painter struggling for work, can I be upset that an editor of a weekly fishing magazine moonlights as a painter at night? He is, in a sense, impacting my profession, is he not? Is cutting your own grass...infringing upon a landscaper's profession? Am I reaching? To you maybe, but to me...if were talking about professions and making money or taking someone else's money (even by affecting quota limitations) it's all the same.

Going back to my first quoted sentence, are those 2 or 3 other jobs that you sometimes have to work in the same industry? I'll guess no. Most people struggle through life and have to do whatever it takes to get that edge. If that edge means that the primary commercial fisherman needs to moonlight when quotas have been met, than so be it. One way or the other, the laws are still in place to protect the resources. If that edge means lessening my costs to go fishing by buying a comm. license, then so be it. I know guys that LOVE fishing, but gas prices last year, kept them home more often than not. If they could curb those costs by doing something they love to do and get a little coin for it...why not?

For the record: I am not bashing your article. I enjoy a good debate and look forward to every issue of The Fisherman. Keep up the GREAT work.


...I hope I didn't pissOFF the Bombas...:hidin:

maybe just yourself trading in your recreation for a job and then theres no longer a seperation...
and it looses some of the "fun" of it.


just thinkin.... carry on.. :read:

I see your point Raven but in my case it is just not likely. My passion for fishing could never be compromised by any amount of disappointment measured in unearned dollars. Simply buying a license does not make fishing a "job".


spinn

I lifted this from another fishing board. Just seemed like a good piece for this discussion. Ken, I hope you don't mind.


"Catching a big fish is a wonderful experience for a fisherman.
I like it and always will.

I like to see other people catch big fish.
It is natural.

Angling is perhaps the right word to describe fishing to me at least.
The word sport-fishing carries the energy of business.
Business is business.

I have fished commercially and have sold fish.
I have been a mate, a charter boat captain and a guide. I have made my living doing these things in the past. I have killed many fish for money.

Times have changed at least for me they have.

People are much more aware of the fragility of our oceans and the long reaching effects of our past actions upon its health.

When I was young I did not give much thought to long term consequences of my actions. I am not young anymore and I have become aware of consequences.

The reality is that the ocean is a finite resource.

Everyone takes what they need and their need is subjective. The commercial fisherman has a need and he pursues it.
The sport-fishing industry seeks its own particular needs and those of us who fish for personal reasons seek to satisfy those personal needs.
None of them are more important than any other.

Lots of different needs out there and all of them are heartfelt and important to each of us.

Fishing is a way of life to many people including me.
What is excessive and wasteful to some is normal and wonderful to others.

If the ocean and the stripers in it were infinite in numbers then everyone would be satisfied.
It isn't of course.

I do not know if man can figure out how to Shepard the fishery.

I do not think he can with all the various elements of self interest. I think it is too complex and too political.

The fish are going to suffer and because of that all the various factions are going to lose their subjective prize in the long run.

We like to think that we are wise like Solomon and can regulate and fix and renew and do what we want any time we want because it - feels good - to think that.

It always feels good to ignore what we do not want to see.

I can not see a moral high ground position.
I can see various points of view based on self interest.
Perhaps that is the way it will always be.

Is there a lowest common denominator point of self interest that everyone can agree too?

The regulators want to regulate. It is their whole world.
The commercial faction wants to sell wild fish.
The farmers want fish farms to be the only source for marketed fish.
The sport-fishing groups want to sell adventure trips and trophies.
Everybody wants everything tailor made for their point of view.
Is there a universal answer?
I do not think that everyone will get what they want.
Stripers have a price on their head.
They always will.
Different reasons for that price but a price
none the less.
That is the way it is.

I love to fish.
I always will.
Fishing is fishing.
Politics is Politics.

They are different.
This is a political war and the fish are the the financial resource that is being fought over.

Make no mistake, no one cares about the fish except as a mask - to hide and disguise - their self interest behind.
That self interest may be a pension for a biologist or a government job for a commercial lobbyist or a bigger boat for a charter boat captain or more money for regulating rules for a fish bureaucrat.
It is always the money.

Nature has her ways of settling disputes that are outside of the control of man.

Look what happened to the buffalo and the buffalo hunters.
The same might happen to stripers.
If it does go this way the price on the stripers heads will disappear and with it the self interest of all the various factions and perhaps no one will care about them anymore except those of us who do care about them.


At that point the self interest of those who enjoy simply fishing for stripers wins.

The fish will recover because they will be of no value to anyone except those who love nature.

The pressure will be off.

What is a hundred years to nature?
A non-event in the fullness of natures time.

The stripers will survive and outlast everyones self interest.
Man's lifetime is very short."

-Kenney Abrames

If you read The Fisherman from the late 70s you will find this thread is deja vu. Commercial fisherman and charter captains regretting all the big fish they kept, The Fisherman even did a poll on if there should be a saltwater license.

I liked that.
Kenny has a NIBesque way of writing.
Kinda long
He is right though..
We tend to be sellfish to a point.
The coin has 2 heads.
An mans time is small in the grand scheme of things.
May as well catch as many as I can while I'm here...
.
.

Before them G/D comms get em all...
:D

fishsmith, That was the best response of all.




Those who live in glass houses should get dressed in the basement..

FWIW, Here's the text:

ON THE FENCE
At one of the boat shows last year, we were situated right next to a supplier of commercial fishing gear, mainly foul-weather gear. At one point, a short, saggy man with a generous waistline and penny loafers approached our neighbor’s booth and announced that he was “a commercial fisherman.”

My glance immediately shot to his hands, which, in confirmation of my suspicions, proved to be callus-free and apparently dish-pan soft. I walked out of the Fisherman booth before I lapsed into hysterics, and saw Jason Jarvis moving in the same direction with a knowing grin creeping across his face.

I’ve seen scenario plenty of times in my home state of Rhode Island and also in Massachusetts, where there is a large fleet of commercial striped bass permit holders. Some years back, Rhode Island opened up a “multispecies” commercial license that was open to all, provided they could foot the $300 annual fee (which has since gone up).

Many of the would-be commercial fishermen I knew who forked over the money with intentions to actually become full-time fishermen let their licenses lapse—not because they wanted to part with the permit, but because, struggling to stay financially afloat during winters as fishermen, they didn’t have the folding green available when the bill came due.

The result is that a high percentage of the quote-unquote commercial hook-and-line permit holders are guys with lucrative full-time jobs, day jobs, so to speak who own boats and summer in South County.

Because, as more than one high-liner in the commercial pin-hook fishery has warned, “you’re not going to make it rod-and-reeling,” I’d venture a guess that the two primary functions of the multi-species license (viewed on an average) are (1) to enable boat owners to purchase fuel at a commercial rate and (2) to allow said boat owners to use their vessels as tax shelters.

I only know a handful of legitimate pin-hookers who can amass a stack of landings slips that resemble a decent annual income. The other guys land enough fish in a year’s time to offset fuel bills and, some days, walk off the dock with a little Huckleberry money.

This situation is a case of the state living with the legacy of what was essentially a quick cash-grab in 2000 or 2001. Some licenses have gone dormant, some have been relinquished, but quite a few are still out there. It’s a pet peeve of mine, but the implications really haven’t bothered me that much until recently.

The trouble arises when the issue of regulations comes up. Next year, we’ll be facing a near-crippling cut in the overall fluke quota in Rhode Island. Yet a percentage of recreational fishermen will be able to fish under commercial regs because they hold multispecies licenses. These guys will drift uptide of charter boats, watching them discard 2-pound fluke, and throw every 14-incher that makes it over the rail into the fish boxes. They will return to the dock bragging that they landed “100 pounds” (a limit, perhaps), but the bulk of the catch will be smalls, say 14 to 16 inches. If they’re lucky, the fish house will cut them a check for 100 bucks.

In one fell swoop, they will also take 100 pounds off the allotted commercial quota, which, frankly, doesn’t look like it’s going to be much anyway. I’m not one to sing the praises of dragging, but I do know and respect a good number of people who fish commercially as their sole source of income. It doesn’t sit well with me that a stockbroker, say, or a plumber or the editor of a weekly fishing magazine, for that matter, is working against the quota full-time fishermen are living with. It makes me irate when the same guy hops back over the fence at winter hearings to lash out against commercial greed and the horrors of dragging.

The same holds true with the commercial striped bass fishery in Massachusetts. There’s an alarming number of guys who are ostensibly recreational fishermen who hold commercial permits. Though it’s a somewhat different situation than the RI multispecies in that striped bass is exclusively a hook-and-line fishery in Mass, the net result is the same: sport fishermen making small sums of money by selling fish, and eating up the quota the handful of full-time hook fishermen depend upon for a livelihood. If there is a sound criticism of the Mass commercial bass season, it’s that the fishery is a free-for-all. The quota fills pretty fast given the number of hands in the till and fish crossing the docks (and thresholds of restaurant back doors). If the quota were reserved for full-time fishermen, I doubt it would be filled. I know each fish would fetch a higher price.

The resource is too important to be a source of pocket change for fence-jumping recs.

So, at the risk of alienating more than a few folks, here’s the solution I propose (it is certainly not my idea, as I’ve heard it expressed by dozens of fishermen on both sides): Put an income-percentage requirement in the licensing process. If you don’t make 40- or 50- or 75-percent (pick a number) of your income from fishing, no commercial license for you.

At this point in fisheries history, we need many things, but we certainly do not need more commercial fishermen. With less hands in the quota pie, less fish glutting the market, the prices would stay up and the existing fleet could land less fish for more money.

A five-fish limit for the MA striper season would stretch the season, keep the price out of the toilet where it inevitably lands every season, and allow the guys historically involved in the fishery to actually make some money without slaughtering 30 fish a day. Don’t call me a turncoat: The end result is less dead bass, which at this uncertain point seems like a more important goal than toeing the party line.

BTW- If you think I'm profiting massively from what I do, you've got another thing coming...[/QUOTE]

ZH we all know you live in a mansion in SoCo :D :topic:

make bass a gamefish and this thread would not be needed.

make bass a gamefish and this thread would not be needed.

That I don't support.
I worry it would be a slippery slope to C&R only or some other silly rules.

look what its done for the redfish down south :huh:

"And those who want to participate in this discussion should probably read the thing first lest all context be lost."

Above is a sentence borrowed from one of my friend Zach's posts. This is not simply about striped bass, it's about commercial fishing licenses. The scope of the topic includes many species and is much broader than a simple pie in the sky reply like "make striped bass a gamefish" Like the man said "read the thing first"

"And those who want to participate in this discussion should probably read the thing first lest all context be lost."

Above is a sentence borrowed from one of my friend Zach's posts. This is not simply about striped bass, it's about commercial fishing licenses. The scope of the topic includes many species and is much broader than a simple pie in the sky reply like "make striped bass a gamefish" Like the man said "read the thing first"

I did read it- my response was directed at this comment-
this is a striped bass fishing site BTW :heybaby:

A five-fish limit for the MA striper season would stretch the season, keep the price out of the toilet where it inevitably lands every season, and allow the guys historically involved in the fishery to actually make some money without slaughtering 30 fish a day. Don’t call me a turncoat: The end result is less dead bass, which at this uncertain point seems like a more important goal than toeing the party line.

Thom;
Already read it. I was responding to a specific comment by Eben..
You want my comment?

I am not opposed to guys like you. Most R&R comm.'s I know are similar. I know a few who R&R bass and fluke who could certainly afford not to R&R and still fish, and I know a few who poach like hell...
Just like ANY walk of life there are those who are in it to make a buck , whether they need it or not.

Do I think you should have to document your catch vs. income. Yeah I do, because it is designed to keep the 'stock brokers' out of it.

Am I in favor of some things to limit the # of licenses to keep the price up, yup.

I will say that i agree with zach. there are alot of hands in the comercial pie, not to mention all of the bass that make it to the markets that are not reported.. I dont agree with having to prove a % Of your income though.... thats why i say make bass a gamefish and end the fish grab.

Just my opinion.. nothing more...

Zach, I have to say that in most cases you are probably for a young guy one of the most even-handed and knowledgable editors I have ever seen write editorials in a fishing magazine. You know your subject matter from both the recreational and commercial side and do your research. And I think you also do an excellent job with the Fisherman to which I have been a subscriber for about 20 years. Butttt in this case I think you are a little off the mark for the following reasons.

The debate of who is "worthy" of having access to a certain fisheries has been going on for a long time and will continue to do so long after were gone. The groups involed might be recreational, commercial, fly-guides, charter captains, whatever. I have heard the debates from many sides of rec-comm as well as limited entry proposals. Every "click" of individuals has their seemingly strong rational, at least to themselves, as to why the only access should be for people like them and a few of their buddies. It's kind of a natural self preservation technique, where pursuing ones own self interests seems like the perfectly normal thing to do. Of course, discrimination often rears it's ugly head in these debates as well, and we see here in your writeup where you single out the most unworthy being the "short fat saggy man with the dish-pan hands" :err: OUCH!!! I wish you would have spared me the horror though of the visualization that this guy also had the audacity to wear "penny-loafers" :scream2: :err: Is that the criteria we should use to pass judgement as to who the real fisherman are?


We have in this country the ability to pursue whatever career we so choose, be it doctor, lawyer, engineer, indian chief or commercial fisherman. No one can tell us that we can't apply to law school or not try to get through an engineering program, or not go to truck driving school. As you can see on page 12R in the same issue of the Fisherman as which your editorial apears, there are no less than four different schools advertising classes for which ANYONE can apply to get your Captains license. They make no demands as to required height, weight, dress code, religion, skin color, other jobs, or tax bracket. It is open to anyone and the more I hear of all these debates over the years, that's the way I think it should be with free and open competion without special protections for distinct individuals. Coastal commercial fisheries has throughout the history of this country been pursued by men and women in both full time and part time capacities. Todays commercial fisherman was likely last decades truck driver, landscaper, student or who knows what else and who knows what he will pursue in the future.

I know that some will say that the guy who has done this for decades and his family as well need special protection from the new entrees. But every small businees in America has to compete with new entrees, and a walk down any Main Street sees small businesses coming in and going out all the time. The fisherman who want to stay in business will find a way to stay in business albeit with thin profit margin in this day of quotas. That's what six of my friends do who are commercial boat owners and captains in Pt Judith, Newport, New Bedford, Martha's Vineyard and Ptown. Those who don't want to stay in business will find other pursuits. But us trying to decide who is worthy of being a fisherman and who is not, is not in the best interests of anyone.

Ed

"The resource is too important to be a source of pocket change for fence-jumping recs."

fence jumpers? that is a strange way to word it. You mean kinda like scabs;)

I guess it's a fight to see who gets a piece of the pie and Nebe wants it all the recs' I don't agree with that either but that is a whole nother subject.



I agree the resource of all fish is important, I don't think the law should have anything to do with how an individual chooses to make a living whether it is 2,5,or 10 part time jobs or one full time job. That seems unconstitutional to me if the gov't is to pass that type of ruling/law or whatever. I know it is your opinion in the editorial but my opinion is that, that is not the way it should be changed to :hs: I have friends that would agree with that but I can't see myself ever with going along with that idea. For another thing, how would you prove ones income percentage? seems to me it would just promote a lot of under the table money making to reduce reported income. The IRS will not be happy about that. Also, it is a resource of the entire country so how is it possible to discriminate how someone chooses to make their living? Last I checked we live in a free country, I can't see going backwards in time. I also don't think the price of fish needs to be any higher, it's high enough in the stores as it is, a person making 10-15 bucks an hour can't even afford 10 dollar a pound fish as it is,that's like a luxury. Maybe we need more fish farming, who knows.
thanks for listening

I guess Ed said it better than I did

Ed B.

I appreciate your articulate rebuttal. As I said earlier in this thread--hope it didn't sound like I was dodging the bullet--I was hoping to spark some intelligent debate on a subject I knew would cut pretty close to the bone with a large percentage of my readers. The longer this thing has gone on, the closer this thing is getting to something positive.

Re-reading my own words, I think I failed to make the exact point I was after, a point that doesn't really come out until the second half of the rant.

Two points:

One: Fish have intrinsic value, beyond what the market is paying on any given day. I hate to see fisheries mis- or un-managed a la the Mass striper free-for-all (I think we can all agree, even if we don't think there should be a price on bass flesh) that it's a crime to see bass in the round fetching $1.50 or less.

Two: This is the sticky one. Without lambasting all rod-and-reel commercials (have to admit after re-read that that's how my editorial sounded), I do not believe resources like fluke should be sources of small change (this gets back to the intrinsic value thing above). Penny loafers are all right, though if I had an r-and-r commercial vessel, they would be forbidden on my deck. That's just a fashion thing with me.

What I'm anticipating when the fluke regs come through in the spring hearings, some percentage of ostensibly "recreational" fishermen holding comm. multispecies will be out enjoying a fluke season that's closed to everyone else. If the money is secondary to the "fun" in the fluking, then why should some permitted recreationals be allowed to fish while all else--including charter/ party boat operations legitiamtely dependent on the fishery as their sole source of income--be prohibited?

Historically--really up until the emergence of this ill-conceived RI comm. license--there were income requirements built into licensing.

Why should some permitted recs get to keep 14-inch fluke while the rest of us throw back dozens of 17.25-inchers?

If you'll all be a little patient with the young editor, I'd like to readdress some parts of this discussions, maybe coming a little nearer the nail's head than I did in the first go-around.

Again, please feel free to keep the written comments coming to my e-mail. I'd really like to run some letters on the subject.

And Thomcat, if you're still monitoring this, thank you--personally and professionally--for intervening on my behalf when the thread went in a sour direction. I've enjoyed fishing with you, have enjoyed reading your stuff, and appreciate you setting aside personal differences on this issue to pull my arse out of the fire.

Best to all, and I hope we can all have more intelligent debates through the winter.

Zach Harvey
(zharvey@thefisherman.com)