In my travels I have heard some rumors to the effect that the RI charter and party boat guys will try to get two bass rather than the one bass that the recs will have to abide by. They complain that they cant make a living with out the extra fish. Especially at the beginning and end of the season when they put themselves in the black for the season. They argue that they give fish in some other way such as not fishing on certain days for example (note they might have other suggestions that I have not heard about). I strenuously object. If RI gives an advantage to the for hire guys all the states will want it for their guys and it will continue down the coast. Furthermore if there is a perceived inequity people are less likely to follow the rules. E.g.. the Chesapeake guys are allowed to take fish at 18 inches why cant we? Lastly, on a charter boat what's to say if the captain wants to get more meat for his or her fairs they could give his and the mates one fish to the clients. Would like to hear from some party or charter boat guys to hear if this is true and their reasons for lobbying for two fish. thanks

New York began looking into mode splits the day after the SB meeting, so it is not just RI looking for such measures. My guess is that RI & NY will get their way and then CT will be pigeon-holed into following suit and MA may end up following their lead as well. NJ made it very apparent at the meeting in Mystic that they wanted a 2-fish bag limit and were really the driving force behind the conservation equivalency measure being added to the regulations.

As far as a boat taking fish for their crew, it is currently only illegal to do so in NY. I will not comment on how often it occurs or make any generalizations as to its practice, but I will say that it is perfectly legal to do so in most states.

yes true, the charter boat association is asking for a higher limit on for hire trips in Mass.

We're now trying to line up a listing of for hires that will continue to support a one fish bag here in RI - I have a list of them to counter the groups that may be pushing for a two fish bag. Any other Rhode island for hires that will support one fish is encouraged to let me know who you are so we can add you and organize. I recommend each state do this.

This may be a very contentious issue and I realize that The Fisherman Magazine and OTW walk a fine line here as many of their advertisers are from the industry.

We (the stellwagen bank charter boat assn.) are asking for a 2 fish@33" limit on for hire trips with charters on board

We (the stellwagen bank charter boat assn.) are asking for a 2 fish@33" limit on for hire trips with charters on board

and that sucks

especially for the boats who guarantee keepers or the trip is free

I am not a fan of separate regs for "for-hire" vessels. Get your limit of bass then go for other species just like now. No shares for the Capt and crew. I only went on a charter once about 15 years ago. 6 pack and we took home 18 bass with a mess of blues and fluke. I know the fluke was eaten and a couple meals worth of bass, i know the majority was thrown away probably with freezer burn. It's about the catch not the keep.

so WTF is the difference from before . except the size ............................ it still come down to two fish X the number of persons on the charter & then add the Capatain & mate .................... its polotics [sp] as usual

same old B/S .

if it was Cod or Scup , or sea bass I could see fighting for whst you can get .

But bass .... we are tring to save what,s left of them ?>

many of the bass charters arn,t out for the meat ...... many don,t even want or take the fish .

same as you go Giant tuna fishing , sailfishing , etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Its all about the experience :bs:

Agreed. why do charters need to keep two fish per person? I would think a HALF of a fish per person is plenty, let alone one.

Maybe there should be size limits for EVERYONE, rec's and comm's, and have it apply to EVERY STATE that harvests stripers?

That way no one state will have an edge, and for states that harbor the overwintering populations, they should do more to protect the YOY for future generations instead of just trying to "get theirs" before they're gone!

Oh, and how about ensuring that the fish we are saving by lowering our catch allowances have enough food to survive? That means no more net dragging for herring and shad and baitfish of ALL species that are being killed annually?

Sure, saving the stripers is a good, heart-warming, earthy-crunchy idea of lofty morals, but saving fish so they die from starvation and disease (from stress of starvation) is kind of doing things the way government has ALWAYS done things....half-arsed!

ONE fish coastwide
no whining allowed
if they are afraid at one fish, customers won't hire them, tough chit, man up :musc:
when the going gets tough, the tough get going so get the hell going and work harder , be more creative, this age of entitlement is getting rediculous. screw that
I'm not a fan of separate regulations either
just look at the cod WTF :wall:

The rules should be the same coast wide. No ifs ands or buts. If your interested in fairness maybe every one fisherman be they commercial, rec for hire should be allowed to take one fish. And with that fish they should be allowed to sell it eat it or let it go so long as they take one fish and adhere to the legal size limit. I am sure this wouldn't work but its an interesting idea.

FISHING IS STUPID.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The solution is simple, we need to kill less fish, and it needs to happen from everyone. Recreational, Charter, Commercial.

The solution is also currently impossible due to the divided coast-wide attitude of fishermen.

If you catch the last breeding female striped bass, I hope you release it.
I will, but I will also innovate and change my ways to ensure we don't see that day (again).

We're now trying to line up a listing of for hires that will continue to support a one fish bag here in RI - I have a list of them to counter the groups that may be pushing for a two fish bag. Any other Rhode island for hires that will support one fish is encouraged to let me know who you are so we can add you and organize. I recommend each state do this.

*Good going Dennis..

This may be a very contentious issue and I realize that The Fisherman Magazine and OTW walk a fine line here as many of their advertisers are from the industry.

*They can't be on both sides....man up.

If the targeted reduction in overall mortality is hit then what difference does it make who is allowed to catch what?
There are very few species left for the charters to target. A lot of these guys that come up and do a charter spend a ton of money in the areas and only do it once or twice a year
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why should an angler who fishes on a charter boat be allowed to keep twice as many stripers as the guy in the surf? because he paid to go on a boat? or how about joe blow on his own boat he can only keep one? I will support those charters in favor of the 1 fish per angler, the others- not so much.

What I am saying is, if in the end , the targeted reduction is obtained ,then why would it really matter if the charterboats ,in order to maintain their businesses, be allowed to keep two per client? Is this about the health of the bass biomass or about tit for tat. I don't get to keep two so no one should .....
Sounds pretty damn immature to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Greed. That's always been the problem.Commercial is comercial no matter how you look at it.The charters complain about all the wasted fish that the charters don't want to make themselves sound good.Till it comes to shack money.
We always have been our own worst enemy and that will never change. GREED>GREED>GREED. Gamefish is the only way to shut down the greed,or catch n release.We went to circle hook for bait. South of us it's treble hook catch ,kill then release.
Cod fish is heading towards protected in a few yrs. Stripers aren,t far behind. SAD.

It's about the resource
conservation
and sacrifice
all should be on the same rule, just because the marine fisheries so called managers came up with this option, doesn't make it the correct one.
Customers will still hire boats so their group can go out for a day, excuses about needing 2 fish I am not buying that, I call bull. It is simply greed if you ask me. They have all gotten used to the 2 fish per day per angler thing for so many years. Go to one for all and the population of bass might not be in so much trouble. See how it goes in 3 years. IMO if they cave to this 2 fish thing for charters and give the longer length limit, it goes against conservation and puts the responsibility on those who will really conserve bass.

And Afterhours is 100 percent right.
I also agree with DZ
Let's get that list and let it be known which businesses really wish to conserve the bass and support them not the others.
Something should have been done LAST year but it was not.

There used to be Atlantic Salmon in good numbers from shore along with cod and other fish, gee I wonder what happened to all those fish :smash:

What I am saying is, if in the end , the targeted reduction is obtained ,then why would it really matter if the charterboats ,in order to maintain their businesses, be allowed to keep two per client? Is this about the health of the bass biomass or about tit for tat. I don't get to keep two so no one should .....
Sounds pretty damn immature to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




what I'm saying is that no one should get 2 period, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.....and very good for the fish :humpty: I may be a bit immature but in this case, I take this chit very seriously.

This is what happens when you try to make everyone happy instead of doing whats right...


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1 fish or catch n release. It never changes no matter how bad things get. we can't be trusted to do what's right no matter what. There's always someone trying to pad their own nest at the expense of the fish and everyone trying to preserve whats there so we have future fishing.
Don's right . we need a list of those working against the general good and post it.Let their actions show who they are. I for one am gettin tired of those that misrepresent themselves as preservation types then when it's time to make posetive changes they want a special limits for their small group.

First off, let me admit up front that I prefer to call myself a "fishing guide" rather than a "charter captain" because my approach to taking folks out is to educate them about fishing and emphasize catch-and-release. I would say of the 125 to 150 trips I take a year, about six to ten fish are kept overall. I might practice strictly catch and release myself when fishing, but there is no place on my boat for browbeating an angler who wants to take a single fish for the table - and hopefully not an exceptionally large female fish that is far more important live than dead.
When I went into business, I elected to go small in terms of my boat and emphasize light tackle casting and fly fishing catch-and-release because I believed that would be a sustainable approach. It is really aggravating to listen to charter captains, who through their "keep the max each and every trip" have contributed to the stock problems we are facing, whine about needing more dead fish to stay in business. I have had some heated discussions with charter captains I know about the double dip of chartering and commercial fishing on the same day and have often wondered what everyone's take is on this being a legal activity in Massachusetts. I make a living through guiding and certainly not a killing, but I have never been able to figure out the logic of captains who say that being able to make an additional buck on commercial days by selling excess fish is necessary, when they are already picking up a pay check for a charter!
It is like "deja vu all over again" when I listen to charter captains, whether it is arguing that there are still plenty of bass out there, they have moved, they are in the EEZ, etc., or that they deserve a bigger share because they are in the business of catching fish. I see their "blindness" mirrored in the complaints offered up by the ground fish fleet that couldn't see beyond the tip of their noses and the dollars in their wallets and now have the audacity to try and blame others for their greed or say there is no problem because they have managed to find a limited aggregation of fish in a small geographical area when there should be fish everywhere. I will agree that the fisheries' management and science has been woefully inadequate and contributed to the problem, but ultimately fishermen are guilty of creating their own messes. We like to romanticize the commercial and charter fisherman, but doing so let's too many of them off the hook for painting themselves in a corner.
I am fortunate to fish each year with anglers who share my values and hopefully will return if they are happy with the "job" I am doing, but if my business is negatively impacted by the greed and short sighted approach of other charter captains, so-called "commercial" striped bass anglers in Massachusetts, and recreational anglers who feel it is OK to kill their limit each and every time they fish, be assured that the government won't be coming to bail me out as they have done with the commercial ground fish fleet. Tackle shops, tackle manufacturers, and other businesses that will suffer if folks can't come and enjoy a healthy, vibrant fishery. But here we are with certain groups of charter captains asking for a "bail out" that isn't an option for anglers who aren't responsible for the mess we are in.
What's saddest for me is to see some of the newer generation of captains here on the Cape posting glory photos on their websites of piles of dead bass, just as it was done in the past. Never in my wildest imagination did I believe we would have made it to this point with striped bass after having gone through the collapse that we saw just three decades ago. I don't hear as well as I once did and I wonder if it is getting worse by the day when I actually hear the same kind of statements that were bandied about during the last collapse.
But here we are again with some folks asking for special dispensation so they can kill more fish and government institutions are doing everything to accommodate them through games such as "conservation equivalency", while casting a blind eye towards what their own technical committee and studies are showing. In the end, I guess it's true what they say: "Insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results."

Charter captains are taking recreational fishermen fishing. Therefore , a recreational limit shall apply.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First off, let me admit up front that I prefer to call myself a "fishing guide" rather than a "charter captain" because my approach to taking folks out is to educate them about fishing and emphasize catch-and-release. I would say of the 125 to 150 trips I take a year, about six to ten fish are kept overall. I might practice strictly catch and release myself when fishing, but there is no place on my boat for browbeating an angler who wants to take a single fish for the table - and hopefully not an exceptionally large female fish that is far more important live than dead.
When I went into business, I elected to go small in terms of my boat and emphasize light tackle casting and fly fishing catch-and-release because I believed that would be a sustainable approach. It is really aggravating to listen to charter captains, who through their "keep the max each and every trip" have contributed to the stock problems we are facing, whine about needing more dead fish to stay in business. I have had some heated discussions with charter captains I know about the double dip of chartering and commercial fishing on the same day and have often wondered what everyone's take is on this being a legal activity in Massachusetts. I make a living through guiding and certainly not a killing, but I have never been able to figure out the logic of captains who say that being able to make an additional buck on commercial days by selling excess fish is necessary, when they are already picking up a pay check for a charter!
It is like "deja vu all over again" when I listen to charter captains, whether it is arguing that there are still plenty of bass out there, they have moved, they are in the EEZ, etc., or that they deserve a bigger share because they are in the business of catching fish. I see their "blindness" mirrored in the complaints offered up by the ground fish fleet that couldn't see beyond the tip of their noses and the dollars in their wallets and now have the audacity to try and blame others for their greed or say there is no problem because they have managed to find a limited aggregation of fish in a small geographical area when there should be fish everywhere. I will agree that the fisheries' management and science has been woefully inadequate and contributed to the problem, but ultimately fishermen are guilty of creating their own messes. We like to romanticize the commercial and charter fisherman, but doing so let's too many of them off the hook for painting themselves in a corner.
I am fortunate to fish each year with anglers who share my values and hopefully will return if they are happy with the "job" I am doing, but if my business is negatively impacted by the greed and short sighted approach of other charter captains, so-called "commercial" striped bass anglers in Massachusetts, and recreational anglers who feel it is OK to kill their limit each and every time they fish, be assured that the government won't be coming to bail me out as they have done with the commercial ground fish fleet. Tackle shops, tackle manufacturers, and other businesses that will suffer if folks can't come and enjoy a healthy, vibrant fishery. But here we are with certain groups of charter captains asking for a "bail out" that isn't an option for anglers who aren't responsible for the mess we are in.
What's saddest for me is to see some of the newer generation of captains here on the Cape posting glory photos on their websites of piles of dead bass, just as it was done in the past. Never in my wildest imagination did I believe we would have made it to this point with striped bass after having gone through the collapse that we saw just three decades ago. I don't hear as well as I once did and I wonder if it is getting worse by the day when I actually hear the same kind of statements that were bandied about during the last collapse.
But here we are again with some folks asking for special dispensation so they can kill more fish and government institutions are doing everything to accommodate them through games such as "conservation equivalency", while casting a blind eye towards what their own technical committee and studies are showing. In the end, I guess it's true what they say: "Insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results."

What he said

why should an angler who fishes on a charter boat be allowed to keep twice as many stripers as the guy in the surf? because he paid to go on a boat? or how about joe blow on his own boat he can only keep one? I will support those charters in favor of the 1 fish per angler, the others- not so much.

Sure, great point. So I take my nephews on my boat and everyone chips in for gas. Now, if I have a 6 pack license I'm a charter so we can all keep 2 fish a piece.

THIS IS STUPID!!! ONE FISH PER DAY PER ANGLER. PERIOD!!!!!!

The Cape Cod Charter Boat Association already came out in favor of 1 @ 28".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Cape Cod Charter Boat Association already came out in favor of 1 @ 28".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:claps::claps::claps:

This two fish per angler plea is just a ploy for shady charters.

I treat my my father, nephews, and bother inlaws every summer to
charter fishing during our summer vacation. There are six of us.
Shamefully I must admit, that during past years we would limit out
and take the fish home. Last year the fishing was slow and we took
one fish per angler.

This year we decided to only take a pair of fish. The minute the
captain heard the words we were gonna just take a two, he tried to
strong arm us into limiting out. He even gaffed a third fish. Who
gaff's striped bass? Thankfully the confrontation ended with slow
fishing, but the captain was hell bent on using our head count to
limit and most probably sell the fish to the market. This all on a
non-comercial day. It was clear that the captain was gonna do what
he wanted regardless of my arguing.

After confronting the owner of the charter business about my
experience, they informed me that they would correct things. A
buddy of mine chartered with the same outfit a couple weeks later.
He was on vacation as well and didn't take any fish home, yet the
boat limited and the captain took the fish.

I am sure this is commonplace. I have a feeling that the client is out
to catch fish. The experience is key not the meat. 1 fish per person
in a six pack is six fish.....still more than enough. The way things
are...excessive still.

As Dave Peros notes these charters are double dipping and are
selling these illegal fish. They will not loose clients if the laws
change, but they will loose significant income.

Again, if the laws are not enforced...they are not laws. Not only
should the limit change, but the sale of illegal fish should be policed.

Dave Peros- I heartily agree with your stand against charter captains being able to sell any extra fish that their clients don't want. It all boils down to greed and this greed will spell the end of stripers just as it has done with the Gulf of Maine cod. As the old quote goes the squeaky wheel gets the grease so the group that makes the most noise is going to get what it wants whether it is good for the fishery or not- just to shut them up and maybe get their vote.
If the science was followed then striper fishing would not be targeting the breeders but the males or prebreeders and the environment would be improved to aid in the recruitment of the species from the breeders which are allowed to breed. I being a recreational fisherman and under the new regulations I would only be able to possess one striper per day unless I wanted to obtain a commercial license. I prefer to fish for enjoyment not money and have the ability to take an occasional fish for the table. Why should someone not actually hooking and landing a fish be able to sell a fish which might also be thrown out by the wholesaler if it becomes too old to retail. Besides when the fishing is good the price drops so how are the commercial fishermen really gaining anything. I have seen this happen in the shellfishing industry in RI and now there isn't enough for any one to make a living off of. The same is happening to the cod fishery. If we on't learn from history then we a doomed to repeat the same mistakes. An alternative explanation of insanity.

Sure, great point. So I take my nephews on my boat and everyone chips in for gas. Now, if I have a 6 pack license I'm a charter so we can all keep 2 fish a piece.

THIS IS STUPID!!! ONE FISH PER DAY PER ANGLER. PERIOD!!!!!!

I'm sure you know this ,but that would not make you a charter. There's a little more to it.
I'm not advocating for two fish for charters . I'm just playing devils advocate here.
I've been reading a lot of born-again one fish advocates, a lot of holier than thou flyfisherman, and a Lotta screw them they backed themselves into this corner talk .
Most of the boats that I know would only take two fish per customer if the customer requested it. None of the boats that I know commercial fish on days that they're also running a charter, that is illegal.
A lot of you one fish guys put more fish in the freezer in a year than the guy that fishes with his family once or twice a year on a charterboat.
With the new cod fish regulations and haddock regulations A lot of guys who have been in the business for many many years are being forced out . To some the new striper regulations will be the final steak in the coffin.
I'm not expecting anybody on the site to show a little compassion . But my feeling is there is enough fish to sustain the population and show compassion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait until the Viking is taking two per head plus captain and mates all year next year to the tune of 2 boats three trips a day.
I always have said if someone is operating lawfully zip it and advocate for the change in law. But many have stated specifically the law needs to change and this is going to go no where because of politics and shady state managers looking to circumvent to benefit cronies.

It's like pushing rope uphill
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure you know this ,but that would not make you a charter. There's a little more to it.
I'm not advocating for two fish for charters . I'm just playing devils advocate here.
I've been reading a lot of born-again one fish advocates, a lot of holier than thou flyfisherman, and a Lotta screw them they backed themselves into this corner talk .
Most of the boats that I know would only take two fish per customer if the customer requested it. None of the boats that I know commercial fish on days that they're also running a charter, that is illegal.
A lot of you one fish guys put more fish in the freezer in a year than the guy that fishes with his family once or twice a year on a charterboat.
With the new cod fish regulations and haddock regulations A lot of guys who have been in the business for many many years are being forced out . To some the new striper regulations will be the final steak in the coffin.
I'm not expecting anybody on the site to show a little compassion . But my feeling is there is enough fish to sustain the population and show compassion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You or I will never convince anyone on this site to see it differently. the guys who don't want to or can't, telling the guys who can and do, that they shouldn't. The "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. They would all have themselves using only biodegradable plugs with barbless circle hooks and you wouldn't even be able to photograph the fish because it might stress them.
We're nothing more than Greedy money grabbing cronies with our heads in the sand who are only out to pad our wallets and pay for the boats we cant afford at the expense of a fishery on the brink of utter and catastrophic collapse.

You or I will never convince anyone on this site to see it differently. the guys who don't want to or can't, telling the guys who can and do, that they shouldn't. The "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. They would all have themselves using only biodegradable plugs with barbless circle hooks and you wouldn't even be able to photograph the fish because it might stress them.
We're nothing more than Greedy money grabbing cronies with our heads in the sand who are only out to pad our wallets and pay for the boats we cant afford at the expense of a fishery on the brink of utter and catastrophic collapse.



Mike.
How many times I got to tell you this is Stripers-Forever.Com
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing but pure jealousy and a beggar thy neighbor attitude. A 25% reduction is what was mandated, how any user group reached that required reduction is nothing but noise. Personally I advocated for a greater than 25% reduction, but that's what was mandated.

Keep in mind that what is really needed to rebuild the bass population is favorable weather, its got precious little to do with the amount of spawning females. Also, for the original poster, during the summer there are almost no females in the Chesapeake bay, most of the fish are 18 inch or small MALES

Can somebody explain why keeping 2 fish per angler is going to increase the charters' business? I would be willing to be that 99.9% of charter clients have no friggin idea what the regs are to begin with, so why is this such an issue?

Did the charter captains do some market research and determine that keeping less fish means less charter business? seriously, correct me if I'm off base here.

Well said,CaptainPeros

Can somebody explain why keeping 2 fish per angler is going to increase the charters' business? I would be willing to be that 99.9% of charter clients have no friggin idea what the regs are to begin with, so why is this such an issue?


You would loose your money. Would you book a charter without knowing what the regs are? Before the two fish limit, there was almost no charters targeting striped bass.

Can somebody explain why keeping 2 fish per angler is going to increase the charters' business? I would be willing to be that 99.9% of charter clients have no friggin idea what the regs are to begin with, so why is this such an issue?

Did the charter captains do some market research and determine that keeping less fish means less charter business? seriously, correct me if I'm off base here.

Our clients for the most part are fisherman and not ignorant of the laws . Neither are we . But they lack a boat or the free time to toss plugs in the canal every night . They like to eat fish so the book a charter , feed the family fresh fish and have fun at what they enjoy .
Doesn't sound unreasonable .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can somebody explain why keeping 2 fish per angler is going to increase the charters' business? I would be willing to be that 99.9% of charter clients have no friggin idea what the regs are to begin with, so why is this such an issue?

Did the charter captains do some market research and determine that keeping less fish means less charter business? seriously, correct me if I'm off base here.

I'm old enough to remember Sabatowski, and others, where you got to take home one fish at the end of a charter. Sabby had no trouble being fully booked through the season. Granted, they sold the rest of the catch, but the point is, people still paid and showed up knowing they'd only get to keep one fish.

Well said,CaptainPeros

what the 17 foot skiff, back bay light tackle specialist telling the 6 pack charter fleet they can't have 2 fish per customer because that's not what HE wants, or caters HIS business to?

Nothing but pure jealousy and a beggar thy neighbor attitude. ]

BINGO

this is a fish grab! This isnt about 'no one will book a charter with us if it goes down to one fish'... its 'we are going to get a lot more bookings if its 2 fish!!!"


FISH GRAB!!!! :smash:

Nothing but pure jealousy and a beggar thy neighbor attitude. MALES

How are we (I) jealous?

And how would that imply a "begger thy neighbor attitude"? I don't make $ off of fish.

I think most clients don't care how many bass they can take home and are willing to take home other fish. If they wanted to take get their monies worth in fish, they would be better off going to a fish market in most cases. Most charters are there for the experience - whether it is with the family or friends.

As I've discussed with friends, I think charter captains do a lousy job of "selling the experience" and instead focus on the meat. If I was a charter captain, I'd have a good digital camera on board and I'd either email the charter pictures of the day or have pictures developed and sent to them within the week.

Can somebody explain why keeping 2 fish per angler is going to increase the charters' business? I would be willing to be that 99.9% of charter clients have no friggin idea what the regs are to begin with, so why is this such an issue?



You would loose your money. Would you book a charter without knowing what the regs are? Before the two fish limit, there was almost no charters targeting striped bass.

I've had friends call me the night before they were going on a charter asking about the regs. bc they had no idea what they were. They were going out either with their kids or with friends.

this is a fish grab! This isnt about 'no one will book a charter with us if it goes down to one fish'... its 'we are going to get a lot more bookings if its 2 fish!!!"


FISH GRAB!!!! :smash:


nail hit on head.

what the 17 foot skiff, back bay light tackle specialist telling the 6 pack charter fleet they can't have 2 fish per customer because that's not what HE wants, or caters HIS business to?


Yup, well said on his part.

I might be reading it wrong but aren't you doing the same thing you accuse him of doing?

Fish grab for who, the charter clients or the capt ?






QUOTE=Nebe;1058579]this is a fish grab! This isnt about 'no one will book a charter with us if it goes down to one fish'... its 'we are going to get a lot more bookings if its 2 fish!!!"


FISH GRAB!!!! :smash:[/QUOTE]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:claps::claps::claps:VERY WELL SAID Dave Peros!!! I applaud you

I don't detect any jealousy there, just truth
if you can't see it, then his point is made

The Cape Cod Charter Boat Association already came out in favor of 1 @ 28".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


EXCELLENT!!! glad to hear it

Lots of resentment, it seems, from the 6 pack guys. Do you really, genuinely believe that bookings will take a meaningful drop if the limit is 1 fish per angler? I'm no expert on the clientele of 6-packs. All I know is my college friends and I go once a year for a reunion, we keep our limit. If the limit is cut in half, it would never even cross my mind not to go.

I am sure there are SOME clients who won't go if it's 1 fish. Is it a meaningful number? And how many clients will you get if the stock collapses and you get skunked half the time? This fall, we almost didn't go because the captain ( a very honest guy) told us how lousy the bass fishing was, so we fished for sea bass most of the day.

Looks to me like everyone wants to get as much cash as they can before the well is dry.

I can't see why someone on a charter boat has a right to more fish than the recreational guy in his own boat. I just can't see how anyone justifies that.

I'm not expecting anybody on the site to show a little compassion . But my feeling is there is enough fish to sustain the population and show compassion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's fine but show me a more valid reason charters should be able to allow 2 fish per customer.

You or I will never convince anyone on this site to see it differently. the guys who don't want to or can't, telling the guys who can and do, that they shouldn't. The "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. They would all have themselves using only biodegradable plugs with barbless circle hooks and you wouldn't even be able to photograph the fish because it might stress them.
We're nothing more than Greedy money grabbing cronies with our heads in the sand who are only out to pad our wallets and pay for the boats we cant afford at the expense of a fishery on the brink of utter and catastrophic collapse.


:hihi: LMAO
Mike we all don't live in Cambridge you know :)

tell us why you support a 2 fish allowance???

Personally I advocated for a greater than 25% reduction, but that's what was mandated.
]

thank you, I did too


as far as jealousy, you're entitled to your opinion
I think most of us see the writing on the wall and spend enough time on the water on waters' edge to see history repeating itself and want to do something about it instead of squeezing every last dollar like some seem to, that's all

that's fine but show me a more valid reason charters should be able to allow 2 fish per customer.

I haven't seen a valid reason they shouldn't . Some of you guys sound like the same people closing beaches for Piping Plovers 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Before the two fish limit, there was almost no charters targeting striped bass.
maybe where you live but that's not true around here

I used to make a decent enough living working hard in construction of new homes as well as remodels, then comes the mortgage crisis because of some greedy individuals and it all went to hell, guess what? you adapt, do something else or get creative, supplement your lost income, cut back on expenses. the strong survive, just like the ones on the Cape will survive supporting one fish. I am not going to feel bad for any charter biz here in Mass or in RI or anywhere else that thinks they need 2 fish per day limit, no pity from me and I am not from stripersforever, never been to their site nothing like that. Suck it up and live with it all of us!

Our clients for the most part are fisherman and not ignorant of the laws . Neither are we . But they lack a boat or the free time to toss plugs in the canal every night . They like to eat fish so the book a charter , feed the family fresh fish and have fun at what they enjoy .
Doesn't sound unreasonable .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well so what, if one fish isn't enough there is an alternative if you need more food, go to the store like everyone else

:hihi: LMAO
Mike we all don't live in Cambridge you know :)

tell us why you support a 2 fish allowance???

1@28" will achieve the exact same outcome as 2@33", a 25% reduction.
Given the choice, I will ask for 2@33".

Somehow that gets me labeled as a blind greedy black market fish monger hellbent on the destruction of the fishery.

I haven't seen a valid reason they shouldn't . Some of you guys sound like the same people closing beaches for Piping Plovers 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

one good spawning year is not enough to sustain the population in my opinion
better to err on the side of caution then risk more bad years of spawning, you never know how long it will take to recover the bass to where it should be. Like MakoMike said, weather has a lot to do with it and also I believe water quality as well so fertilizers and other polution may contribute.

How about this, we have all those freaking meetings all over again and vote again but make it 2 fish coastwide at 34" or 36" whatever will yeild the same amount of conservation? does that seem right.

I don't know why they even came up with this option, I guess they have strong lobbyists in New Jersey or something

Lots of resentment, it seems, from the 6 pack guys. Do you really, genuinely believe that bookings will take a meaningful drop if the limit is 1 fish per angler? I'm no expert on the clientele of 6-packs. All I know is my college friends and I go once a year for a reunion, we keep our limit. If the limit is cut in half, it would never even cross my mind not to go.

I am sure there are SOME clients who won't go if it's 1 fish. Is it a meaningful number? And how many clients will you get if the stock collapses and you get skunked half the time? This fall, we almost didn't go because the captain ( a very honest guy) told us how lousy the bass fishing was, so we fished for sea bass most of the day.

Looks to me like everyone wants to get as much cash as they can before the well is dry.

I can't see why someone on a charter boat has a right to more fish than the recreational guy in his own boat. I just can't see how anyone justifies that.


Jim, They see it as a BOOM for business if it is 2 fish, because there will be a reward if you book a charter as opposed to going by yourself... if you go by yourself off the rocks, you can keep 1, but if you pay the piper and go on a charter, you can keep 2! Or, better yet for the captain, he can still sell his paying fare's unwanted catch on the commercial market or black market just the way he has been for years. .



This is corruption at the core.

I guarantee you all that this issue is not about wether the charter fleet will loose money, its the prospects of making more money and the black market has a strong influence here as well.. That is where the real money will be lost.

Jim, They see it as a BOOM for business if it is 2 fish, because there will be a reward if you book a charter as opposed to going by yourself... if you go by yourself off the rocks, you can keep 1, but if you pay the piper and go on a charter, you can keep 2! Or, better yet for the captain, he can still sell his paying fare's unwanted catch on the commercial market or black market just the way he has been for years. .



This is corruption at the core.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


That's total BS and shows the disdain you have for charter captains

I guarantee you all that this issue is not about wether the charter fleet will loose money, its the prospects of making more money and the black market has a strong influence here as well.. That is where the real money will be lost.

In the case of the Stellwagon guys , there is little left to fish for . Catch shares crushed the cod , and they don't have scup, sea bass, etc .
This is about surviving not boosting business .
You don't have a clue
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1@28" will achieve the exact same outcome as 2@33", a 25% reduction.
Given the choice, I will ask for 2@33".

Somehow that gets me labeled as a blind greedy black market fish monger hellbent on the destruction of the fishery.


the so called experts may say it's the same outcome(although I think it is over a longer period of time) but I am not buying into that at all. I don't see how allowing 2 fish is more conservative than 1 fish just because the size limit is raised by 5 inches, big deal , it still kills 2 fish, that is twice as many, granted it protects the population of undersize fish but once they reach 33", they'll be killed too.

I don't know about your label there, but being in the business one would think you would want the bass to be plentiful and sustainable rather than just at the brink of collapse.
I just don't agree with having a choice for s special group, I see no need for it.

I wonder if those fisheries expert scientist or whatever they are take into account all the losses like from predators, disease, starvation, poachers. I think they are tossing out educated guesses and can put the numbers where they see fit.

the so called experts may say it's the same outcome(although I think it is over a longer period of time) but I am not buying into that at all. I don't see how allowing 2 fish is more conservative than 1 fish just because the size limit is raised by 5 inches, big deal , it still kills 2 fish, that is twice as many, granted it protects the population of undersize fish but once they reach 33", they'll be killed too.

I don't know about your label there, but being in the business one would think you would want the bass to be plentiful and sustainable rather than just at the brink of collapse.
I just don't agree with having a choice for s special group, I see no need for it.

I wonder if those fisheries expert scientist or whatever they are take into account all the losses like from predators, disease, starvation, poachers. I think they are tossing out educated guesses and can put the numbers where they see fit.

Fair enough .
I'm sure the science is seriously flawed . It always is .
That is why putting people out of work needs to be factored in .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Charter boats have historically had special regs on many different species of fish from seabass & scup to tuna. This is nothing new
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL here's the problem 25% reduction is a joke. Sad as it sounds the science is flawed as no one listens to those out there fishing. You want to really see the Charter line go look at the Pic galleries an see for yourself. we are the problem. Everyone wants as much of the pie as they can get. No matter the consequences. Look at the Cod. MMMM They're talking no recreational take at all. Why do you think a lot of the Charters want to have more fish. During the moritorium there were still a load of charter boats out there. How many Charters keep every fish that come's on board? Most go back in.Many dead. I don't know the perfect answer but whats goin on now isn't it. Look at the Tuna,cod,monk fish,tommy cod,kilie fish,harbor pollack an so on. Oh mackeral now added.We are the problem. We spend too much time tryin to undermine any posetive action for selfishness. Yup SAD. If we did what needs to be done-Whats best for the fish- things would get better across the board.

In the case of the Stellwagon guys , there is little left to fish for . Catch shares crushed the cod , and they don't have scup, sea bass, etc .
This is about surviving not boosting business .
You don't have a clue
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the problem is I have too much of a clue, as I know people who work on charters and have taken charters and see this stuff happen.

1 fish will not hurt the industry. People will still pay to fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly this is a heated topic and I'd be a fool to suggest I truly understand all the science, but what I do know is this is the first season since I've fished for striped bass where I didn't catch a single keeper. Now I need to qualify that statement, because about 8 years ago I changed the way I fished, but I still think my experience is just as valid a sampling as any other. Why, because I'm fishing the same waters I've always fished, with primarily the same tactics I've always used and my days for 8 years all have pretty much started the same way. I'd launch in Westport with the sun just about to pop up and I'd fish a milk run of ledges with plastic to see if I could catch some bass before the sun came up and I switched over to deeper water to drift and jig for eaters.

Ten years ago, I'd catch several dozen stripers, with multiple keepers each and every morning I'd go out; all before the sun got to high in the sky. At the end of the day, I could absolutely count on hens and chickens ledge to give up as many more smaller fish as I felt I had the energy to catch. Each and every year since, I've seen a dramatic decline in the numbers of fish and specifically those 28-36 inch keepers, which would routinely clobber my plastic in between schoolies.

I suspect I'd have to work long days and target only stripers to even have a chance at even catching a third of what I did ten years back. There were a few years around 2006 to 2008, where I could have filled my boat with keepers and schoolies; I'd catch them all day long while jigging and drifting for black sea bass off Gay Head and the sound. Those couple of years were such fun, one drift your nailing 30-40 lb stripers, then the 12-15lb blues would move in, with black sea bass and fluke in between. That same offshore structure for the past 4 years hasn't given up a single day that even comes close.

Catch them to make a living, catch them until they are gone, then go get a job in the trades. Certainly I'm not saying charters are to blame, everyone targeting and harvesting stripers is to blame, we all collectively own the responsibility to turn it around or we can all continue to rape the resource until we have a moratorium.

I know people depend on charters for a living and I feel for them. I know fishing is a long tradition in New England and trust me having just finished Fatal Forecast by Michael Tougias, I understand it's a hard tough life and to see restrictions put on how you can support your family makes it tougher. If I were in the business I'd be looking at other means of making the boat make money, because I see the writing on the wall and proactive measures are far better than reactive ones.

I plan to make my contribution by not harvesting bass, I hope others will do the same. I can't control the weather, the black market for fish, the fact that other cultures couldn't give a rat's ass about our regulations or that the politicians are listening to anyone without deep pockets; but I can do my part.

Tight lines to all, but many species are a lot of fun with the right gear.

LOL here's the problem 25% reduction is a joke. Sad as it sounds the science is flawed as no one listens to those out there fishing. You want to really see the Charter line go look at the Pic galleries an see for yourself. we are the problem. Everyone wants as much of the pie as they can get. No matter the consequences. Look at the Cod. MMMM They're talking no recreational take at all. Why do you think a lot of the Charters want to have more fish. During the moritorium there were still a load of charter boats out there. How many Charters keep every fish that come's on board? Most go back in.Many dead. I don't know the perfect answer but whats goin on now isn't it. Look at the Tuna,cod,monk fish,tommy cod,kilie fish,harbor pollack an so on. Oh mackeral now added.We are the problem. We spend too much time tryin to undermine any posetive action for selfishness. Yup SAD. If we did what needs to be done-Whats best for the fish- things would get better across the board.
You don't know what you are talking about. what Jane lubchenco did to the cod in the Gulf of Maine allowing huge draggers to decimate the local cod is just easy for you to point fingers at. Why is there a large limit on cod south of ptown, georges bank and Rhodeisland? Is it Corruption? Or maybe a thriving fishery?
Mackerel? Harbor pollack? Tuna? Again you don't know what you are talking about.
They just increased the tuna quota. Obviously that was corruption also. The mackerel are from one end of the bank to the other and there are so many harbor pollack on jeffreys you cant get to the bottom.
the rod and reel permit for macs is 3 thousand pounds a DAY and pollack is 10 thousand pounds a DAY. Flawed science, Corruption and greed there? Or maybe just MAYBE another thriving fishery?

you are the ones who won't listen to the ones who are actually out there fishing every day.---->US.
you blame your lack of success on us instead of changing your tactics. No different then setting up a tree stand in the walmart parking lot and then complaining there are no deer there. because you refuse to go in the woods.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thinking on this some more.......maybe there could be a trophy slot for charter boats. 1 fish 28 plus and one at 60 inches plus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would support that as a compromise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lets not forget those Seals and all the fish they need to eat to sustain themselves...their numbers continue to increase and there should be a culling of the heard on them too...lots of human and environmental impacts...some kind of human reduction appears to be needed and we can imapct that with some form of reduction (that we may all not agree on). Very hard to change the weather but we can make an impact to the habitat in the spawining areas as well as the number of gorging seals...politically there isn't anyone out there with enough balls to challenge the seal issue so until that is recognized it will also continue to be a big impact...they are everywhere these days...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the targeted reduction in overall mortality is hit then what difference does it make who is allowed to catch what?
There are very few species left for the charters to target. A lot of these guys that come up and do a charter spend a ton of money in the areas and only do it once or twice a year
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, one of the scenes of the biggest slaughter has been Block Island, RI, MA, CT and NY boats. How many of those fish are between 28" and 33" that would be released, and reduce the mortality?

My issue here is that it is a nominal reduction, but 2 @ 33" for most charters is the same mortality as 2 @ 28". I am not opposed to some of the splits; tautog in the fall in RI has been split regs for a while now, scup as well.

My guess is a lot of these commercial anglers with the big boats would be looking at the dock if it weren't for the customers willing to subsidize their hobby. And in reality it is a hobby for most here but they act like they are Gloucester.'s finest. I know there are folks out there trying to make a go of earning their keep just fishing with today's regulations. Tough future I would guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My guess is a lot of these commercial anglers with the big boats would be looking at the dock if it weren't for the customers willing to subsidize their hobby. And in reality it is a hobby for most here but they act like they are Gloucester.'s finest. I know there are folks out there trying to make a go of earning their keep just fishing with today's regulations. Tough future I would guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I agree with that . I'm one of the above but my son makes his living at it and a lot of seasoned guys that have seen more then most are hurting bad .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I am saying is, if in the end , the targeted reduction is obtained ,then why would it really matter if the charterboats ,in order to maintain their businesses, be allowed to keep two per client? Is this about the health of the bass biomass or about tit for tat. I don't get to keep two so no one should .....
Sounds pretty damn immature to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the problem is that we are eroding the likelihood that the regs will actually attain the necessary reduction with every stinkin' loophole that gets added in to the mix. and by the time anything gets re-evaluated to see how the regs have worked, it'll be YEARS TOO LATE (kinda like this whole friggin mess is already.....)
I'm sympathetic to the challenge that headboats face, but this is the bed we've made for ourselves- now EVERYBODY has to adapt to the changes that are needed


or go extinct

First off, congratulations to the Cape Cod Charter Boat Association for supporting the one fish at 28-inches regulation; it is clear that their membership is comprised of enlightened individuals who understand the need for everyone to do their part when it comes to striped bass conservation.
As far as the numerous inflammatory and derogatory comments tossed about in this thread by what appear to be charter captains and/or supporters of the industry, it really is getting old. I have been to the hearings and am growing tired of the intimidation tactics and name calling used by individuals and groups with economic interests in order to get their way. When an "industry" stubbornly adheres to methods that are not sustainable and/or harm the common good, then the principles of economics will cause some of those businesses who won't adapt to fail. On the other hand, those operations that do adapt will survive and even thrive.
I've seen it happen with local charter captains who sail out of ports along the southside of the Cape; when they saw that bass fishing was hurting, they elected to encourage their clientele to focus on other species such as sea bass and bluefish. Some even realized that the experience of catching mainly bass smaller than the legal limit for possession is enjoyable for their charters and a number adjusted their tactics to heighten the experience of fishing, as opposed to just catching and killing.
I suspected that once my original post was out there, I would hear the usual "stuff" about fly fishermen and Stripers Forever (which I am not a member of and have no intention of ever becoming). If you read it carefully, you will see that I do not single out those charter captains who feel the need to "max out" as the sole folks responsible for overfishing, but include recreational anglers who have to kill their limit each time they are on the water and the vast majority of "commercial" striped bass anglers who have no interest in stepping up to the plate and dealing with the realities faced by small boat fishermen who have dedicated their lives to working on the water as their sole source of income.
It is true that most of bass that remain in the Chesapeake are small males after the larger females and males join the coastal stock in the spring, but the much anticipated bumper "crop" of bass from the 2011 year class is already in harm's way since states such as Maryland and Virginia allow recreational and commercial fishermen to harvest 18-inch or larger stripers - which is what a large percentage of the 2011 population taped out at last year and those numbers will obviously increase in 2015.
The science has proven that the late fall and winter conditions in any given year in the Chesapeake definitely are a major factor in terms of the quality of that season's spawn - but controlling the weather is certainly not something humans can do to guarantee a healthy striped bass biomass.
But we can help to maintain the health of the striped bass stock in one way - and that is by killing less of them. Folks are realizing that they were snookered by the ASMFC Striped Bass Management Board this fall with their apparent decision to do just that. The commitment to a 25% reduction in the take of bass from the coastal stock was applauded by one and all, but the board was holding a trick card in the form of "conservation equivalency" that would allow deviation from the one at 28-inch pledge. While it may be true that a two fish at 33-inches bag limit will be somehow equivalent to the smaller limit in terms of numbers of fish killed, the chances of succeeding in meeting the primary goal of boosting the overall health of the stock are not equal.
In the end, the essence of "greed" is believing that it is OK for any single user group to harvest more fish to the detriment of the common good, meaning that the ASMFC has once again failed in its duty by allowing any consideration of different regulations for the charter fleet.

In the end, the essence of "greed" is believing that it is OK for any single user group to harvest more fish to the detriment of the common good, meaning that the ASMFC has once again failed in its duty by allowing any consideration of different regulations for the charter fleet.

probably good to remember when talking about these reductions and arguing for exceptions that..according to the managers reports the agreed to reductions only have a 50% chance of achieving the intended results which is why many were working toward the 33% reduction given that this will not be revisited for 3 years.....

 If total harvest is reduced by 25% starting in the 2015 fishing year, there is a 50% probability1 F will be at or below its target level within one year.


 If total harvest is reduced by 17% starting in the 2015 fishing year, there is a 50% probability1 F will be at or below its target level within three years.

A 50% probability was the minimum recommended by the TC - a higher probability of being at or below the target
would require more restrictive management measures that achieve a higher reduction than the projections estimate is needed

Thinking on this some more.......maybe there could be a trophy slot for charter boats. 1 fish 28 plus and one at 60 inches plus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how about...two fish per client.... but you don't get to use any electronics ....I bet that would work :biglaugh:

probably good to remember when talking about these reductions and arguing for exceptions that..according to the managers reports the agreed to reductions only have a 50% chance of achieving the intended results which is why many were working toward the 33% reduction given that this will not be revisited for 3 years.....

 If total harvest is reduced by 25% starting in the 2015 fishing year, there is a 50% probability1 F will be at or below its target level within one year.


 If total harvest is reduced by 17% starting in the 2015 fishing year, there is a 50% probability1 F will be at or below its target level within three years.

A 50% probability was the minimum recommended by the TC - a higher probability of being at or below the target
would require more restrictive management measures that achieve a higher reduction than the projections estimate is needed

Well at least we know they can do simple math 😀
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well at least we know they can do simple math ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess the point was that as we argue these scenarios, the solutions proposed and now adopted are only given a 50/50 chance of achieving the target and changing the direction of the stocks and that is as we become more efficient with each passing year at targeting and taking fish from the stock, seems there is a lot banking on a single year class to rebound the numbers at this point coupled with the possible change in the current trend with a reduction...this may be why some bristle when some argue for an exception....that simple math doesn't portend well for the near future under any scenario

hey....can/should shore guides(for hires) get the exception too and their clients be allowed to keep two fish....just something I've been wondering....

Lots of resentment, it seems, from the 6 pack guys.

No resentment here. If we get 2 fish we get 2 fish. If not that's fine. but that doesn't mean we can't ASK.

The true resentment here is from those who can't stand the thought of a special group possibly getting what they can't

hey....can/should shore guides(for hires) get the exception too and their clients be allowed to keep two fish....just something I've been wondering....

Ask for yourself
paul.diodati@state.ma.us

The true resentment here is from those who can't stand the thought of a special group possibly getting what they can't

I think it's more the fact that the need has not yet been demonstrated or articulated in a convincing way...

we're all selfish

I think the resentment here is between two differing philosophies. One which is unwilling to acknowledge the best interest of the species and is looking to get what they can despite the fact it imperils their future vs a group that has decided they can do without beating up a resource that is in decline by all accounts.
You have folks in a moneygrab that fail to understand why those who have volunteered to reduce catch are upset. This shows how dumb special groups can become when dollars obscure their view of the intent of the new regulations. This "get what I can" attitude is the reason for the decline of many stocks and is typical of an inner city,Obama loving,milk the system mentality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we're all selfish

yup....I'm very interested to hear the rationale however...

if someone could fill in the blank....might help better understand the perspective...

the recreational limit for stripers for 2015 is now 1@28"....we/our clients need an exception to be able to keep two fish because....

Most if not all of the block island based charter boats support 1@28 and up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most if not all of the block island based charter boats support 1@28 and up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right...the biggest obstacle for the argument for an exception is the other charters and charter organizations supporting 1@28"

yup....I'm very interested to hear the rationale however...

if someone could fill in the blank....might help better understand the perspective...

the recreational limit for stripers for 2015 is now 1@28"....we/our clients need an exception to be able to keep two fish because....

I personally feel that this should be an exception because;
A) most of our clients come from out of state and they like to go home with some fish in the cooler .

B) we have been pounded with cod closures haddock restrictions and now we're fighting the closure of potentially the most productive area of Stellwagen Bank. In our area we just don't have the options that the southern fleet has .

C) I don't believe the fish science behind a lot of it. I believe a lot of the people against it are basing their judgment on emotion ( I would think you of all people would hate that)

And despite what you guys think I don't believe an increase in striper population is going to mean the facia, back to your favorite rock. None of you want to believe that the bait is offshore and that is where the fish are .
I personally don't keep any stripers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I personally feel that this should be an exception because;
A) most of our clients come from out of state and they like to go home with some fish in the cooler .

B) we have been pounded with cod closures haddock restrictions and now we're fighting the closure of potentially the most productive area of Stellwagen Bank. In our area we just don't have the options that the southern fleet has .

C) I don't believe the fish science behind a lot of it. I believe a lot of the people against it are basing their judgment on emotion ( I would think you of all people would hate that)

And despite what you guys think I don't believe an increase in striper population is going to mean the facia, back to your favorite rock. None of you want to believe that the bait is offshore and that is where the fish are .
I personally don't keep any stripers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

appreciate that Buck....

How about this, we have all those freaking meetings all over again and vote again but make it 2 fish coastwide at 34" or 36" whatever will yeild the same amount of conservation? does that seem right.


No need for more meetings, they mandated either a 1 fish limit or a 25% reduction. Any state is free to make more than a 25% reduction.

Would you guys be arguing so strenuously if the proposal was to make it 2 fish at 36 inches for everyone?

The argument is not about the reduction mike. It's about charter boats having a different limit than rec fishermen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The argument is not about the reduction mike. It's about charter boats having a different limit than rec fishermen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Finally an honest fisherman 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Finally an honest fisherman 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well are fares Recs or some other special genre?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The argument is not about the reduction mike. It's about charter boats having a different limit than rec fishermen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

Would the charters be willing to pay extra for the ability of taking 2 fish per paying customer? Maybe triple the yearly charter license fee?
Also if charters do end up receiving an exemption from the 1 fish through the conservation equivalency program, would they be willing to keep and file accurate records of each trip where a Striped bass is taken? How many trips, fares per trip, fish taken per trip, length of fish. I am sure the data would be be helpful to fisheries managers and would help determine the effectiveness of the overall reduction program. The more available data we have the better.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

It's pettiness and it hurts some very good people that have done a lot for the fisheries .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I must say that I am not jealous...as nor am I a conservationist.

I do not wish anyone a hardship.

The reason I am not jealous for a proposed variation in regs for
charters is simply because I nearly do not keep any fish. I keep one
or two a year....even when the stocks were healthy.

The reason i am not a conservationist...is simply because I continue
to target the fish that I believe are in decline. Even catch and
release has a negative footprint.

I release the fish I catch most of the time because I am lazy and like
eating other types of fish....not because I am on a crusade....or that
I think that I am a holy man.

There are a lot of surfcasters like me. To me its a sport not a food source.

I am a fisherman and I really enjoy catching striped bass. The quality
of fish and fishing I have experienced in my home and remote
waters has declined severely over the past 4 years. This year by far
the worst.

If i had my selfish way. There would be a moratorium now.

I don't like driving 2-3 hours to get skunked or catch schoolies, when
I used to have decent bass in my backyard. Its a sad situation.

Anything that can improve the stocks is worth effort in my eyes.
Hell, if it is to save the livelyhood of the charter business, I would
vote for no fish for anyone but the licensed charters and let the
charters take two per angler.

Arguing the subtly of the issue does not really matter much. One or
two fish....whatever. The charters that operate and practice illegal
catch and sale of striped bass will continue to do so. Its not like
anyone checks them when the pull into the harbor.

Well are fares Recs or some other special genre?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Recs, and as recs it should be 1 fish like everyone

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

no jealousy here, just common sense
twice as many fish killed = a whole lot less striped bass to sustain the species. It's about conservation and there is a need for it now
most charters agree, the bigger question should be why don't they all?
Freak already stated given the choice, he'd ask for 2. I'm fine with that if it comes down to it, his choice. It's just not mine and a lot of others. I guess they will rule on it soon and that will be that:fishslap:

No need for more meetings, they mandated either a 1 fish limit or a 25% reduction. Any state is free to make more than a 25% reduction.

Would you guys be arguing so strenuously if the proposal was to make it 2 fish at 36 inches for everyone?

I would,
it should be 1 fish
I voted for 1 @33" I think it was as that was the longest choice @ 1 fish



I think the hardship thing is a cop-out

I'm just not buying that a 1 fish limit is going to hurt business, sorry guys. If you just don't believe the stocks are in decline, you are entitled to your opinion, but the business argument just doesn't hold water.

I don't keep a lot of fish (and neither do most that are for a greater reduction) so the jealously argument is just ridiculous. As Slip said, it's about conservation (which I think some of you just don't think is needed based on your comments)

Mako Mike: "Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy."


I'm jealous that comms get to keep two fish but I'm only allowed one?

Are you serious???

Many people want to see a reduction in bass killed to help rebuild the population.

No one is "jealous" someone is allowed to kill more, they are pissed off that they are allowed to kill more. I dont secretly wish I could still kill 2... I overtly wish everyone
can only take one max.

I think that some people view the resource and its purpose/value in different ways, and thats why i think mako views guys like myself as being "jealous that I dont get to kill two but that guy does"

Thats an absolutely ridiculous misinterpretation of the frustration people are expressing with all due respect.

^^^
What he said

I used to think I could have a logical consversation about this with the comm guys, but now I'm not so sure.......

the idea that the rec guys are "jealous" about the charter guys (possibly) getting 2 fish is #^&#^&#^&#^&!NG ridiculous: if you want to somehow kid yourself that recs secretly want to keep more fish, you need to get your head out of your ass. many recs have been restricting their take for years voluntarily

Years ago, and at least in the 70's when I started striped bass fishing, charter boats never let people keep more than 1 fish. You keep 1 fish and the rest go to market. Simple rule understood by all, and people kept what they were allowed to keep. Then when there were no bass they went for other fish. It wasn't complicated.

Charter boats don't need to let people keep 2 fish to stay in business and I find that most of the charter guys who think they need 2 fish are relatively new to the business.

There appears to be a lot of experts in the charter fishing industry here. Carry on !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

Jealousy would imply the accused wish they could kill 2 per trip. This is simply not the case.
Perhaps a better command of the language would allow a more deserving description, but I am sure the other side of the coin here is not jealous of those who are seeking to kill more striped bass.
Your failure to understand their perspective shows a basic lack of respect for an opinion or you perhaps suspect an alterior motive. The fact that you accuse any who are against a two fish limit is very revealing in this content and is a narrow minded approach by any standard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's look back to the moratorium in the 80's. Who were the heros? Who can we thank for making sacrifices to bring the fish back to historical levels??? Then ask yourself how those who opposed it were viewed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Every last one of us is guilty of killing fish, even catch and release guys...Everyone is talking about fish that are kept...what about the ones released...how many foul hooks, how many eye hooks, how many gut hooks. How about the fly reel or ultra-light "sportsman" that fights the fish way too long and releases it to die, how about the schoolies blitzes when you catch 50-60 small bass on a trip (any foul hooks or post release
mortality with those?) of corde there are...we all have skin in this game and the guy that says "I release everything" is a fool if he doesn't think he has any impact on the situation...bottom line is everyone has a negative impact period when they fish and not everyone will be happy no matter what the regs are...the main goal is a sustainable yield...PS I've been to plenty of meetings and called into the conf calls...the science behind this is a complete guessing game IMO...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jealousy would imply the accused wish they could kill 2 per trip. This is simply not the case.
Perhaps a better command of the language would allow a more deserving description, but I am sure the other side of the coin here is not jealous of those who are seeking to kill more striped bass.
Your failure to understand their perspective shows a basic lack of respect for an opinion or you perhaps suspect an alterior motive. The fact that you accuse any who are against a two fish limit is very revealing in this content and is a narrow minded approach by any standard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don't understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don't understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.
Spoken like a true tax accountant. So you are saying that killing 2 fish a day is the same as killing one fish?
:bs:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Despite the disagreements, I want to thank John R. for giving all of us a forum in which we can, in the end, agree to disagree, if that's what it comes to.
I do think it would be really beneficial if the Technical Committee would be out a paper explaining the whole Conservation Equivalency thing and the math that they used to come up with 1 @ 28-inches = 2 @ 33-inches when it comes to the number of bass killed overall. It certainly would move the discussion forward with some numbers from those who are going to make the decisions regarding states and/or user groups being allowed to fish at something other than the 1 @ 28.
I recall someone at the hearing at Mass. Maritime on the proposed new regulations pointing out that everything was fine when the moratorium was lifted and it was just one fish at a much higher limit that 28-inches. Since then, all we have done is fall down a slippery slope and I challenge anyone to prove that we have done the right thing in terms of striped bass management, mortality, conservation, or whatever you want to call it. Now we are offered plans that at best have a 50% chance of succeeding in bringing the spawning stock biomass up to where it should be.
Pretty sad stuff.

If i kill 1 fish per day x 100 days thats 100 fish dead and gone.

If i kill 2 fish per day x 100 days thats 200 fish dead and gone.

Uhhhhh.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I personally feel that this should be an exception because;
A) most of our clients come from out of state and they like to go home with some fish in the cooler .

B) we have been pounded with cod closures haddock restrictions and now we're fighting the closure of potentially the most productive area of Stellwagen Bank. In our area we just don't have the options that the southern fleet has .

C) I don't believe the fish science behind a lot of it. I believe a lot of the people against it are basing their judgment on emotion ( I would think you of all people would hate that)

And despite what you guys think I don't believe an increase in striper population is going to mean the facia, back to your favorite rock. None of you want to believe that the bait is offshore and that is where the fish are .
I personally don't keep any stripers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think based on my fishing results and from what I've read the majority of those on this board, clearly indicate a dramatic decrease in the stocks year after year, so we are all wrong it's all a matter of bait being offshore. Damn, that means I need sell my 20 footer and get something safer to head farther out. You might not believe the science, but a species doesn't just pack it up in a short amount of time (evolution take serious time), hey for the next few years let's all take a different route coming and going then we have been taking for the past 100 years......just for fun.

It's all intertwined, baitfish yes, baitfish management yes, but water temps and migration routes don't just flip like a light switch.

I agree with that equation, but apparently it is wrong or an oversimplification. There must be some new math out there or a different calculus being used; I, for one, would like to see someone on the Technical Committee explain it. Apparently, "Conservation Equivalency" allows for killing two fish at a larger size limit AND does not kill more fish or results in the same conservation and stock rebuilding goals. I don't want to hear anybody's explanation of CE; I want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

My definition of the real meaning of "conservational equivalency":

The magic loophole which allowed states/ comms to still keep 2, while allowing the asfmc to save face and appear like they did their job by passing the 1@28" window -dressing ruling.
Its how the asfmc got the states to vote for 1@28" ... The states knew they had a back door to 2 fish.
My opinion, and i stand by it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-16-49-14_zpsbi5frcos.png (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/thefishingfreak/media/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-16-49-14_zpsbi5frcos.png.html)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spoken like a true tax accountant. So you are saying that killing 2 fish a day is the same as killing one fish?
:bs:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jesus Nebe ! Your whole argument is based on the premise that there aren't that many fish over 33 inches....Oh that's right, there are so many fish over 33 inches ,that the Viking fleet is going to clobber them every time they go out .
It's mind-boggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if that second take home fish was swapped out for some first class videos and pics would satisfy the clients. Don't know if that's being done now, my guess is it is,,, only been on one charter, with Mike FF,,, LOL, we were too busy catching to vid jack! :humpty:

the way I read it, he's just saying that taking 2 fish (regardless of size) cannot be same as taking 1 fish out of the system.
the suggestion that the 2nd fish- by being bigger than the 28" minimum- somehow decreases the impact on the fishery, is the part that doesn't make sense

how do the charter guys catching tarpon and sailfish and goliath grouper and (fill in the blank...) manage to stay in business?

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don'understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.
I will type slowly so you understand....

Wtf does conservational equivalent have to do with what I just wrote. You are so confused you are having trouble with a simple question. My entire point was certain people are upset about the taking of 2 fish.
Jealous?
No,just upset.
Do I understand the voodoo math regarding how killing two 20 lb. fish has the same impact as killing one 15 lb. fish?
No,but that is not my point here. It seems common sense has taken a 25% reduction in this discussion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how do the charter guys catching tarpon and sailfish and goliath grouper and (fill in the blank...) manage to stay in business?

We don't have those 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It seems common sense has taken a 25% reduction in this discussion.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was a GREAT line...:claps:

I think the problem here is that some want the fish to come back quick , no matter if some very good people ( yes honest guys have charter boats too ) get hurt in the process . It's simple not that the stock just fully recovers , it's gotta happen fast .
We are all above the pettiness , jealousy thing .
Correct ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Question for charter guys- do your clients all take home their limits when caught or do you keep and sell any of their catch. Not busting stones, honest question.

you expect an "honest answer" to that? really?

We don't have those ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm trying not to get too involved in this, since it really adds up to nothing in the big scheme of things.....


but c'mon- answer the question(!)

how is it that there are hundreds (thats a guess) of successful charter guys that manage to stay in business catching-and-releasing EVERY SINGLE fish they they bring in.... and you guys think that you need to kill twice as many fish as the rest of us.....?

do ya see my point?

Reminds me of Eel Man, where is my old friend:), oh I love a good debate.

It's not against the law to sell fish that your charters caught on a commercial day.
So yes, on Monday and Thursdays, a 6 pack boat with 8 people on board can kill 16 bass, give the Charter a 28" fish for the table, and sell all the remaining 15 fish (they must be over 34")
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm trying not to get too involved in this, since it really adds up to nothing in the big scheme of things.....


but c'mon- answer the question(!)

how is it that there are hundreds (thats a guess) of successful charter guys that manage to stay in business catching-and-releasing EVERY SINGLE fish they they bring in.... and you guys think that you need to kill twice as many fish as the rest of us.....?

do ya see my point?

I was kidding and I do see your point. There is absolutely something to selling the experience.
But you cant equate catching a tarpon , sailfish or giant Goliath grouper to catching a striped bass.
Maybe the Cape charter fleet has a different clientele then we have here in Green Harbor . They probably depend more on families and people on vacation where as we depend on fisherman that are willing travel for the most part from New Jersey New York Connecticut or Pennsylvania for some fun and a chance to fill a cooler
Nobody's making that trip to catch a 28 inch bass . I'm sorry if this offends some, but it's just not that exciting .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That being said we do push that they will have the opportunity to see a couple hundred seals:)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Question for charter guys- do your clients all take home their limits when caught or do you keep and sell any of their catch. Not busting stones, honest question.



Don,
I can't speak for every charter but for the most part more often than not charters I take out, they want their limit of meat !
We get our share of clients in town just for business and are getting back on a plane leaving Boston the next day, that I know won't want to keep fish, though I've had a handful that still want meat and I've packaged, froze & shipped overnight for them (crazy $ )
1st thing I do every trip (after safety drill speech) I ask them if they intend to keep fish.
In 10 years not of chartering I can probably count on 1 hand the number of times I've sold fish from charters.
If other charters have lots of clients that are willing to let them keep every fish that can be Legally sold on a commercial days after they shell out $600 - $1400 for the trip, I need to talk to them and learn how they talk them into it !
Anyone would be a fool not to if they can and it's legal.

The CE is how a slot limit of 22 to 26 of 1 fish or 1 trophy fish 40 in or bigger comes about like up in Maine. You still only get one fish. Weird part is they still list a commercial take in Maine where there is no Com allowed at all. It's one reason many of us just plain don't trust the rule makers. They build deceit into the process to twist the science.

how do the charter guys catching tarpon and sailfish and goliath grouper and (fill in the blank...) manage to stay in business?

I would guess they also have a much longer season than the guys that charter up this way...I'm not a in the charter business but I know a few charter boats in the Green Harbor area are for sale due to lower charters the last few years due to the Cod restrictions and they can't make ends meet. The customers are not coming like they used to for Cod due to the low bag limits (thanks to the draggers and catch share system that allowed the raping of Stellwagen Bank of Cod). I'm sure the guys that are left are concerned that they will be impacted even more due to the reduction on Bass and fighting for their business...they aren't full of #^&#^&#^&#^& if they are selling their boats, that is desperation. The guys I know are stand up guys and I believe them when they say the customers will not come like they used to (especially since they are being forced tongetbout of the business...now, do we need to do something?? YES we do. But to group all charter guys in one group and say they are full of BS isn't right, just the same as it isn't right to group all the Rec guys together.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The CE is how a slot limit of 22 to 26 of 1 fish or 1 trophy fish 40 in or bigger comes about like up in Maine. You still only get one fish. Weird part is they still list a commercial take in Maine where there is no Com allowed at all. It's one reason many of us just plain don't trust the rule makers. They build deceit into the process to twist the science.


Built in deceit? That 250 pounds shown from maine is the commercial yearly average from 1972-1979. Those are the base figures for commercial limits. And a history lesson

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-20-28-44_zps5en59ixh.png (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/thefishingfreak/media/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-20-28-44_zps5en59ixh.png.html)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dennis
Here is one out of Green Harbor.
http://downeastboatforum.com/free-classifieds-downeast-boats-marine-equipment-fishing-tackle-sale-wanted/1979-1980-35ft-solid-glass-bruno-sale-11970.html
Same goes for some up in Gloucester.
Dave on Relentless was smart, saw the writing on the wall and sold out last year.







I would guess they also have a much longer season than the guys that charter up this way...I'm not a in the charter business but I know a few charter boats in the Green Harbor area are for sale due to lower charters the last few years due to the Cod restrictions and they can't make ends meet. The customers are not coming like they used to for Cod due to the low bag limits (thanks to the draggers and catch share system that allowed the raping of Stellwagen Bank of Cod). I'm sure the guys that are left are concerned that they will be impacted even more due to the reduction on Bass and fighting for their business...they aren't full of #^&#^&#^&#^& if they are selling their boats, that is desperation. The guys I know are stand up guys and I believe them when they say the customers will not come like they used to (especially since they are being forced tongetbout of the business...now, do we need to do something?? YES we do. But to group all charter guys in one group and say they are full of BS isn't right, just the same as it isn't right to group all the Rec guys together.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again- I'm sympathetic to the hardship that some of the captains are feeling, but this is the bed that we all must lie in. but its something that just about all of us must face at some point in our working lives- if the "environment" that we work in can no longer sustain us, its time to adapt or go extinct.

the rest of the fishing public shouldn't have to make concessions to accomodate that......

sorry- but thats the way it is.... (or should be IMHO)

The striped bas is the premier Gamefish in the northeast. The dominos that fall in the event of decline are far reaching.fuel,charters,bait,tackle shops,boat yards,tackle reps,right down to lure makers will feel the pinch. Somehow there is only one of these groups that feels the need to continue business as usual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If only they could realize that being permitted to carry on as usual to avoid financial hardship will only accelerate their financial hardship as the stocks continue to be depleted. It's very short sighted to want to carry on as usual, unless they realize the crash is inevitable and just want a few more years of good $$$, and then selling their boat before the final buzzer.
It's a case of "hey... someone's gonna kill the fish and get paid, better me than the next guy" mentality.


It all boils down to the fact that while we are all fishermen, we may value bass for different reasons...
While I see bass as a hobby, time spent fishing with my father, my kids, relaxation, fun... others simply see pounds and dollars.

For me, killing less fish equals more good times fishing with my family in the future. While for others, being forced to kill less fish means less money.

Sorry to have to make points like this, but this is the conversation... How different anglers value the stock for different reasons, and their motivation for why they want fish either protected or not.

I think my position is known... gonna try take a step back from posting on this issue.

Did I miss something ? Are these fish about to go extinct?
You guys talk as if keeping a few fish on a charter boat is going to collapse the stock and the kids of tomorrow will only be able to see striped bass in books and videos.
Once again I will ask you .
If the plan in place will help the bass population get to a point where you guys are comfortable with , then why put people out of business ?
This is pettiness .
I wonder how many of you have actually been offshore and seein the number of striped bass?
Think about it, hundreds of acres of sand eels , mackerel,and herring and fewer seals. They are here in great numbers .
Unfortunately you can't fish for them there .
I'm going to ask a question based on my own theory ? Is it possible that the inshore bass population has just moved off shore ? It happens with Tuna . They just don't show up in your old spots year to year but that doesn't mean they're not out there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I personally feel that this should be an exception because;
A) most of our clients come from out of state and they like to go home with some fish in the cooler . I think the most likely answer to this is that it would be incumbent on the captain to educate the client as to the state of the fishery, assuming the client is a fisherman in some respect, they ought to understand but based on C)...this doesn't appear likely to happen

B) we have been pounded with cod closures haddock restrictions and now we're fighting the closure of potentially the most productive area of Stellwagen Bank. In our area we just don't have the options that the southern fleet has . I think this is understood, it still does not provide anyone with a reason as to why 2 fish per client rather than one is essential to these guys staying in business...a PaulS pointed out...is it about the experience or the meat? I could be jaded but I can't imagine spending a day on the water fishing and then being upset that I took only two fillets home instead of four...particularly if they were striper size fillets

C) I don't believe the fish science behind a lot of it. I believe a lot of the people against it are basing their judgment on emotion ( I would think you of all people would hate that) this is an emotional statement...the people that you speak of are for the most part basing their judgment on stock assessments, year class statistics and reports from up and down the coast and their own experience on the water and their understanding of what goes on regarding the bass fishery each year, it may not be complete but it's based on more than emotion

And despite what you guys think I don't believe an increase in striper population is going to mean the facia, back to your favorite rock. None of you want to believe that the bait is offshore and that is where the fish are . where is the evidence of this?
I personally don't keep any stripers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

couldn't get back to this yesterday

Did I miss something ? Are these fish about to go extinct? no but the decline is documented in many ways
You guys talk as if keeping a few fish on a charter boat is going to collapse the stock and the kids of tomorrow will only be able to see striped bass in books and videos. noone said that
Once again I will ask you .
If the plan in place will help the bass population get to a point where you guys are comfortable with , then why put people out of business ? the plan in place is 50% likely to help the bass population get to a "comfortable" level
This is pettiness .
I wonder how many of you have actually been offshore and seein the number of striped bass? I've seen this and similar statements throughout the season where guys on boats gaze into their fish finders and declare there are millions of bass...this does not seem to be a good way to judge the health of the stock..if they circled the area that they are observing on a map of the striper coast it would hardly represent a trend
Think about it, hundreds of acres of sand eels , mackerel,and herring and fewer seals. They are here in great numbers .
Unfortunately you can't fish for them there .
I'm going to ask a question based on my own theory ? Is it possible that the inshore bass population has just moved off shore ? possible? ...sure...likely?.....probably not given the history....there is ample bait inshore as wellIt happens with Tuna . They just don't show up in your old spots year to year but that doesn't mean they're not out there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

all that said Buck, I do understand more and more where you are coming from and I believe that if in fact, the guys that you are speaking for/about can demonstrate a hardship I'd support some kind of exemption but I haven't really heard a reasonable argument yet as to why 1 or 2 is a gamechanger...and that may be a result of not understanding first hand what goes on with these boats and their clientele

all that said Buck, I do understand more and more where you are coming from and I believe that if in fact, the guys that you are speaking for/about can demonstrate a hardship I'd support some kind of exemption but I haven't really heard a reasonable argument yet as to why 1 or 2 is a gamechanger...and that may be a result of not understanding first hand what goes on with these boats and their clientele

Well actually Scott most good captains can look at the fishfinder and tell the difference between bass and other fish but the fish I'm talking about I see boiling on the surface . acres and acres and acres of them.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. When you see a guy selling the boat and closing his business because they have been regulated out of fishing then I think that shows hardship.
We had numerous cancellations this year because of cod regulations .
Since a lot of this seems to be based on hunches, my hunch is there will be cancellations due to more restrictive striper regulations.
It's going to happen ...even for the guys that are for one fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well actually Scott most good captains can look at the fishfinder and tell the difference between bass and other fish but the fish I'm talking about I see boiling on the surface . acres and acres and acres of them.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. some evidence that a charter will go out of business or suffer or that their clients will not book a fishing trip to fish on the acres of bass if their party can only keep 1 fish per client as opposed to two....how do largely catch and release charters stay in business?When you see a guy selling the boat and closing his business because they have been regulated out of fishing then I think that shows hardship.
We had numerous cancellations this year because of cod regulations .
Since a lot of this seems to be based on hunches, my hunch is there will be cancellations due to more restrictive striper regulations.
It's going to happen ...even for the guys that are for one fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


it sounds like you believe it's about the meat and not the experience necessarily...the new limit is on fish kept, there's no limit on how many you can catch, from your description it shouldn't be any problem keeping the clients tight all day...you'd think that would keep most guys fully booked

The argument that all the bass have moved offshore is total bull. Are there fish over the line? Of course,but if these mythical schools of bass are the basis for any argument we are screwed. For some reason the discussion is always simplified by certain groups as being"just one more fish" but that language is insulting due to the expanse of the fleet. I will say this,an area like the canal,which has become the shore bound Block Island will benefit greatly if the rules are followed. Ask the folks down south about the fish over the fence...It is a fishery that has collapsed for them to a much greater degree than up here. 10 years ago they filled a dumpster a day with racks,now the boats stay tied up. THAT is cutting off your nose despite your face.
Crystal ball?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it sounds like you believe it's about the meat and not the experience necessarily...the new limit is on fish kept, there's no limit on how many you can catch, from your description it shouldn't be any problem keeping the clients tight all day...you'd think that would keep most guys fully booked

This is why nothing gets done in the government.....
People take what you say and take it to the most extreme level and try to use it as an example of reality.
It's not just about the meat or the experience, it's about both. I'm not naïve to what you have to do to bring a client a fun time.
This argument has gone circular .
I'm out ......maybe 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the way I read it, he's just saying that taking 2 fish (regardless of size) cannot be same as taking 1 fish out of the system.
the suggestion that the 2nd fish- by being bigger than the 28" minimum- somehow decreases the impact on the fishery, is the part that doesn't make sense


You are all equating a 2 fish limit as 2 more guaranteed dead fish.
A 2 fish limit is not an automatic double to the daily limit guarantee.
There has to be some thinking that it must be slightly more difficult to catch 2 fish @33" then it is to catch only one fish @28"
The same thinking that rationalizes the option of a "28-37" slot and a 40" trophy is harder to catch.

The ruling was for a 25% reduction to the stock NOT 1@28" COASTWIDE.

with 1@28" we will see a 31% reduction
with 2@33" we will see a 29% reduction
Those are both still over 25% correct?




This is the "option" asmfc has given to each state.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-16-49-14_zpsbi5frcos.png (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/thefishingfreak/media/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-16-49-14_zpsbi5frcos.png.html)

This is why nothing gets done in the government.....
People take what you say and take it to the most extreme level and try to use it as an example of reality.
It's not just about the meat or the experience, it's about both. I'm not naïve to what you have to do to bring a client a fun time.
This argument has gone circular .
I'm out ......maybe ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the ONLY thing that is changing is 1 less fish per client to bring home = "less meat"
the ONLY thing that you are asking for with a two fish exception is an additional fish ="more meat"

it's all about the meat...apparently :love:

In my humble opinion I find it silly and kind of pisses me off, when we have so many people mad at legitimate and LEGAL charter guys that intend to follow the law. It is legal for them to petition for the 2nd fish, if they get that approved then so be it. If they go with the 1 @ 28 and one in the "trophy class" it is not the same as 2 fish killed since out of 3 or 4 clients maybe 1 or 2 of them will catch the larger bass to keep. I can see how it could be a 28% cut in bass killed, using this match. Some charters may catch all of their quota of the larger bass, but a lot of them wont always catch the 2nd larger fish.

I am not a charter guy, but from reading all of this anger and BS... I am in 100% agreement with Buckman.

Legal charters following the law (if they get the 2 fish exception) should not be a reason for people on here to blast them for making an honest LEGAL living..... blame the law not the charters.... I remember reading on here about empty meeting halls and only a few attending them.... kind of like not voting and complaining about who won......

No different then setting up a tree stand in the walmart parking lot and then complaining there are no deer there. because you refuse to go in the woods.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not a great analogy and the theme of it is a tired one. Yes, we would all catch more fish if we could fish 8 hours a day, every day. If we all fished that much we would find the remaining schools and be able to exploit them. The only thing that has caused it to be harder to catch stripers is that there are dramatically fewer stripers. The idea that 99% of fisherman of fisherman are catching fewer fish because they don't adapt is obnoxious.

Spoken like a true tax accountant. So you are saying that killing 2 fish a day is the same as killing one fish?
:bs:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I'm saying that with increased minimum sizes the same amount of fish will be killed. Do you limit out every day you go fishing. Could you kill more fish if there was no size limit?

We went through this discussion many times on the NEFMC recreational advisory committee, it not the actual amount of fish brought home that motivates people to book a charter, its the expectation that if they catch a fish they can bring it home. For example, when we had a ten fish limit on cod catches, the statistics showed that the "average" catch on a charter boat was only 4 fish, but people wouldn't book a charter for only 4 fish, but they would if they thought they could keep 10 fish if they caught them.

No, I'm saying that with increased minimum sizes the same amount of fish will be killed. Do you limit out every day you go fishing. Could you kill more fish if there was no size limit?

We went through this discussion many times on the NEFMC recreational advisory committee, it not the actual amount of fish brought home that motivates people to book a charter, its the expectation that if they catch a fish they can bring it home. For example, when we had a ten fish limit on cod catches, the statistics showed that the "average" catch on a charter boat was only 4 fish, but people wouldn't book a charter for only 4 fish, but they would if they thought they could keep 10 fish if they caught them.

And look where cod is now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And look where cod is now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're tempting me back into this thread 👊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not a great analogy and the theme of it is a tired one. Yes, we would all catch more fish if we could fish 8 hours a day, every day. If we all fished that much we would find the remaining schools and be able to exploit them. The only thing that has caused it to be harder to catch stripers is that there are dramatically fewer stripers. The idea that 99% of fisherman of fisherman are catching fewer fish because they don't adapt is obnoxious.

There's the thinking that you are 99% of the fisherman, you are not.
Just keep standing on that rock waiting for the fish to come back.

the idea that really pisses me off in all this is that charter guys think they deserve a double standard..... that somehow they're "making a living on the water" entitles them to have a different set of rules than what applies to the general public. EQUALLY
even though it is a public resource, that exists in the public domain. charter guys didn't do anything more to help rebuild the fishery, and certainly flourished when bass made their comeback. now they should share in the reductions to the fishery
EQUALLY

And look where cod is now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everyone knows why Cod collapsed and its not from rods and reels and charter guys...it's from catch shares & draggers...period.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the idea that really pisses me off in all this is that charter guys think they deserve a double standard..... that somehow they're "making a living on the water" entitles them to have a different set of rules than what applies to the general public. EQUALLY
even though it is a public resource, that exists in the public domain. charter guys didn't do anything more to help rebuild the fishery, and certainly flourished when bass made their comeback. now they should share in the reductions to the fishery
EQUALLY

Right on point in my opinion. Great post!

Agree with the above, we all made our bed, we all own the results. Nature took care of all this stuff on it's own before man came along, prey populations bloomed, predator populations followed, prey dropped due to increased predation and predator followed suit. Nobody above us on the food chain or we wouldn't be debating this and with politics and the almighty $$$$ in the mix, nothing is easy or quick.

This just came across my desk, NJ has submitted its proposals to the ASMFC:

http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_ID=949&ParentCat=19

:fence:the idea that really pisses me off in all this is that charter guys think they deserve a double standard..... that somehow they're "making a living on the water" entitles them to have a different set of rules than what applies to the general public. EQUALLY
even though it is a public resource, that exists in the public domain. charter guys didn't do anything more to help rebuild the fishery, and certainly flourished when bass made their comeback. now they should share in the reductions to the fishery
EQUALLY

We are all sharing the reduction EQUALLY. All we are asking is for a different option to achieve the same outcome.

This just came across my desk, NJ has submitted its proposals to the ASMFC:

http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_ID=949&ParentCat=19

"To comply with this directive, the Council is considering two options and both of them allow for a possession of two striped bass"

Looks like New Jersey is asking for 2 fish also...
Everyone to there bunkers! :fence:

And look where cod is now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you really think that the decrease in cod populations have anything to do with recreational anglers?

My point is that expectations, not actual catch, have a great influence on charter bookings.

The for hire fleet not only made money but grew under the 1 fish @ 28" Striped Bass regulation...to deny that fact is insane.

Since the current proposals only have a 50% chance of achieving the mortality reduction AND since the fact is that IF the new regulations do not achieve that reduction the next step would have to be closed seasons with some teeth, I have a pretty important suggestion for all those that are going to attend the upcoming hearings in MA & RI.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO COMMENT THAT IF SPLIT REGULATIONS ARE PASSED SPLIT ACCOUNTABILITY MUST GO ALONG WITH THOSE REGULATIONS. IF THE MORTALITY REDUCTION IS NOT MET, THE NEXT ROUND OF ACCOUNTABILITY (AKA REDUCTIONS) SHOULD BE BASED ON DATA. IF 2 FISH OPTIONS FOR THE FOR HIRE FLEET DO NOT ACHEIVE THE REDUCTION BUT 1@28 FOR PRIVATE ANGLERS DOES, WHEN THE TIME COMES TO CLOSE PART OF MAY OR SEPTEMBER SHOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE FLEETS THAT DID NOT ACHEIVE THE REQUIRED REDUCTIONS.

SPLIT MEASURES SHOULD BE SPLIT ACROSS ALL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT.

Do you really think that the decrease in cod populations have anything to do with recreational anglers?

My point is that expectations, not actual catch, have a great influence on charter bookings.

Maybe not overall, but south of Block Island the last 5 years, yes, I think rod/reel rec, charter and head pounced on a relatively small school of fish, and now the fishery is suffering....

Another thing about managing for hire and private anglers separately is that representation on management bodies, advisory panels, expenditures of license fees, expenditures of research funding etc etc all must change as well.

The for hire fleet not only made money but grew under the 1 fish @ 28" Striped Bass regulation...to deny that fact is insane.

When was it ever 1 fish at 28 inches?

Since the current proposals only have a 50% chance of achieving the mortality reduction AND since the fact is that IF the new regulations do not achieve that reduction the next step would have to be closed seasons with some teeth, I have a pretty important suggestion for all those that are going to attend the upcoming hearings in MA & RI.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO COMMENT THAT IF SPLIT REGULATIONS ARE PASSED SPLIT ACCOUNTABILITY MUST GO ALONG WITH THOSE REGULATIONS. IF THE MORTALITY REDUCTION IS NOT MET, THE NEXT ROUND OF ACCOUNTABILITY (AKA REDUCTIONS) SHOULD BE BASED ON DATA. IF 2 FISH OPTIONS FOR THE FOR HIRE FLEET DO NOT ACHEIVE THE REDUCTION BUT 1@28 FOR PRIVATE ANGLERS DOES, WHEN THE TIME COMES TO CLOSE PART OF MAY OR SEPTEMBER SHOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE FLEETS THAT DID NOT ACHEIVE THE REQUIRED REDUCTIONS.

SPLIT MEASURES SHOULD BE SPLIT ACROSS ALL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT.

Come on Pat, you know better than that. No one is going to track reductions in F by mode. Just like the separate measures for scup, sea bass, etc. Plus add into the equation that every state is likely to have at least slightly different measures. Just look at what Toby posted about NJ. To do what you suggest would require the ASMFC to track F by state, and you know that isn't going to happen.

Maybe not overall, but south of Block Island the last 5 years, yes, I think rod/reel rec, charter and head pounced on a relatively small school of fish, and now the fishery is suffering....

Bryan, south of BI is a separate stock from the GOM, there is still an unlimited bag limit and continued recreational fishing in that area. (not that I totally disagree with you assertion).

I'm going to ask a question based on my own theory ? Is it possible that the inshore bass population has just moved off shore ? It happens with Tuna . They just don't show up in your old spots year to year but that doesn't mean they're not out there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fair question, and the answer is yes, it is possible.

May I ask a question? Is there any data to suggest that if charters were limited to keeping 1 fish instead of 2, that your bookings would decrease? What's so magical about that second fish, that it makes it a significant inflection point on the supply/demand curve?

I am limited to my personal experience here. I don't like 6-pack type of fishing (I'm a light tackle guy), but I usually do 2 trips per year on a 6-pack boat - one with my kids and nephews, one with college buddies as a reunion. If the bag limit were cut to 1 per guy, it would not cross my mind, not for a nanosecond, of cancelling the trips. Obviously that's just me.

They can't all be doing it just for the meat, because it's a whole lot cheaper to go buy fresh fish at a fish market (though that's not as fresh as just off the boat). Some pepole like the entire experience of fishing, and not everyone is in it solely for the meat. Maybe the party boats who groundfish, that's a situation where th egoal is filling th efreezer.

I could certainly be wrong. And the scientists could certainly be wrong as well, about the health of the stocks.

If CT boats were limited to 1 fish per guy, and RI boats coul dtake 2, I'd be convinced that th elaws were screwing the CT guys. If veeryone is limited to 1 fish...I'd just be suprised if your bookings decreased noticably, because the overall experience of the fishing trip hasn't changed that much. But that's just me, and you know your business better than I ever will, but I do think I have my finger on the pulse of the average Joe out there.

Legal charters following the law (if they get the 2 fish exception) should not be a reason for people on here to blast them for making an honest LEGAL living..... blame the law not the charters.... ......

But if it's a bad law (and that's a big "if"), and if the charter guys are advocating for that law based solely on greed (and that's not a big "if"), an dthat law gives some people more of a right to a public resource than the rest of us (and that's not debatable) it's fair to criticize them.

There are bad laws. People who advocate for bad laws for personal profit, potentially ta the expense of a public resource, are fair game for criticism.

I think based on my fishing results and from what I've read the majority of those on this board, clearly indicate a dramatic decrease in the stocks year after year, so we are all wrong it's all a matter of bait being offshore. Damn, that means I need sell my 20 footer and get something safer to head farther out. You might not believe the science, but a species doesn't just pack it up in a short amount of time (evolution take serious time), hey for the next few years let's all take a different route coming and going then we have been taking for the past 100 years......just for fun.

It's all intertwined, baitfish yes, baitfish management yes, but water temps and migration routes don't just flip like a light switch.

Bob, I don't know whether you were fishing back then, but guys were singing that same "there's plenty of bass, they're all offshore where the bait is" song back in the early and mid 1980s. ;)

Bob, I don't know whether you were fishing back then, but guys were singing that same "there's plenty of bass, they're all offshore where the bait is" song back in the early and mid 1980s. ;)

i remember that.

Come on Pat, you know better than that. No one is going to track reductions in F by mode. Just like the separate measures for scup, sea bass, etc. Plus add into the equation that every state is likely to have at least slightly different measures. Just look at what Toby posted about NJ. To do what you suggest would require the ASMFC to track F by state, and you know that isn't going to happen.

Totally Agree Mike...I actually don't think under the current data collection programs that it is even possible...however to make that argument are you also admitting ASMFC can't predict F (fishing mortality) under a split regulation. I think the split regulation is likely to result in failing to achieve the mortality reduction...and I for one do not think risking loss of May or September is worth the benefit to the industry.

When was it ever 1 fish at 28 inches?

Prior to the Am 6 increase to 2 @ 28" the coastal regs were 1 @ 28" for quite a few years. I still have all of that analysis in a box somewhere in my closet.

When was it ever 1 fish at 28 inches?


I'm sure it was for more than one year but it was in 1999

I'm not sure when it went to 2 but that should have been changed back sooner and we would not be here where we are now obviously

oops, Patrick beat me to it

You are all equating a 2 fish limit as 2 more guaranteed dead fish.
A 2 fish limit is not an automatic double to the daily limit guarantee.
There has to be some thinking that it must be slightly more difficult to catch 2 fish @33" then it is to catch only one fish @28"
The same thinking that rationalizes the option of a "28-37" slot and a 40" trophy is harder to catch.

The ruling was for a 25% reduction to the stock NOT 1@28" COASTWIDE.

with 1@28" we will see a 31% reduction
with 2@33" we will see a 29% reduction
Those are both still over 25% correct?




This is the "option" asmfc has given to each state.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-16-49-14_zpsbi5frcos.png (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/thefishingfreak/media/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_2014-12-11-16-49-14_zpsbi5frcos.png.html)

The reduction numbers you are quoting are based on those regulations applied evenly for all rec anglers that fish for striped bass as a broad category. I think it's fair to say that the average charter captain is well above average at putting fish on the boat when compared to the recreational fishermen as a broad group and the charter captains should be capable of putting clients on 2 fish over 33". This is especially true in areas around Block Island and Montauk where the average fish they are getting is well over 33". For charters operating in those areas (and some others I'm sure) going from 2@28 to 2@33 will have no significant impact on what their clients can take home and the charters will be taking no where near a 25% reduction.

If the decision was go from 2@28 to 2@33 for everyone then the charter fleet would likely not have taken as big of a hit and the majority of the 29% reduction would likely have come from those average or below average rec fishermen who have a hard time getting a keeper sized fish as it is, or from those who fish areas that mainly hold smaller fish. But if charters get 2@33" which doesn't have much of an impact on what they can keep and recreational (non charter) get 1@28" which probably doesn't have much of an impact on what they are keeping now where is the reduction coming from?

If you start dividing recreational angers into smaller groups and then let each group select their best option (the option that will have the least impact on what they can keep) the percentages don't hold and we end up right where we started.

If you start dividing recreational angers into smaller groups and then let each group select their best option (the option that will have the least impact on what they can keep) the percentages don't hold and we end up right where we started.

exactly....

Bob, I don't know whether you were fishing back then, but guys were singing that same "there's plenty of bass, they're all offshore where the bait is" song back in the early and mid 1980s. ;)

I was still involved with fresh water tournament bass fishing, I don't think I flipped back to the salt until after things started to pick up again. I think some of the early and late migratory routes are still basically instinctual, is bait a factor at times, sure it is; but I've been around tons of bait the last several years with nothing bothering it. I'm not buying into any argument that the bait is offshore and that's why we all perceive the stocks to be suffering.

I was still involved with fresh water tournament bass fishing, I don't think I flipped back to the salt until after things started to pick up again. I think some of the early and late migratory routes are still basically instinctual, is bait a factor at times, sure it is; but I've been around tons of bait the last several years with nothing bothering it. I'm not buying into any argument that the bait is offshore and that's why we all perceive the stocks to be suffering.

Stop catching Inshore bass you knuckleheads. You're killing all the fish that are imprinted with your favorite rock coordinates .
The Charter guys are only catching the fish you can't reach 😊😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are all equating a 2 fish limit as 2 more guaranteed dead fish.
A 2 fish limit is not an automatic double to the daily limit guarantee.
There has to be some thinking that it must be slightly more difficult to catch 2 fish @33" then it is to catch only one fish @28"
The same thinking that rationalizes the option of a "28-37" slot and a 40" trophy is harder to catch.

The ruling was for a 25% reduction to the stock NOT 1@28" COASTWIDE.

with 1@28" we will see a 31% reduction
with 2@33" we will see a 29% reduction
Those are both still over 25% correct?


[/IMG][/URL]

so the fish your charters catch are usually between 28" and 33"? If the answer is yes, then there is a reduction as people won't be taking home 2 fish each. If the fish are bigger than 33" then there wouldn't be any reduction.

If the bait went offshore and the bass with them then what the hell were the 15 millions pogies doing in Narragansett Bay with no bass on them?
What, the bass didn't want to eat pogies?

Ridiculous argument. The bait was everywhere in the Bay with hardly any bass on them. The bass just weren't there because there were less of them.

I was on Ohio Ledge in September and there were huge schools of pogies that went completely unmolested because there were no bass. Period!

This just came across my desk, NJ has submitted its proposals to the ASMFC:

http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_ID=949&ParentCat=19

Here you go guys - EQUALITY between For-Hire and straight recreational.

2 Fish for everyone, plus since New Jersey ended commercial fishing, they still have their "bonus" tag for a 3rd recreational fish.

Btw - I called the "CE" loophole was going to be a sh*tshow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the bait went offshore and the bass with them then what the hell were the 15 millions pogies doing in Narragansett Bay with no bass on them?
What, the bass didn't want to eat pogies?

Ridiculous argument. The bait was everywhere in the Bay with hardly any bass on them. The bass just weren't there because there were less of them.

I was on Ohio Ledge in September and there were huge schools of pogies that went completely unmolested because there were no bass. Period!

My response was somewhat in est .
However we see equally huge schools a striped bass offshore that go un molested except by the occasional seal. Just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The ASMFC has to go away.

Some of us were at the meetings 10/15 years ago when they wanted to go from 1 to 2 fish in Mass for recs to allow for another 300K pounds for commercial and stated back then this was going to happen (hi Patrick :wavey: ) . Some of us have been standing on the soapbox since way back they to stay at 1@36 as the limits were getting dropped in this miraculous display of recovery management that was the Striped Bass.

Mako Mike: "Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy."

Nothing about jealousy, all about doing whats best for a health stock.

Despite the disagreements, I want to thank John R. for giving all of us a forum in which we can, in the end, agree to disagree, if that's what it comes to.

Thank you

I think the problem here is that some want the fish to come back quick , no matter if some very good people ( yes honest guys have charter boats too ) get hurt in the process . It's simple not that the stock just fully recovers , it's gotta happen fast .
We are all above the pettiness , jealousy thing .
Correct ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently we are not above the pettiness jealousy thing because one group wants more than the rest that also happens to elevate the risk.

Titanic Deckchair committee

I have to say, KUDOS to everyone who has posted on this thread. It has to be one of the better discussion threads on the Board in a long time.
Different takes on one subject that everyone clearly cares about.

I commend everyone who has participated.

again- I agree wholeheartedly^^^^

this didn't go down the drain of name-calling and personal insults like happens on the other site whenver opposing viewpoints come together.

and I'd like to add that I still respect everyone's opinion and their rights to pursue options to achieve their end goal.

(I just think I'm right-er than you(se) other guys....... :0

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don't understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.

Actually the TC did say exactly that, look at the listed percentage value estimates next to the options. Since 1 @ 28" is equal to an aprox. X% value, then per the adopted addendum it should match that X% value. Not just the 25% in one year but specifically the value voted on and passed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's the thinking that you are 99% of the fisherman, you are not.
Just keep standing on that rock waiting for the fish to come back.

Again showing you are completely unaware of what is going on for most. Much of my fishing this year was dragging live bunker and eels through offshore reefs with guys who have done very well for decades in these areas that are now generally devoid of bass, yet loaded with bait. The rocks I stand on are also generally empty as are most up and down the coast. You may not care because you can still make a buck, but some of us would rather not revisit the '80s. That was people not adapting, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again showing you are completely unaware of what is going on for most. Much of my fishing this year was dragging live bunker and eels through offshore reefs with guys who have done very well for decades in these areas that are now generally devoid of bass, yet loaded with bait. The rocks I stand on are also generally empty as are most up and down the coast. You may not care because you can still make a buck, but some of us would rather not revisit the '80s. That was people not adapting, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Somehow there's 7 million pounds of dead commercial fish and 19 million pounds of dead recreational fish coastwide this year alone that didn't just miraculously fall out of the sky. Or all come out of one solitary school the big bad charter boats happen to stumble across as you would like to believe.

Somebody is catching them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Somehow there's 7 million pounds of dead commercial fish and 19 million pounds of dead recreational fish coastwide this year alone that didn't just miraculously fall out of the sky. Or all come out of one solitary school the big bad charter boats happen to stumble across as you would like to believe.

Somebody is catching them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is from "One Angler's Voyage" Blog...if the numbers are at all accurate and reflect the neighboring states in any way... then it is clear who is "catching" them and it is clear that a for hire exemption can't possibly result in the desired reduction...

"Last year, in my home state of New York, anglers made about 950,000 trips in search of striped bass, and killed about 375,000 fish. About half of those trips—more than 450,000—were made by surfcasters, while fewer than a quarter—just 191,000—were made on party and charter boats.

But when you look at the landings, nearly two-thirds of the fish—235,000 out of 375,000—were killed by the for-hires."
and I believe NY is the only state where it's "not" legal for the captain and mate to be included in the boat head count for keeping fish

this isn't an attack on the big bad charter boats.... but it is recognizing that they, for the most part, are far more efficient at locating those schools and working them regularly with their clients as the numbers would indicate... and therefore there might be more responsibility and accountability rather than an exemption to changes intended to restore the resource, particularly if they want to continue to enjoy what they do...

honestly...at a time when many tournaments are moving to catch and release for bass, clubs are also changing the nature of their tournaments and how they will participate, magazines are shifting their entire presentation of the species...when the trend seems to be toward more conservation of the stocks with an acknowledgment to one degree or another that the stocks are not trending well the general attitude and actions of many of the for-hires, I believe, is resulting in much of the ill will that they are feeling.....I'm sure there is also some jealousy and spite and misdirected anger too, but for the most part I think the input is fueled by good intentions as many providing the input have already been self-regulating for sometime(including many for-hires) without needing a law passed to do so...

this is from "One Angler's Voyage" Blog...if the numbers are at all accurate and reflect the neighboring states in any way... then it is clear who is "catching" them and it is clear that a for hire exemption can't possibly result in the desired reduction...

"Last year, in my home state of New York, anglers made about 950,000 trips in search of striped bass, and killed about 375,000 fish. About half of those trips—more than 450,000—were made by surfcasters, while fewer than a quarter—just 191,000—were made on party and charter boats.

But when you look at the landings, nearly two-thirds of the fish—235,000 out of 375,000—were killed by the for-hires."


this isn't an attack on the big bad charter boats.... but it is recognizing that they, for the most part, are far more efficient at locating those schools and working them regularly with their clients as the numbers would indicate... and therefore there might be more responsibility and accountability rather than an exemption to changes intended to restore the resource, particularly if they want to continue to enjoy what they do...
2 @ 28" was what they were allowed . I do believe , at least in our waters , a 2 fish at 33" will be a significant reduction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2 @ 28" was what they were allowed . I do believe , at least in our waters , a 2 fish at 33" will be a significant reduction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think if that can be demonstrated, there might be an argument for those for-hires in that area...I don't think that's the case for most, certainly not the boats from 4 states fishing BI last summer...I think the reasoning for favoring 28" vs. 32" or 33" was recognizing that the upper mark, while generally attainable for a boat fisherman it was a high mark for the average shore fisherman and that 28" was more attainable and provided better continuity from the current regs...also need to consider the fact that it is a year later next year and those fish will have grown, I think that's one of the CE arguments, that they look back rather than forward not accounting for the maturity of the stock and class years

Stop catching Inshore bass you knuckleheads. You're killing all the fish that are imprinted with your favorite rock coordinates .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this was great BTW

It's not an exemption. We are all being offered a choice. To pick one "option" off of a list of "options" given to everybody.
Somehow the scientists and fisheries managers who created these "choices" with their corrupt science, voodoo math and built in deceit, have offered up the same reduction outcome within 2% with lots of different scenarios. 9 of them to be exact. There's even charts and pictures and stuff with different percentage values placed next to these 9 "options" for all to see.
You are all upset at the Charter boats for picking a choice that is available. Not some loophole, or special treatment.
You want me to pick the option you pick, because you believe the stock is in much greater dyer straits then I do and that is an argument that is never going to be won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not an exemption. We are all being offered a choice. To pick one "option" off of a list of "options" given to everybody.
Somehow the scientists and fisheries managers who created these "choices" with their corrupt science, voodoo math and built in deceit, have offered up the same reduction outcome within 2% with lots of different scenarios. 9 of them to be exact. There's even charts and pictures and stuff with different percentage values placed next to these 9 "options" for all to see.
You are all upset at the Charter boats for picking a choice that is available. Not some loophole, or special treatment.
You want me to pick the option you pick, because you believe the stock is in much greater dyer straits then I do and that is an argument that is never going to be won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

think you're gonna need a mulligan on that one...:lurk:

Doesn't moving the limit to 2@33" just put more pressure on those schools that have predominately, let's say >60-70%, of the fish in the school are that size or larger? Those schools exist, the comm bass guys have no problem finding them and many reaching their daily quota, 15 fish >34". It does help to have a boat.

Schools of smaller fish will still be fished but C&R.....

Somehow there's 7 million pounds of dead commercial fish and 19 million pounds of dead recreational fish coastwide this year alone that didn't just miraculously fall out of the sky. Or all come out of one solitary school the big bad charter boats happen to stumble across as you would like to believe.
Somebody is catching them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I have not been fishing long but there are less fish in more places. Rockfish Joe has been at it a long time in his area,poor results. Piemma has been at it a long time,poor results. Same in CT waters and Montauk with most going to the porkchop slaughterhouse. Parking lots in Chatham,same in BI( offshore schools)? Less fish to kill in less places will still yield poundage when the $ is at stake. Yet some folks still keep their head where it smells like poop. Am I jealous? No,I burn fuel and catch fish,all types.But it is too bad that Narraganset bay,cuttyhunk,plum island,and valiant rock are no longer part of the "striper coast"despite the abundance of bait. Let's make something clear,there is nice cod bite in the harbor right now, if there were $ being offered there would be poundage being caught and in the view of some it is because the sky is not really falling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But it is too bad that Narraganset bay,cuttyhunk,plum island,and valiant rock are no longer part of the "striper coast"despite the abundance of bait.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device





For some strange reason they left these historical haunts and pods of bait to join their offshore brethren......or so some will lead you to believe.

Let's be perfectly clear, the Stellwagen Bank charter guys are not saying that there is no reduction needed. Quite to the contrary they have agreed to a reduction . Like Mike has stated sometimes it's not catching the fish and taking them home but to be able to hold out the possibility that they can catch 2 fish and take them home. Let's face it part of the experience of fishing is to take home a couple fillets and throw them on the grill and reminisce about the day while you're family is eating a good healthy meal. But being able to eat a second meal after spending 250 bucks to go fishing makes it an even greater experience.
When charterboats fish every day and their livelihood depends on finding fish, yes they are capable of getting on fish if they are around.
I understand the guys that make plugs for $$ and for joy wanting the inshore fishing to pick up. I would hope most of you would understand that this is not about the charterboats stuffing their pockets and slaughtering bass, but about continuing the tradition and a lifestyle and doing what many of them have done their whole lives.
Yes they are adapting, they are pushing whale watches and seal watches and sunrises ,sunsets and the whole experience but they need to be able to at least offer the ability to take home some fish. Especially when the targeted reduction is being kept in mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the Stellwagen Bank charter guys are not saying that there is no reduction needed. Quite to the contrary they have agreed to a reduction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you guys are really losing me now...

it's not an exemption(exception).... it's.... picking from several choices....

a reduction "is" needed and the charter guys "agreed" to it despite the numbers that created the need for a reduction coming from flawed science and disillusioned shore types who can't catch fish anyway and haven't seen the acres and acres of bass frolicking offshore...?

good to have a sense of humor in all of this...

After reading all the doomsday scenarios in this thread I wonder what the guides would do if the fisheries managers decided that a total moratorium was needed coast wide for stripers. Sure you could catch-n-release stripers but couldn't possess any. I wonder what the guides would do then- quit or change species they targeted? Ron

After reading all the doomsday scenarios in this thread I wonder what the guides would do if the fisheries managers decided that a total moratorium was needed coast wide for stripers. Sure you could catch-n-release stripers but couldn't possess any. I wonder what the guides would do then- quit or change species they targeted? Ron

There is a likelihood they wouldn't make enough money to stay in business .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you guys are really losing me now...

it's not an exemption(exception).... it's.... picking from several choices....

a reduction "is" needed and the charter guys "agreed" to it despite the numbers that created the need for a reduction coming from flawed science and disillusioned shore types who can't catch fish anyway and haven't seen the acres and acres of bass frolicking offshore...?

good to have a sense of humor in all of this...

Exactly ;)) I'm just begging you not to put me on your list and go all Ferguson on my ass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Prior to the Am 6 increase to 2 @ 28" the coastal regs were 1 @ 28" for quite a few years. I still have all of that analysis in a box somewhere in my closet.

O.K., I'll take you and Slip's word for it, I didn't and still don't remember it. I do remember 1 at 36.

But if it's a bad law (and that's a big "if"), and if the charter guys are advocating for that law based solely on greed (and that's not a big "if"), an dthat law gives some people more of a right to a public resource than the rest of us (and that's not debatable) it's fair to criticize them.

There are bad laws. People who advocate for bad laws for personal profit, potentially ta the expense of a public resource, are fair game for criticism.

Jim, If it truly is the "conservational equivalent" they are not getting more of a share, just different rules.

Exactly ;)) I'm just begging you not to put me on your list and go all Ferguson on my ass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll put you on my Christmas list :hee:

I understand the guys that make plugs for $$ and for joy wanting the inshore fishing to pick up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


For the record i'm in favor of a moratorium right now if we can't get gamefish status. I want to see a world class fishery which in turn would provide a large economic boost to everybody. As far the $ goes i can always ( laying the groundwork now and proto'ing) build plugs for LMB ( where the $ is), musky, GT, roosterfish, etc. That and most of my customers would stand on a rock for 4 hrs in the middle of the nite for a chance to c&r a decent striper.

I'm no longer going to argue whether their are striped bass in the ocean but let me give you this example.
This year out on Stellwagen Bank and the traditional summering areas for smaller bluefin tuna there was more bait than you can imagine however the Rec size fish didn't show until late, very late in the season. Last year they barely showed at all.
I don't recall anybody saying that bluefin was going extinct as a matter of fact the bio mass has increased. It happens.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

O.K., I'll take you and Slip's word for it, I didn't and still don't remember it. I do remember 1 at 36.

...and 1 @34" and for a year 1 @28. I have a rod Dave Hammock at Murat's wrapped for me with a marker at 36", 1 @ 34" and 1 @ 28". He died in Nov of 1994 so it was all before 94

I have for many years, helped crew for a childhood friend who owns a charter business also out of green harbor. We too, have seen acres of frolicking happy fat bass on stellwagen.
But we are supposed to, it's right smack in the middle of their summer grounds. We also for fun, trailer and fish with other good fishermen the bay, the sound, the Elizabeth islands and a lot of other places that for almost 45 years we could somewhat consistently find fish. We are struck with the paucity of fish at most of these other spots.
I surmise that the imprinting ability of the easy to access bass is a big factor in this. Coupled with the technology to zero in on them, they can't keep up with us.
Adding to the mix for a myriad of reasons is the unreliability of the Chesapeake to be a consistent nursery.
There is way more going on here than any of us are privy to.

As a side note, the lack of cod pushed my friend out of the game this year. He had a good kick at the can for a while.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
this is from "One Angler's Voyage" Blog...if the numbers are at all accurate and reflect the neighboring states in any way... then it is clear who is "catching" them and it is clear that a for hire exemption can't possibly result in the desired reduction...

"Last year, in my home state of New York, anglers made about 950,000 trips in search of striped bass, and killed about 375,000 fish. About half of those trips—more than 450,000—were made by surfcasters, while fewer than a quarter—just 191,000—were made on party and charter boats.

But when you look at the landings, nearly two-thirds of the fish—235,000 out of 375,000—were killed by the for-hires."




2 @ 28" was what they were allowed . I do believe , at least in our waters , a 2 fish at 33" will be a significant reduction .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


consider this Buck... the 1@28" resulting an a 25% reduction takes into account "all" rec anglers....the Conservation Eq numbers, similarly(I believe)take into account "all" rec anglers..if the breakdown above showing a pretty disproportionate number of fish being taken by for hires is at all accurate...

are the CE numbers being used 2@33" as equivalents accurate if there is a blend of 1@28" for "regular recs." and 2@33' for for-hires and their clients if the for hire's and their clients are already taking a disproportionate number of fish?

anecdotal I know, but I know of very few shore recs who take home 2 fish per trip...in fact the 1@ is going to affect almost no one that I know who fishes from shore and many from their boats(probably because they suck);)....particularly with the way the fishing has been..if it were 1@33 or 2@33 many of these anglers would be bringing nothing home....and I understand that there are times places people where this doesn't apply...

I guess what I'm saying or asking is...the reduction and corresponding equivalents were established looking at the whole pie...if we make "exceptions" for a portion of that pie...the equivalents all become skewed based on proportion....2@33" would have to be a pretty impressive reduction(and I don't know if 2@33 would apply to a specific area of Mass or all for hires state wide...likewise in other states) if they are already representing a disproportionate number of fish taken, in order to maintain the 25% reduction

Let's be perfectly clear, the Stellwagen Bank charter guys are not saying that there is no reduction needed. Quite to the contrary they have agreed to a reduction . Like Mike has stated sometimes it's not catching the fish and taking them home but to be able to hold out the possibility that they can catch 2 fish and take them home. Let's face it part of the experience of fishing is to take home a couple fillets and throw them on the grill and reminisce about the day while you're family is eating a good healthy meal. But being able to eat a second meal after spending 250 bucks to go fishing makes it an even greater experience.
When charterboats fish every day and their livelihood depends on finding fish, yes they are capable of getting on fish if they are around.
I understand the guys that make plugs for $$ and for joy wanting the inshore fishing to pick up. I would hope most of you would understand that this is not about the charterboats stuffing their pockets and slaughtering bass, but about continuing the tradition and a lifestyle and doing what many of them have done their whole lives.
Yes they are adapting, they are pushing whale watches and seal watches and sunrises ,sunsets and the whole experience but they need to be able to at least offer the ability to take home some fish. Especially when the targeted reduction is being kept in mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sure , ok

1 striper and one bluefish equals 2 fish. there ya go
if you don't like that, how about 1 bass and 1 fluke
1 bass and 1 scup
1 bass and 1 mackeral
1 striper and 1 sea bass
1 striper and 1 cod
etc. etc. etc.

professional charters should be able to get them 2 fish to take home, there's lots to choose from. what's wrong with that?

I guess only time will tell if 25% reduction will even work, maybe it should have been 50% who knows

I'm not an economics professor, just a guy who enjoys fishing for striped bass with plenty of common sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
this is from "One Angler's Voyage" Blog...if the numbers are at all accurate and reflect the neighboring states in any way... then it is clear who is "catching" them and it is clear that a for hire exemption can't possibly result in the desired reduction...

"Last year, in my home state of New York, anglers made about 950,000 trips in search of striped bass, and killed about 375,000 fish. About half of those trips—more than 450,000—were made by surfcasters, while fewer than a quarter—just 191,000—were made on party and charter boats.

But when you look at the landings, nearly two-thirds of the fish—235,000 out of 375,000—were killed by the for-hires."





consider this Buck... the 1@28" resulting an a 25% reduction takes into account "all" rec anglers....the Conservation Eq numbers, similarly(I believe)take into account "all" rec anglers..if the breakdown above showing a pretty disproportionate number of fish being taken by for hires is at all accurate...

are the CE numbers being used 2@33" as equivalents accurate if there is a blend of 1@28" for "regular recs." and 2@33' for for-hires and their clients if the for hire's and their clients are already taking a disproportionate number of fish?

anecdotal I know, but I know of very few shore recs who take home 2 fish per trip...in fact the 1@ is going to affect almost no one that I know who fishes from shore and many from their boats(probably because they suck);)....particularly with the way the fishing has been..if it were 1@33 or 2@33 many of these anglers would be bringing nothing home....and I understand that there are times places people where this doesn't apply...

I guess what I'm saying or asking is...the reduction and corresponding equivalents were established looking at the whole pie...if we make "exceptions" for a portion of that pie...the equivalents all become skewed based on proportion....2@33" would have to be a pretty impressive reduction(and I don't know if 2@33 would apply to a specific area of Mass or all for hires state wide...likewise in other states) if they are already representing a disproportionate number of fish taken, in order to maintain the 25% reduction

I believe it is based on all Rec anglers and the options also work for all Rec's , beach or boat or charter . they all were calculated to meet to 25%.
It's not that the charters are asking for more fish they are just asking for a different option that reaches the same result.
The difference of opinion is whether those options do reach the same result.
I don't know how you prove it either way . It's an inexact science, if you want to call it a science at all. It's anybody's guess.
One thing I do know is that if the charter fleet is allowed 2@33inches and the shore guys don't see a rapid increase in catchable fish in the ditch , there's going to be a lot of squawking 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:

I guess what I'm saying or asking is...the reduction and corresponding equivalents were established looking at the whole pie...if we make "exceptions" for a portion of that pie...the equivalents all become skewed based on proportion....2@33" would have to be a pretty impressive reduction(and I don't know if 2@33 would apply to a specific area of Mass or all for hires state wide...likewise in other states) if they are already representing a disproportionate number of fish taken, in order to maintain the 25% reduction


EXACTLY!

you get a cookie

I think the same way but am not smart enough to put it in words like you just did
thank you

if the catching goes downhill in the ditch, then maybe all the yahoos will not come back and less people will fish there, that would be nice
maybe people will keep their mouths shut but that won't happen

I believe it is based on all Rec anglers and the options also work for all Rec's , beach or boat or charter . they all were calculated to meet to 25%.
It's not that the charters are asking for more fish they are just asking for a different option that reaches the same result.
The difference of opinion is whether those options do reach the same result.
I don't know how you prove it either way . It's an inexact science, if you want to call it a science at all. It's anybody's guess.
One thing I do know is that if the charter fleet is allowed 2@33inches and the shore guys don't see a rapid increase in catchable fish in the ditch , there's going to be a lot of squawking ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no doubt...

I guess I'd argue that you can't use the 2@33" equivalent as I assume it was arrived at taking into account all rec. users catch and not for for the user group that you are talking about ...you are going to have to come up with an equivalent number that applies to that group and their disproportionate contribution and accounting for the other groups operating under 1@28 if that is what happens....can the group operating under 1@28" for a 25% reduction still achieve that reduction if for hires fishing in the same waters are fishing under 2@33" when the numbers are added together?....

everyone was included to arrive at those numbers...
some are trying to use the same numbers while not including everyone...

no doubt...

I guess I'd argue that you can't use the 2@33" equivalent as I assume it was arrived at taking into account all rec. users catch and not for for the user group that you are talking about ...you are going to have to come up with an equivalent number that applies to that group and their disproportionate contribution and accounting for the other groups operating under 1@28 if that is what happens....can the group operating under 1@28" for a 25% reduction still achieve that reduction if for hires fishing in the same waters are fishing under 2@33" when the numbers are added together?....

everyone was included to arrive at those numbers...
some are trying to use the same numbers while not including everyone...

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if the catching goes downhill in the ditch, then maybe all the yahoos will not come back and less people will fish there, that would be nice
maybe people will keep their mouths shut but that won't happen

It has gone downhill. People don't see it because of the daytime blitzes. Those are transitory fish. They're out in the bay and follow the mackerel and other bait schools in on those tides. I've noticed a decline in the numbers of resident fish for five years, maybe more. And when was the last time you heard of guys having 30-50 fish nights during the start of the fall? Nights when you stopped setting on fish and waited until one hooked itself because you just wanted to make it more challenging?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This year? You were more likely to catch one at 43" than either 28" or 33".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has gone downhill. People don't see it because of the daytime blitzes. Those are transitory fish. They're out in the bay and follow the mackerel and other bait schools in on those tides. I've noticed a decline in the numbers of resident fish for five years, maybe more. And when was the last time you heard of guys having 30-50 fish nights during the start of the fall? Nights when you stopped setting on fish and waited until one hooked itself because you just wanted to make it more challenging?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know Mike, I was referring to the daytime blitz thing going downhill
it sucks that resident fish have pretty much all dissappeared in the last 5 years, I have done more fishing elsewhere because of it.

last time 30-50 fish was maybe 8-10 years ago I'm sure you were there
I'll never forget a night Jim and I had where his arms were falling off, maybe it will happen again some day

It's not that the charters are asking for more fish they are just asking for a different option that reaches the same result.��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Damn........and I thought two was more than one:smash:

Damn........and I thought two was more than one:smash:

It's not an automatic two you actually have to catch them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

28"..can't speak for the ditch but shoreline certainly

One at 28 = two at 33.
As applicable to average Joe rec.
Any good " pro " skipper should have the ability to do that and then some.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One at 28 = two at 33.
As applicable to average Joe rec.
Any good " pro " skipper should have the ability to do that and then some.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let me know when you get your captains license I could use a pro like that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point exactly !
Was only a short time ago 2 at 33 was routine .
Remember ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Much more likely to catch one over 33" than under 33" from the beach last season. The size of larger fish being caught isn't a problem it's the overall numbers being caught and the lack of smaller fish. Having a few big fish around and not much else doesn't make for a healthy fishery.

Simply speaking, killing less bass seems better for the bass population than killing more fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Simply speaking, killing less bass seems better for the bass population than killing more fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not when you are trying to use a loophole to your advantage
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point for why a longwinded loophole isnt better for the bas population. More dead fish equals less fish to catch.... No matter how long a persons response on here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the different options that were offered up during the public comment meetings were thought to have the same statistical probablility of achieving the sought-after reductions in fishing mortality. the option that was accepted was 1 fish at 28"- but they left the door open to all this muddling around by agreeing to let individual states select thir own "conservational equivalent"- an idea pushed largely by the delegation from NJ and Tom Fote (that states' vocal governor appointee)

now- if striped bass were managed in the same fashion as other federally-regulated species, none of this would be happening.... it would be a clear-cut decision under NMFS


as stated before- the ASMFC has got to go


then this whole dog-n-pony show would never happen

That's right, this extravaganza was nothing but a dog-n-pony show to temporarily appease the masses. Total joke and the joke's on us....

Corruption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the different options that were offered up during the public comment meetings were thought to have the same statistical probablility of achieving the sought-after reductions in fishing mortality. the option that was accepted was 1 fish at 28"- but they left the door open to all this muddling around by agreeing to let individual states select thir own "conservational equivalent"- an idea pushed largely by the delegation from NJ and Tom Fote (that states' vocal governor appointee)

now- if striped bass were managed in the same fashion as other federally-regulated species, none of this would be happening.... it would be a clear-cut decision under NMFS


as stated before- the ASMFC has got to go


then this whole dog-n-pony show would never happen

Feds are the most corrupt . Everything is better at the state level . It's the way it's supposed to be . A lot of species have been sold out to the highest bidder under the Feds . It really has not been better .
At least the small guy has a chance of influencing decisions at a state level .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the bait went offshore and the bass with them then what the hell were the 15 millions pogies doing in Narragansett Bay with no bass on them?
What, the bass didn't want to eat pogies?

Ridiculous argument. The bait was everywhere in the Bay with hardly any bass on them. The bass just weren't there because there were less of them.

I was on Ohio Ledge in September and there were huge schools of pogies that went completely unmolested because there were no bass. Period!

This was a very indicative sign for me last season and the season before that. I sat over many large schools of Pogies as well as many other boats....with only a few ghost bass boated. Sure, there was a one-time push of fish (big-fish) the season before that, but the pogies swam unmolested for the better part of prime-time bass fishing (spring/fall). I can't tell you how many times I said...."I can't believe the bass aren't on these pogies"...and I'm not talking about one particular area.


In regards to many posts on this thread.....
How can members of the same team continue to battle one another and expect to be victorious? Neither side will win, at the end of the day, BOTH will lose. I think the BIG picture is being missed. I think people are looking at one particular battle instead of the entire war. just my opinion...the striped-bass population has SO many enemies.

*Not being hypocritical, but I do keep AND eat fish....and would like to continue to do so. If extreme measures (regulations) need to be put in place, I'm all for them...but fighting one another when I'd like to believe that we all want the same end result, is pointless....unless of course, we really don't want the same end-result.

Like GotStripers said, I too have been a reborn ground-fisherman. I forgot how much fun targeting the many other species available to us here in the NE can be.

now- if striped bass were managed in the same fashion as other federally-regulated species, none of this would be happening.... it would be a clear-cut decision under NMFS


as stated before- the ASMFC has got to go


then this whole dog-n-pony show would never happen

Yeah the feds have done such a great job on cod and flounder in the northeast and red snapper in the gulf. :kewl:

This was a very indicative sign for me last season and the season before that. I sat over many large schools of Pogies as well as many other boats....with only a few ghost bass boated. Sure, there was a one-time push of fish (big-fish) the season before that, but the pogies swam unmolested for the better part of prime-time bass fishing (spring/fall). I can't tell you how many times I said...."I can't believe the bass aren't on these pogies"...and I'm not talking about one particular area.

In regards to many posts on this thread.....
How can members of the same team continue to battle one another and expect to be victorious? Neither side will win, at the end of the day, BOTH will lose. I think the BIG picture is being missed. I think people are looking at one particular battle instead of the entire war. just my opinion...the striped-bass population has SO many enemies.

*Not being hypocritical, but I do keep AND eat fish....and would like to continue to do so. If extreme measures (regulations) need to be put in place, I'm all for them...but fighting one another when I'd like to believe that we all want the same end result, is pointless....unless of course, we really don't want the same end-result.

Like GotStripers said, I too have been a reborn ground-fisherman. I forgot how much fun targeting the many other species available to us here in the NE can be.

Well ground fishing is all but done for the south shore and north guys .
Did you guys see blues on the pogie schools ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nope ,, very few blues in the bay ,,,,,,,,,,until very late when Tautog was open ><><>:fishin:

Well ground fishing is all but done for the south shore and north guys .
Did you guys see blues on the pogie schools ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Clammer said

Moratorium on bluefish immediately!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like it like this with the BLOOOOOOOOOfish ,the ones we caught were worth alot more than the Scup ><><><:doh:

Well..... Now that you mention it, i have only gotten a total of 7 bluefish in the last 2 seasons... And that is approx. 160 nights of surfcasting.
Bluefish are what hooked me on saltwater fishing... Now i couldnt produce a blue if you paid me!
I have had friends skunked on boats at the race this season.
Not saying blues are wiped out, but something is much much different than it was in the past, and i dont even get my eels chopped anymore.
I have always joked with my friends:
" you want to have a real challenging tournament??? Forget bass, host a bluefish surfcasting tourny!!!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When bass fishing is slow the Cape Cod Bay fleet could always count on bluefish for charters. I'm not really sure what they're offering as an experience if it does go to one bass at 28 inches for them. I don't really see the enjoyment in snapping wire or dragging umbrella rigs and keeping 1 fish each .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here are the options that NJ is leaning towards .
1. 1st striped bass - 29 inches to 36 inches., 2nd fish - 36 inches and above (26% reduction). 2. 1st striped bass - 28 inches to 42 inches, 2nd fish 42 inches and above (24% reduction).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then what NJ is doing is targeting the prime breeding stock when they should be protecting these fish somewhat. Ron

When bass fishing is slow the Cape Cod Bay fleet could always count on bluefish for charters. I'm not really sure what they're offering as an experience if it does go to one bass at 28 inches for them. I don't really see the enjoyment in snapping wire or dragging umbrella rigs and keeping 1 fish each .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't really see the enjoyment in snapping wire or dragging umbrella rigs.

sorry...couldn't resist :wave:

I don't really see the enjoyment in snapping wire or dragging umbrella rigs.

sorry...couldn't resist :wave:

Meat hunting techniques.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device