Makes me wonder how these plans were drafted and who did the actual drafting of the plan(s). I was told the plans would be released in Mid January as part of the February Board meeting materials.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shady
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Many states choose to submit multiple plans to the tech. committee before they announce anything to the public. It kinda makes sense, why seek public input if the CE won't be approved by the tech. committee.

How about no one keeps anything and then everyone that wants to keep fish will be fishing a different species. Couple of years of that and 1 fish for anyone per day dosent sound that bad. Any commercial or charter guys worth their weight will survive and the rest will go do somthing else. Recs will catch and release and you will fing alot of charter clients wanting to do the same. Keep going the way we are going and that is where we will end up in 2 or 3 seasons. Bite the bullet now or take it in the behind later. The guys that will be around will be around either way. Lets do what is best for the resource and our children.

You're right Mike - that does make sense.

Headhunter... Well said... Great points
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can take up the problem of disease and water quality that is really the culprit in another dream
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many large, breeder bass died from disease and water quality in a single weekend this july?

Now, how many large breeder bass died in a single weekend this july aboard rec and charter boats?

Its time to decrease the instant kill for comm, recs and rec charters.

Thats good for the fish, but not your paycheck, so im sure you will disagree somehow in your very next post. Continually arguing to keep two fish proves you value income BEFORE preserving longevity of a species.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think one reason is that it's kosher as it is not processed or bled on the boat....I could be wrong but I think it's one of the few kosher fish with high demand buy Jewish consumers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, more regulations to improve water quality by reducing fertilizer and other run off?:wave::scream:

"We can take up the problem of disease and water quality that is really the culprit in another dream"
Not going to have to worrie about that in 2 or 3 more seasons if we dont stop killing more that the resource can bare..............first things first then we will continue to work on/ forage/ water quality / disease / greed / and perhaps even a little stupidity.......... comment not aimed at any one here just to avoid that rant.

IMO If we blow up the improvements that Providence made in its sewerage system :gorez:

within 5 years the bay S/b fifthy again / but the fishing for all species will have greatly inproved :fishin:

Republican congress already has funding for the Chesapeake Bay program in it's targets. The connection of economic benefits to a healthy population and clean water is way to complicated for most of them. Simple minded just say we should spend less money.

Very well said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not my perception.... but it's been one description of convenience to explain why the client needs two fish..."poor guy only gets to fish once a year"...."probably".......that or... he's not going fishing without at least the "perception" of being able to take two bass home.....WHO has an odd attitude toward the charter clients? Seems like most view them as equals, at least that is the sentiment I've read...it's the folks angling for an exception that characterize them as something less... needing special treatment in order to get them on the water?

The argument for DZ and me(I got it from him to be honest), that these are the last folks who should get a 2 fish exception is rhetorical to some degree based on the characterization that has been made by some of the charter folks of their clients.......

"the captain and charter industry don't really want two fish it's the client that needs two fish or the boats will go out of business...the client needs two fish or he won't book a trip...the client doesn't really need two fish, he needs the perception of needing or keeping two fish or he won't book a trip the boats will go out of business....the client only fishes once or twice a year so it's only fair that he gets two fish because others have the opportunity to fish more than that...."


unless I missed something that is the sum of the two fish argument...well, and...there are plenty of bass and a reduction isn't really needed anyway...


and if you don't agree you are selfish, jealous, hateful and you don't know very much..... or something......

I think you mixed in a few of your reasons in there just to make it sound outrages ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes it's the GOPs fault you can't catch a bass .
You should research what this Administration has done to the fisheries .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think Buckman would be so impassioned if his son was not a commercial angler. His emotional ties are those which any good father would express,regardless of the plight of the fisheries. Folks like ourselves are simply unable to understand his urgency. Family first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ha. You're are funny. Guess water quality and bay health is number one goal of the new congress. Stupid is as stupid does.

That's a fair statement and I do appreciate it. But in reality I truly do believe that businesses can be protected and the goal of restoring striped bass can be accomplished at the same time.
As with all regulations there is an extreme at both ends . The economical, the practical, and the correct choices can be made.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As passionate as many of us have been in this discussion, I feel that we are reaching the point of reiterating our position in a repetitive cycle.

In the end, some see the need to take measures to protect fish first,
while others see the need to take measures to protect personal income first.

We all have our position, and seem to be sticking to it. I am not going to convince some one who's judgement and common sense are blinded by $ to change their views. just the same, no one is going to convince me that allowing a certain group to kill more fish to preserve their own personal income is what is in the best interest for the fish.

I pray that somehow, common sense will prevail and people will decide to help protect the fish we all love. I dont see how anyone can argue that taking an intermission from the rate of killing is a bad idea... might not be what's best for YOUR personal income, but it is what's best for the fish.

I dare anyone to tell me that killing more fish is better for the bass population than killing less fish.

Every single example of 2 fish yields a lower rate of reduction than 1 fish, does it not?

This argument and finger pointing has been going on since the days of beach crews working gill nets... we can only control one thing.. and that's the harvest... everything else requires time, effort, and REAL science...not "science" skewed by personal agendas... the natural progression of life has a way of sorting things out.... the rest is up to us...

-2% difference, That's Still over the 25% reduction we all agree on.Heck it's even 4%HIGHER.
That's not good enough for you. You want everyone to have the same limits. The same playing field, Regardless of the reduction numbers.
As Nebe said, This isn't about the reduction, this is about charter boats having a different limit then rec guys.
Charter boats have different regs for many other species, Why not Bass?
Obviously the powers that be in the past have agreed that charter boats are not the same and set different rules accordingly

They don't fish commercially for bass and don't sell bass.....just saying....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't heard anyone say put the dollars ahead of the fish. Why are you going to take everything to the extreme?
I'll give you a quick example… Just a couple short years ago we were fighting to keep bluefin tuna from being put on the endangered species list . As silly as that sounds it was a hard fought battle.
Commercial bluefin tuna fisherman are instrumental in setting the harvest quota . The fish are doing well by most standards .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Saying less people will pay for a charter due to one fish limits is definitely saying it's about money. Come on man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't say it wasn't about money, I just said it's not about putting money first ahead of the fish.
Is this really that hard to understand ?
Both objectives can be achieved.
It just dawned on me that maybe the reason charterboats do so well catching fish is we have a zero tolerance drug policy 😊😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem with charters having different regulations is that the reduction percentages are based on all recreational anglers having the same limits. You can't have different limits for the various recreational user groups and achieve the same reduction.

With 1 @28" the charter guys get hit harder than the average recreational guy who probably has trouble even getting 1@28 most of the time. With 2@33 the average recreation guys get hit harder because they now need to catch a 33" fish instead of a 28" fish and that rarely happens but for the charters it's pretty much business as usual. If you slice it up and the average rec guy gets 1@28 and the charters get 2@33 then the overall reduction drops to well below the target of 25%.

Again, the reduction percentages are based on the entire recreational sector having the same limits and with any of the available options one group is going to take the brunt of the reduction. If you slice it up and cherry pick from the options based on each recreational user group you won't achieve the target reduction.