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

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....

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

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

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

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.

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

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:

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

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

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 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/y25...psbi5frcos.png
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: