Rhode Island Charter Boat limit 1 or 2 fish
 

As many of you know, Rhode Island DEM is considering whether to allow RI Charter boats to have 1 fish or 2 fish each for their clients.

I want to create a poll to see what the members here think. The options are:

1 I am a Rhode Island resident and I propose 1 fish per client on RI Charter Boats
2 I am a Rhode Island resident and I propose 2 fish per client on RI Charter Boats
3 I am not a Rhode Island resident and I propose 1 fish per client on RI Charter Boats
4 I am not a Rhode Island resident and I propose 2 fish per client on RI Charter Boats

Haha, why not just say Mike, Mike, Ronnie & Steve take a step to the left :hang:

Is this just for informational purposes or is this going to be provided to RISAA, RI DEM, etc?

Because RI residents have most bearing on RI management folks. When I was going to A6 meetings in Mass I announced that I was from RI.

I am considering sending to RI DEM. They are accepting correspondence until Feb 26th

As a state with angling reciprocity what's the difference resodent or non?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lmao !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The same as if I sent a letter to the CT DEM people "As a concerned Rho Dyslundah"...

Why are the results hidden?

Because what if the results aren't as everyone thought! :mushroomcloud:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Results will be displayed at end of poll in 5 days - one vote per user. Far from scientific but reduces likelihood of someone leaning on a particular button

So correct me if I am wrong..though MA&CT may vote option 1, if RI votes option 2, MA & CT vessels can take their non licensed charters to RI waters and take 2 fish?

and not for nothin', but who that votes here is from RI?

-sorry, re-read non resident option. Apologies.

The charter boats have to buy a permit to licence everyone on board, so stop saying they are "non - licenced".
the customers might not all have individual saltwater licences, but they are all indeed licenced.
where you land, dock or trailer depends your limits
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not to mention besides the "vessel for hire" salt water fishing lic (Ma.) And that cost on 6x the recipient fee say a charter captain decides to loose his mind and join in on the nonsense that goes on at the canal or any other surf destination we also need a recent salt water lic.
Then say I accept an invite on a rec owners boat for the day, need a rec license also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if they have a charter/party license in RI.

I was told that because of reciprocity they could take 2 but would have to land them in RI (example RI boat ramp/boat slip). Then it becomes a possession limit in the state they are going to. But the odds of getting caught with 2 fish in a 1 fish state would be miniscule.

Bump

I disagree DZ, all EP would have to do is set up by the 3rd can and patrol BI, that is the area that really needs to be protected. We pay for.licensing now and i would expect a larger presence with more pressure and published fines. I also think stiffer penalties needs to be enforced, for example when your boat and gear is taken its auctioned off not returned after you pay the fines....

EP needs a larger presence in this state Lord knows i have seen way to many this winter on the ocean front...

Off-topic question, down by Monahan there is a boat.parking only, who do you call when surfers are parked there?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is only one parking spot for a boat trailer at monahans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the 2 fish bag for the for hire industry was discussed at the RISAA BOD hearing they went over this. If RI for hires get a two fish bag for clients - then any out of state for hire boats can legally keep two fish per client WHILE in RI waters because we have license reciprocity with those other states. We all agree more inforcement is needed but DEM funding is a very low priority. Although a separate issue my suggestion is for RI to drop its reciprocity agreement with other states and charge for a non-resident license to fund more enforcement. RI waters are a commodity - everyone wants to fish here and does - RI should take advantage of its resource. Reciprocity sounded good at first but is a bad deal for RI.

So again 1 fish bag Limit for charters as well solves the problem. One of the best statements that was made was "your selling the experience not the meat ".

If DEM is underfunded get someone else to run it, just like the Clowns that think its ok to make special rules.

If the RI DEM needs more money, do as i said take the gear and trucks and auction it off problem solved.

These issues are beyond the bag limits but at least its a start. Honestly if things dont change heads At the top should roll.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't believe that it true for charter/party licenses, though it is true for the recreational fishing licenses. If you are operating a charter/party boat in RI waters you need a RI charter/party license.

What about the NY/CT/MA boats bassing at SW or blackfishing in RI wtaers in the fall?

I hope you're correct Mike. I'll have to pose the question to DEM.

I thought when the Saltwater fishing license was instituted that a portion of that money was to go to the DEM to help fund them. Might just be a MA thing but I would have thought RI would use the funds for something similar.

the keyword here is "portion"

I voted but you can only vote on the pc. Mobile platforms no worky I want a recount! where's Al Gore:laughs:

this would never work in a state like NewHampshire with only 13 miles of coastline you would need Maine and Mass licenses also?

Boats from NH would also have to have MA or ME licenses, Just like the guys from Montauk that fish around BI have to get RI licenses.

One fish would be great. How ever for charters, I wouldn't mind 2 fish per paid angler. Leaving Captains and Mate out.

Thanks for starting my morning off with a good laugh Mike.
Almost spit my coffee on laptop.
Funny chit !

This is where I stand.
Me, striper taste like crap.
It's about us being able to sell charters.

So you sell crap?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what's the difference between a guy who fishes as a guest on a for hire or me from the beach ? Please don't tell me it's because he pays so much. Let's all remember who kills the most fish, rec boats and for hires according to the numbers. If we are going to stabilize the biomass then thaving the largest group of participants still killing two fish what do we expect to happen. The 1@28 was supposed to be only a 50% chance. Now where are we ? Every state is mixed up in this BS "got to have 2 fish thing because of the other guy (adjacent states )", all because some boneheads fell for conservation equivalency as if there really is such a thing. Maybe we should manage Plovers with that concept. As long as we always have the same number of nests somewhere on the coast that's OK. ?

If all states in the New England region go 1 fish bag then the common argument that any NE state will have an advantage over the other becomes mute. Right now RI seems to be the only wild card left.

The 25% reduction of striped bass from the recs have a 100% chance of success (1 bass from 2 bass) and the for hire 25% reduction has a 0% probability of success (2 bass before 2 bass proposed) and Collectively the probability would be 50% ( 100% probability recs + 0% probability "for hires" divide by 2 is 50% probability
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it was 2 @ 28 inches your theory might hold water. Would your probability of catching one from shore stay the same if it was 1 @ 33 inches?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In RI the charter fleet has no problem finding fish over 32 inches at the Block. Business as usual, no reduction in fish taken
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is a weak a$$ excuse to use the we will lose money if our customers can't have a chance to keep 2 fish if the limit goes to one at 28". How about the tackle shops all along the coast (except NJ) who have to accept the fact that THEIR customers will now only be able to keep one fish @ 28" so seeing as how that is now now longer 2 per day, it will impact THEIR business in loss of customers, but for some power struggle driven reason, the Charter businesses who think their business will be hurt want a "special" conservation equivalency for their particular user group. I call horse shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit on that crap. They have no justification.

The fisheries managers need to stop trying to please everyone and realize they need to do the right thing and give the fish a better than 50/50 shot at survival. One at 32" or 34" would be better, or a graduated limit would be fine also to protect the 2011 year class, like 28" this year, then 30" then 32". Their scientists need to grow a set of balls and speak up or find another job.


It has gone beyond ridiculousness long enough

Yes it would stay the same.
catching, and keeping are 2 very different things.
The probability of catching a 33" fish is still the same.

Interesting results - more consistent than I thought we would see.