TWO BASS FOR RI CHARTER AND PARTY BOATS?

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Jealousy would imply the accused wish they could kill 2 per trip. This is simply not the case.
Perhaps a better command of the language would allow a more deserving description, but I am sure the other side of the coin here is not jealous of those who are seeking to kill more striped bass.
Your failure to understand their perspective shows a basic lack of respect for an opinion or you perhaps suspect an alterior motive. The fact that you accuse any who are against a two fish limit is very revealing in this content and is a narrow minded approach by any standard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don't understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don't understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.

Spoken like a true tax accountant. So you are saying that killing 2 fish a day is the same as killing one fish?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don'understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.

I will type slowly so you understand....

Wtf does conservational equivalent have to do with what I just wrote. You are so confused you are having trouble with a simple question. My entire point was certain people are upset about the taking of 2 fish.
Jealous?
No,just upset.
Do I understand the voodoo math regarding how killing two 20 lb. fish has the same impact as killing one 15 lb. fish?
No,but that is not my point here. It seems common sense has taken a 25% reduction in this discussion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Linesider82]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

You (and others) either deliberately misstate or don't understand the effect of charter boats (or any other mode of fishing) from going to conservational equivalancy. The real effect is that there will be no more (or less) fish killed with conservational equivalent regs as there would be with any 25% reduction in the harvest. That's what conservational equivalancy means. The ASMFC technical committee will have the last word on whether any proposal is the conservational equivalent of a 25% reduction. No one (except for those who don't understand the term or those being deliberately misleading) is saying that there will more fish killed.

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

[striperswiper75]

Would the charters be willing to pay extra for the ability of taking 2 fish per paying customer? Maybe triple the yearly charter license fee?
Also if charters do end up receiving an exemption from the 1 fish through the conservation equivalency program, would they be willing to keep and file accurate records of each trip where a Striped bass is taken? How many trips, fares per trip, fish taken per trip, length of fish. I am sure the data would be be helpful to fisheries managers and would help determine the effectiveness of the overall reduction program. The more available data we have the better.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rockport24]

I'm just not buying that a 1 fish limit is going to hurt business, sorry guys. If you just don't believe the stocks are in decline, you are entitled to your opinion, but the business argument just doesn't hold water.

I don't keep a lot of fish (and neither do most that are for a greater reduction) so the jealously argument is just ridiculous. As Slip said, it's about conservation (which I think some of you just don't think is needed based on your comments)

[ivanputski]

Mako Mike: "Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy."


I'm jealous that comms get to keep two fish but I'm only allowed one?

Are you serious???

Many people want to see a reduction in bass killed to help rebuild the population.

No one is "jealous" someone is allowed to kill more, they are pissed off that they are allowed to kill more. I dont secretly wish I could still kill 2... I overtly wish everyone
can only take one max.

I think that some people view the resource and its purpose/value in different ways, and thats why i think mako views guys like myself as being "jealous that I dont get to kill two but that guy does"

Thats an absolutely ridiculous misinterpretation of the frustration people are expressing with all due respect.

[Ed B]

Years ago, and at least in the 70's when I started striped bass fishing, charter boats never let people keep more than 1 fish. You keep 1 fish and the rest go to market. Simple rule understood by all, and people kept what they were allowed to keep. Then when there were no bass they went for other fish. It wasn't complicated.

Charter boats don't need to let people keep 2 fish to stay in business and I find that most of the charter guys who think they need 2 fish are relatively new to the business.

[bobber]

^^^
What he said

I used to think I could have a logical consversation about this with the comm guys, but now I'm not so sure.......

the idea that the rec guys are "jealous" about the charter guys (possibly) getting 2 fish is #^&#^&#^&#^&!NG ridiculous: if you want to somehow kid yourself that recs secretly want to keep more fish, you need to get your head out of your ass. many recs have been restricting their take for years voluntarily

[buckman]

There appears to be a lot of experts in the charter fishing industry here. Carry on !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Let's look back to the moratorium in the 80's. Who were the heros? Who can we thank for making sacrifices to bring the fish back to historical levels??? Then ask yourself how those who opposed it were viewed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Every last one of us is guilty of killing fish, even catch and release guys...Everyone is talking about fish that are kept...what about the ones released...how many foul hooks, how many eye hooks, how many gut hooks. How about the fly reel or ultra-light "sportsman" that fights the fish way too long and releases it to die, how about the schoolies blitzes when you catch 50-60 small bass on a trip (any foul hooks or post release
mortality with those?) of corde there are...we all have skin in this game and the guy that says "I release everything" is a fool if he doesn't think he has any impact on the situation...bottom line is everyone has a negative impact period when they fish and not everyone will be happy no matter what the regs are...the main goal is a sustainable yield...PS I've been to plenty of meetings and called into the conf calls...the science behind this is a complete guessing game IMO...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Dave Peros]

Despite the disagreements, I want to thank John R. for giving all of us a forum in which we can, in the end, agree to disagree, if that's what it comes to.
I do think it would be really beneficial if the Technical Committee would be out a paper explaining the whole Conservation Equivalency thing and the math that they used to come up with 1 @ 28-inches = 2 @ 33-inches when it comes to the number of bass killed overall. It certainly would move the discussion forward with some numbers from those who are going to make the decisions regarding states and/or user groups being allowed to fish at something other than the 1 @ 28.
I recall someone at the hearing at Mass. Maritime on the proposed new regulations pointing out that everything was fine when the moratorium was lifted and it was just one fish at a much higher limit that 28-inches. Since then, all we have done is fall down a slippery slope and I challenge anyone to prove that we have done the right thing in terms of striped bass management, mortality, conservation, or whatever you want to call it. Now we are offered plans that at best have a 50% chance of succeeding in bringing the spawning stock biomass up to where it should be.
Pretty sad stuff.

[ivanputski]

If i kill 1 fish per day x 100 days thats 100 fish dead and gone.

If i kill 2 fish per day x 100 days thats 200 fish dead and gone.

Uhhhhh.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Dave Peros]

I agree with that equation, but apparently it is wrong or an oversimplification. There must be some new math out there or a different calculus being used; I, for one, would like to see someone on the Technical Committee explain it. Apparently, "Conservation Equivalency" allows for killing two fish at a larger size limit AND does not kill more fish or results in the same conservation and stock rebuilding goals. I don't want to hear anybody's explanation of CE; I want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

[ivanputski]

My definition of the real meaning of "conservational equivalency":

The magic loophole which allowed states/ comms to still keep 2, while allowing the asfmc to save face and appear like they did their job by passing the 1@28" window -dressing ruling.
Its how the asfmc got the states to vote for 1@28" ... The states knew they had a back door to 2 fish.
My opinion, and i stand by it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Guppy]

I wonder if that second take home fish was swapped out for some first class videos and pics would satisfy the clients. Don't know if that's being done now, my guess is it is,,, only been on one charter, with Mike FF,,, LOL, we were too busy catching to vid jack!

[thefishingfreak]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[bobber]

the way I read it, he's just saying that taking 2 fish (regardless of size) cannot be same as taking 1 fish out of the system.
the suggestion that the 2nd fish- by being bigger than the 28" minimum- somehow decreases the impact on the fishery, is the part that doesn't make sense

[thefishingfreak]

Originally Posted by bobber

the way I read it, he's just saying that taking 2 fish (regardless of size) cannot be same as taking 1 fish out of the system.
the suggestion that the 2nd fish- by being bigger than the 28" minimum- somehow decreases the impact on the fishery, is the part that doesn't make sense

You are all equating a 2 fish limit as 2 more guaranteed dead fish.
A 2 fish limit is not an automatic double to the daily limit guarantee.
There has to be some thinking that it must be slightly more difficult to catch 2 fish @33" then it is to catch only one fish @28"
The same thinking that rationalizes the option of a "28-37" slot and a 40" trophy is harder to catch.

The ruling was for a 25% reduction to the stock NOT 1@28" COASTWIDE.

with 1@28" we will see a 31% reduction
with 2@33" we will see a 29% reduction
Those are both still over 25% correct?




This is the "option" asmfc has given to each state.

[JLH]

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

You are all equating a 2 fish limit as 2 more guaranteed dead fish.
A 2 fish limit is not an automatic double to the daily limit guarantee.
There has to be some thinking that it must be slightly more difficult to catch 2 fish @33" then it is to catch only one fish @28"
The same thinking that rationalizes the option of a "28-37" slot and a 40" trophy is harder to catch.

The ruling was for a 25% reduction to the stock NOT 1@28" COASTWIDE.

with 1@28" we will see a 31% reduction
with 2@33" we will see a 29% reduction
Those are both still over 25% correct?




This is the "option" asmfc has given to each state.

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.

[bobber]

Originally Posted by JLH

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....

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

You are all equating a 2 fish limit as 2 more guaranteed dead fish.
A 2 fish limit is not an automatic double to the daily limit guarantee.
There has to be some thinking that it must be slightly more difficult to catch 2 fish @33" then it is to catch only one fish @28"
The same thinking that rationalizes the option of a "28-37" slot and a 40" trophy is harder to catch.

The ruling was for a 25% reduction to the stock NOT 1@28" COASTWIDE.

with 1@28" we will see a 31% reduction
with 2@33" we will see a 29% reduction
Those are both still over 25% correct?


[/IMG][/URL]

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.

[bobber]

how do the charter guys catching tarpon and sailfish and goliath grouper and (fill in the blank...) manage to stay in business?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by bobber

how do the charter guys catching tarpon and sailfish and goliath grouper and (fill in the blank...) manage to stay in business?

We don't have those 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[bobber]

Originally Posted by buckman

We don't have those ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm trying not to get too involved in this, since it really adds up to nothing in the big scheme of things.....


but c'mon- answer the question(!)

how is it that there are hundreds (thats a guess) of successful charter guys that manage to stay in business catching-and-releasing EVERY SINGLE fish they they bring in.... and you guys think that you need to kill twice as many fish as the rest of us.....?

do ya see my point?

[Got Stripers]

Reminds me of Eel Man, where is my old friend, oh I love a good debate.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by bobber

I'm trying not to get too involved in this, since it really adds up to nothing in the big scheme of things.....


but c'mon- answer the question(!)

how is it that there are hundreds (thats a guess) of successful charter guys that manage to stay in business catching-and-releasing EVERY SINGLE fish they they bring in.... and you guys think that you need to kill twice as many fish as the rest of us.....?

do ya see my point?

I was kidding and I do see your point. There is absolutely something to selling the experience.
But you cant equate catching a tarpon , sailfish or giant Goliath grouper to catching a striped bass.
Maybe the Cape charter fleet has a different clientele then we have here in Green Harbor . They probably depend more on families and people on vacation where as we depend on fisherman that are willing travel for the most part from New Jersey New York Connecticut or Pennsylvania for some fun and a chance to fill a cooler
Nobody's making that trip to catch a 28 inch bass . I'm sorry if this offends some, but it's just not that exciting .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by bobber

how do the charter guys catching tarpon and sailfish and goliath grouper and (fill in the blank...) manage to stay in business?

I would guess they also have a much longer season than the guys that charter up this way...I'm not a in the charter business but I know a few charter boats in the Green Harbor area are for sale due to lower charters the last few years due to the Cod restrictions and they can't make ends meet. The customers are not coming like they used to for Cod due to the low bag limits (thanks to the draggers and catch share system that allowed the raping of Stellwagen Bank of Cod). I'm sure the guys that are left are concerned that they will be impacted even more due to the reduction on Bass and fighting for their business...they aren't full of #^&#^&#^&#^& if they are selling their boats, that is desperation. The guys I know are stand up guys and I believe them when they say the customers will not come like they used to (especially since they are being forced tongetbout of the business...now, do we need to do something?? YES we do. But to group all charter guys in one group and say they are full of BS isn't right, just the same as it isn't right to group all the Rec guys together.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

Dennis
Here is one out of Green Harbor.
http://downeastboatforum.com/free-cl...ale-11970.html
Same goes for some up in Gloucester.
Dave on Relentless was smart, saw the writing on the wall and sold out last year.

Originally Posted by Piscator

I would guess they also have a much longer season than the guys that charter up this way...I'm not a in the charter business but I know a few charter boats in the Green Harbor area are for sale due to lower charters the last few years due to the Cod restrictions and they can't make ends meet. The customers are not coming like they used to for Cod due to the low bag limits (thanks to the draggers and catch share system that allowed the raping of Stellwagen Bank of Cod). I'm sure the guys that are left are concerned that they will be impacted even more due to the reduction on Bass and fighting for their business...they aren't full of #^&#^&#^&#^& if they are selling their boats, that is desperation. The guys I know are stand up guys and I believe them when they say the customers will not come like they used to (especially since they are being forced tongetbout of the business...now, do we need to do something?? YES we do. But to group all charter guys in one group and say they are full of BS isn't right, just the same as it isn't right to group all the Rec guys together.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device