TWO BASS FOR RI CHARTER AND PARTY BOATS?

[Nebe]

The argument is not about the reduction mike. It's about charter boats having a different limit than rec fishermen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The argument is not about the reduction mike. It's about charter boats having a different limit than rec fishermen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Finally an honest fisherman 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by buckman

Finally an honest fisherman 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well are fares Recs or some other special genre?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The argument is not about the reduction mike. It's about charter boats having a different limit than rec fishermen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

It's pettiness and it hurts some very good people that have done a lot for the fisheries .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[puppet]

I must say that I am not jealous...as nor am I a conservationist.

I do not wish anyone a hardship.

The reason I am not jealous for a proposed variation in regs for
charters is simply because I nearly do not keep any fish. I keep one
or two a year....even when the stocks were healthy.

The reason i am not a conservationist...is simply because I continue
to target the fish that I believe are in decline. Even catch and
release has a negative footprint.

I release the fish I catch most of the time because I am lazy and like
eating other types of fish....not because I am on a crusade....or that
I think that I am a holy man.

There are a lot of surfcasters like me. To me its a sport not a food source.

I am a fisherman and I really enjoy catching striped bass. The quality
of fish and fishing I have experienced in my home and remote
waters has declined severely over the past 4 years. This year by far
the worst.

If i had my selfish way. There would be a moratorium now.

I don't like driving 2-3 hours to get skunked or catch schoolies, when
I used to have decent bass in my backyard. Its a sad situation.

Anything that can improve the stocks is worth effort in my eyes.
Hell, if it is to save the livelyhood of the charter business, I would
vote for no fish for anyone but the licensed charters and let the
charters take two per angler.

Arguing the subtly of the issue does not really matter much. One or
two fish....whatever. The charters that operate and practice illegal
catch and sale of striped bass will continue to do so. Its not like
anyone checks them when the pull into the harbor.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

Well are fares Recs or some other special genre?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Recs, and as recs it should be 1 fish like everyone

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

no jealousy here, just common sense
twice as many fish killed = a whole lot less striped bass to sustain the species. It's about conservation and there is a need for it now
most charters agree, the bigger question should be why don't they all?
Freak already stated given the choice, he'd ask for 2. I'm fine with that if it comes down to it, his choice. It's just not mine and a lot of others. I guess they will rule on it soon and that will be that

Originally Posted by MakoMike

No need for more meetings, they mandated either a 1 fish limit or a 25% reduction. Any state is free to make more than a 25% reduction.

Would you guys be arguing so strenuously if the proposal was to make it 2 fish at 36 inches for everyone?

I would,
it should be 1 fish
I voted for 1 @33" I think it was as that was the longest choice @ 1 fish



I think the hardship thing is a cop-out

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Precisely why I think its nothing but pure jealousy.

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

[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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

Jesus Nebe ! Your whole argument is based on the premise that there aren't that many fish over 33 inches....Oh that's right, there are so many fish over 33 inches ,that the Viking fleet is going to clobber them every time they go out .
It's mind-boggling
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

No, I'm saying that with increased minimum sizes the same amount of fish will be killed. Do you limit out every day you go fishing. Could you kill more fish if there was no size limit?

We went through this discussion many times on the NEFMC recreational advisory committee, it not the actual amount of fish brought home that motivates people to book a charter, its the expectation that if they catch a fish they can bring it home. For example, when we had a ten fish limit on cod catches, the statistics showed that the "average" catch on a charter boat was only 4 fish, but people wouldn't book a charter for only 4 fish, but they would if they thought they could keep 10 fish if they caught them.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

No, I'm saying that with increased minimum sizes the same amount of fish will be killed. Do you limit out every day you go fishing. Could you kill more fish if there was no size limit?

We went through this discussion many times on the NEFMC recreational advisory committee, it not the actual amount of fish brought home that motivates people to book a charter, its the expectation that if they catch a fish they can bring it home. For example, when we had a ten fish limit on cod catches, the statistics showed that the "average" catch on a charter boat was only 4 fish, but people wouldn't book a charter for only 4 fish, but they would if they thought they could keep 10 fish if they caught them.

And look where cod is now.
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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

It seems common sense has taken a 25% reduction in this discussion.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was a GREAT line...

[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