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