can't have it both ways - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Guppy · 04-30-2014, 09:10 AM

Any vessel carrying for-hire patrons must abide by all recreational regulations. For-hire patrons cannot be designated as the vessel’s “crew” in order to claim the vessel is conducting a commercial trip. Accordingly, a dually-permitted vessel (holding both a for-hire permit and commercial boat permit with a striped bass endorsement) on a for-hire trip is limited to the amount of striped bass that corresponds to the number of persons times the recreational bag limit. All fish must meet the recreational size limit. At the end of trip, should any passengers not want to keep the recreational bag limit, the remaining striped bass – provided all commercial rules are met – could be sold by the permit holder to an authorized primary buyer.

In prior years, a for-hire vessel with a commercial permit and striped bass endorsement could take a for-hire trip and fish under the commercial rules for striped bass. The vessel could take the commercial limit (30 fish in prior years), patrons could leave with up to two fish each, and the for-hire captain could sell the remaining fish.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg...iped-bass.html

ProfessorM · 04-30-2014, 11:09 AM

Ouch that is going to hurt some guys
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ivanputski · 04-30-2014, 04:52 PM

Only if they Abide by the new rules. Year- one of any major regulation change its always easy to claim " hey we didnt know there were changes made" when and if they Are caught
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BigKris · 04-30-2014, 07:17 PM

If they want to play that "game" they sould have the book thrown at them. Make an example of a few of them
Then maybe they will play by the rules.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dave Peros · 04-30-2014, 08:14 PM

Anyone notice a potential problem? What if fish are kept based on recreational size limit, but patrons don't want all the fish and they are under the commercial size limit. How can they be sold? What happens to them?

big jay · 04-30-2014, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Peros

Anyone notice a potential problem? What if fish are kept based on recreational size limit, but patrons don't want all the fish and they are under the commercial size limit. How can they be sold? What happens to them?

They can't be sold, and you feed the neighbors. Just like on any other charter that the customers
think they need to keep more fish that they can handle.
New regs have nothing to do with that scenario.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fishonnelsons · 05-01-2014, 06:17 AM

No regulation is fool-proof, and this will certainly be pushed as it will impact a number of people (just as the 15 fish per day, two days a week has).

There are a number of charters where two or three guys pay for the charter, either full or reduced rate, with the understanding that they will be fishing for only commercial sized fish and the fish will be sold by the boat, versus taking the fish home with them. It's more exciting to catch the larger fish for them, and maybe they could care less about taking them home, and just want to go out and catch a lot of big fish. When the boat gets boarded, the Captain and guys say it is not a charter, they are all just "crew". I am not sure, but I don't think "crew" needs their own license if they are on a boat with a boat license(?).

niko · 05-01-2014, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishonnelsons

I am not sure, but I don't think "crew" needs their own license if they are on a boat with a boat license(?).

if the boat has a bass permit the "crew" doesn't need one

JohnR · 05-01-2014, 07:21 AM

Good - though next to meaningless. I know it is tough one some but we really need reductions across the board.

Piscator · 05-01-2014, 07:39 AM

/Mobile device[/i][/size]

Piscator · 05-01-2014, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piscator

This is not really a reduction since I don't think the overall quota changed much (could be wrong on that). The season will be longer with impact spread out accross more of the season vs a few weeks but I think the total quota is realatively the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MakoMike · 05-01-2014, 08:03 AM

The rules as to who is crew are very muddled. This reg will be very easy to get around if someone knows it exists. Nothing says that crew can't buy into a fishing trip. All that's needed is a properly worded piece of paper (contract).

Piscator · 05-01-2014, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The rules as to who is crew are very muddled. This reg will be very easy to get around if someone knows it exists. Nothing says that crew can't buy into a fishing trip. All that's needed is a properly worded piece of paper (contract).

From what I understand and what I've been told, "legally" the only way someone can legally accept buy-in money for a trip, "including chipping in for gas" is only if the "captain" has a captains license. Now we all know that is impossible to enforce but pretty sure that is how the law is on the books.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MakoMike · 05-02-2014, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piscator

From what I understand and what I've been told, "legally" the only way someone can legally accept buy-in money for a trip, "including chipping in for gas" is only if the "captain" has a captains license. Now we all know that is impossible to enforce but pretty sure that is how the law is on the books.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes you are wrong, that was the rule until about ten years ago, but the Coast Guard revised it so that cost sharing was allowed, but no profit was allowed. But I think in the situation we are talking about, it wouldn't be an issue, since all of the charter boat captains have their license.

Piscator · 05-02-2014, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Yes you are wrong, that was the rule until about ten years ago, but the Coast Guard revised it so that cost sharing was allowed, but no profit was allowed. But I think in the situation we are talking about, it wouldn't be an issue, since all of the charter boat captains have their license.

Yes, I checked it out and it was ammended as follows (didn't realize it was 10 years ago though):
SEC. 506. PASSENGER FOR HIRE.
"(21a) 'passenger for hire' means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether directly or indirectly flowing to the owner, charterer, operator, agent, or any other person having an interest in the vessel.."

DESCRIPTION - The determination of what constitutes the carriage of a "passenger for hire" must be made on a case by case basis. This determination is dependent upon the actual operation of a vessel and the flow of consideration as determined by the facts of each case. In general, there needs to be some form of tangible consideration or promise of performance being passed for a "passenger for hire" situation to exist.

SEC. 507. CONSIDERATION.
"(5a) 'consideration' means an economic benefit, inducement, right, or profit including pecuniary payment accruing to an individual, person, or entity, but not including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of the voyage, by monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage, or other supplies." Additionally, employees or business clients that have not contributed for their carriage, and are carried for morale or entertainment purposes, are not considered as an exchange of consideration.

Bottom line: if you are a recreational boater, you are allowed to share expenses for a day on the water. Just don't make payment mandatory if someone wants a boat ride.