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

http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cf...9&ParentCat=19

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

"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:

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.

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.

When was it ever 1 fish at 28 inches?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

exactly....

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

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!

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

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.

Thank you

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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.....

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