TWO BASS FOR RI CHARTER AND PARTY BOATS?

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by buckman

...SNIPPED But we don't agree on is whether the math that is been calculated will achieve the same result.
I believe it does . Even in a democracy sometimes the majority does not get to drive the minority out of business over pettiness .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please go back and either READ or RE-READ my post and tell me you still believe that the math makes sense when you apply 2 VERY different rules to 2 VERY different populations. That is the lynchpin you have consistently avoided to address.

And just for the record: I AM IN FAVOR OF 1 FISH.

HOWEVER: I accept that IF I believe the math for A, then I accept it for B. So I ACCEPT either option will work IF APPLIED EQUALLY ACROSS THE POPULATION.

Look, either way, some groups are going to get hit harder than others. It sucks, but that's the way it is. I have ZERO sympathy for the "My job is going away" argument. A few years ago, my industry went mostly to india. I saw the writing on the wall and adapted. Was I happy? no. But I adapted. If charter guys don't see that they are in for a tough haul and make changes them they will not survive. period. Does it suck? sure. Would I be happy? no. Your position IS no different than mine WAS. Did I cause outsourcing? nope. Did the gov't help me? nope.
Was i PISSED? you better believe it. But you adapt. I hope you can do the same.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

Please go back and either READ or RE-READ my post and tell me you still believe that the math makes sense when you apply 2 VERY different rules to 2 VERY different populations. That is the lynchpin you have consistently avoided to address.

And just for the record: I AM IN FAVOR OF 1 FISH.

HOWEVER: I accept that IF I believe the math for A, then I accept it for B. So I ACCEPT either option will work IF APPLIED EQUALLY ACROSS THE POPULATION.

Look, either way, some groups are going to get hit harder than others. It sucks, but that's the way it is. I have ZERO sympathy for the "My job is going away" argument. A few years ago, my industry went mostly to india. I saw the writing on the wall and adapted. Was I happy? no. But I adapted. If charter guys don't see that they are in for a tough haul and make changes them they will not survive. period. Does it suck? sure. Would I be happy? no. Your position IS no different than mine WAS. Did I cause outsourcing? nope. Did the gov't help me? nope.
Was i PISSED? you better believe it. But you adapt. I hope you can do the same.

Of course it works .
2@33 for charters and 1@ 28 for recs will absolutely reduce overall mortality by at least 25%.over last year . Most here I believe feel it's not enough.
We differ on your last statement . It's not about me BTW.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by buckman

Of course it works .
2@33 for charters and 1@ 28 for recs will absolutely reduce overall mortality by at least 25%.over last year .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please explain to me how this will work given the different catch percentages between the two groups. An example would be great. How does "of course it works" address the following issues:

A. Charters (as a population) catch MORE/BIGGER fish per capita. (otherwise they would quickly be out of business).

B. NON-charters (as a population) catch smaller/less fish per capita.

You are giving group A the choice that will in aggregate kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.
You are giving group B the choice that in aggregate will kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.

explain to me how this will hit the 25% target?

Here's an EXTREME example to prove my point:
Group A - no one catches fish > 30 No one catches 2 fish"
Group B - No one catches fish < 33"

1. LIMIT coast wide 1@28. group one goes unpahsed. group 2 takes a hit. NET RESULTS -REDUCTION in KILL
2. LIMIT coast wide 2@33 group 1 gets screwed. Group2 is unphased - NET RESULT - REDUCTION in KILL
3. Limit for group 1 1@28, group 2 2@33 .... BOTH GROUPS ARE UNAFFECTED NO REDUCTION IN KILL.

Now that is an extreme example to prove a point. But it in UNDENIABLE that the 2 different limits you ask for will have LESS affect than either limit enforced across the entire population. There is currently NO science that has been presented that quantifies what that difference is. If you have it, I'd LOVE to see it.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

B. NON-charters (as a population) catch smaller/less fish per capita.

Do you have any data that backs this up? Not so sure this is really true....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Do you have any data that backs this up? Not so sure this is really true....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In aggregate? seriously?

Evidence, no. But anecdotally (which I agree is crap) absolutely. It's pretty well accepted that the minority of fisherman catch the majority of the fish. And look at it another way. i couldn't catch a cod to save my life. Put me on a charter on the fish.... different story.

And from a logical point of view.... whose gonna shell out $$$ to catch LESS fish than they otherwise would? If charters did not provide access to BETTER fishing the business model would not exist. If you can find ONE charter that Advertises "Spend More Catch Less!" I will concede that the folly of my ways...

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

In aggregate? seriously?

Evidence, no. But anecdotally (which I agree is crap) absolutely. It's pretty well accepted that the minority of fisherman catch the majority of the fish. And look at it another way. i couldn't catch a cod to save my life. Put me on a charter on the fish.... different story.

And from a logical point of view.... whose gonna shell out $$$ to catch LESS fish than they otherwise would? If charters did not provide access to BETTER fishing the business model would not exist. If you can find ONE charter that Advertises "Spend More Catch Less!" I will concede that the folly of my ways...

The spend more catch less agument above is exactly why the charter guys want customers to have to opportunity to catch 2 Fish I suspect......

There is Rec and Charter guys and then there is comm guys (many of which go back to Rec or Charter when Comm season is over) there are some great Comm guys and some that are horrible...there are some great rec guys and some that couldn't catch a cold...anyone can go get a charter license, but not all of them can be consistently good..I have many rec friends that can outfish charters...in fact, i have a few rec friends who get calls from Chaters asking them where the fish are....the good ones stay in business for the moat part but the bad ones don't, they just circulate through and try to make it, then drop out for a new one to come along...especially bass charter where you don't need a huge boat way offshore...

Off topic I know....but I just think we need to be cautious when making big generalizations with facts....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

please explain to me how this will work given the different catch percentages between the two groups. An example would be great. How does "of course it works" address the following issues:

A. Charters (as a population) catch MORE/BIGGER fish per capita. (otherwise they would quickly be out of business).

B. NON-charters (as a population) catch smaller/less fish per capita.

You are giving group A the choice that will in aggregate kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.
You are giving group B the choice that in aggregate will kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.

explain to me how this will hit the 25% target?

Here's an EXTREME example to prove my point:
Group A - no one catches fish > 30 No one catches 2 fish"
Group B - No one catches fish < 33"

1. LIMIT coast wide 1@28. group one goes unpahsed. group 2 takes a hit. NET RESULTS -REDUCTION in KILL
2. LIMIT coast wide 2@33 group 1 gets screwed. Group2 is unphased - NET RESULT - REDUCTION in KILL
3. Limit for group 1 1@28, group 2 2@33 .... BOTH GROUPS ARE UNAFFECTED NO REDUCTION IN KILL.

Now that is an extreme example to prove a point. But it in UNDENIABLE that the 2 different limits you ask for will have LESS affect than either limit enforced across the entire population. There is currently NO science that has been presented that quantifies what that difference is. If you have it, I'd LOVE to see it.

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by buckman

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So... That has no impact on my argument. Unless they are statistically insignificant. Which I do not believe they are.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

So... That has no impact on my argument. Unless they are statistically insignificant. Which I do not believe they are.

They are statistically less significant. And once again, in my area, which is the Cape Cod Bay ,Racepoint area, two at 33" will result in less fish being killed. Significantly less. IMO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[piemma]

Originally Posted by buckman

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That may be true but they are:

1. More mobile as they are in boats and

2. More skilled at what they do because it's their business and they have the best technology available.

Therefore I don't buy the statement that they have less effect on the fish populations. There were more 50# fish caught at the Block this summer by the charters than all of the Surfcasters have caught in the last 40 years.

[t.orlando]

Originally Posted by buckman

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then they should abide by the 1@28 rec limit. If your 2 fish loophole passes, whats to stop anybody that wants to keep 2 fish illegally from saying they were on a charter if caught?