Originally Posted by MakoMike (Post 1058947)

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.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1058920)

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

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1058941)

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

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1058965)

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

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1058965)

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

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1058970)

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

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1058973)

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...

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1058972)

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

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1058980)

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

Originally Posted by Mike P (Post 1058981)

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

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1058970)

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

Originally Posted by t.orlando (Post 1058986)

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

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1058980)

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

Originally Posted by MAKAI (Post 1058991)

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

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1058980)

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

Originally Posted by ivanputski (Post 1059009)

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

Originally Posted by bobber (Post 1059016)

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

Originally Posted by piemma (Post 1058864)

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!

Originally Posted by bobber (Post 1059016)

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

Originally Posted by bloocrab (Post 1059041)

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.