TWO BASS FOR RI CHARTER AND PARTY BOATS?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

No different then setting up a tree stand in the walmart parking lot and then complaining there are no deer there. because you refuse to go in the woods.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not a great analogy and the theme of it is a tired one. Yes, we would all catch more fish if we could fish 8 hours a day, every day. If we all fished that much we would find the remaining schools and be able to exploit them. The only thing that has caused it to be harder to catch stripers is that there are dramatically fewer stripers. The idea that 99% of fisherman of fisherman are catching fewer fish because they don't adapt is obnoxious.

[thefishingfreak]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not a great analogy and the theme of it is a tired one. Yes, we would all catch more fish if we could fish 8 hours a day, every day. If we all fished that much we would find the remaining schools and be able to exploit them. The only thing that has caused it to be harder to catch stripers is that there are dramatically fewer stripers. The idea that 99% of fisherman of fisherman are catching fewer fish because they don't adapt is obnoxious.

There's the thinking that you are 99% of the fisherman, you are not.
Just keep standing on that rock waiting for the fish to come back.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

There's the thinking that you are 99% of the fisherman, you are not.
Just keep standing on that rock waiting for the fish to come back.

Again showing you are completely unaware of what is going on for most. Much of my fishing this year was dragging live bunker and eels through offshore reefs with guys who have done very well for decades in these areas that are now generally devoid of bass, yet loaded with bait. The rocks I stand on are also generally empty as are most up and down the coast. You may not care because you can still make a buck, but some of us would rather not revisit the '80s. That was people not adapting, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[thefishingfreak]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Again showing you are completely unaware of what is going on for most. Much of my fishing this year was dragging live bunker and eels through offshore reefs with guys who have done very well for decades in these areas that are now generally devoid of bass, yet loaded with bait. The rocks I stand on are also generally empty as are most up and down the coast. You may not care because you can still make a buck, but some of us would rather not revisit the '80s. That was people not adapting, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Somehow there's 7 million pounds of dead commercial fish and 19 million pounds of dead recreational fish coastwide this year alone that didn't just miraculously fall out of the sky. Or all come out of one solitary school the big bad charter boats happen to stumble across as you would like to believe.

Somebody is catching them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

Somehow there's 7 million pounds of dead commercial fish and 19 million pounds of dead recreational fish coastwide this year alone that didn't just miraculously fall out of the sky. Or all come out of one solitary school the big bad charter boats happen to stumble across as you would like to believe.

Somebody is catching them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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."
and I believe NY is the only state where it's "not" legal for the captain and mate to be included in the boat head count for keeping fish

this isn't an attack on the big bad charter boats.... but it is recognizing that they, for the most part, are far more efficient at locating those schools and working them regularly with their clients as the numbers would indicate... and therefore there might be more responsibility and accountability rather than an exemption to changes intended to restore the resource, particularly if they want to continue to enjoy what they do...

honestly...at a time when many tournaments are moving to catch and release for bass, clubs are also changing the nature of their tournaments and how they will participate, magazines are shifting their entire presentation of the species...when the trend seems to be toward more conservation of the stocks with an acknowledgment to one degree or another that the stocks are not trending well the general attitude and actions of many of the for-hires, I believe, is resulting in much of the ill will that they are feeling.....I'm sure there is also some jealousy and spite and misdirected anger too, but for the most part I think the input is fueled by good intentions as many providing the input have already been self-regulating for sometime(including many for-hires) without needing a law passed to do so...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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."


this isn't an attack on the big bad charter boats.... but it is recognizing that they, for the most part, are far more efficient at locating those schools and working them regularly with their clients as the numbers would indicate... and therefore there might be more responsibility and accountability rather than an exemption to changes intended to restore the resource, particularly if they want to continue to enjoy what they do...

2 @ 28" was what they were allowed . I do believe , at least in our waters , a 2 fish at 33" will be a significant reduction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

2 @ 28" was what they were allowed . I do believe , at least in our waters , a 2 fish at 33" will be a significant reduction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think if that can be demonstrated, there might be an argument for those for-hires in that area...I don't think that's the case for most, certainly not the boats from 4 states fishing BI last summer...I think the reasoning for favoring 28" vs. 32" or 33" was recognizing that the upper mark, while generally attainable for a boat fisherman it was a high mark for the average shore fisherman and that 28" was more attainable and provided better continuity from the current regs...also need to consider the fact that it is a year later next year and those fish will have grown, I think that's one of the CE arguments, that they look back rather than forward not accounting for the maturity of the stock and class years

[scottw]

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."

Originally Posted by buckman

2 @ 28" was what they were allowed . I do believe , at least in our waters , a 2 fish at 33" will be a significant reduction .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

Somehow there's 7 million pounds of dead commercial fish and 19 million pounds of dead recreational fish coastwide this year alone that didn't just miraculously fall out of the sky. Or all come out of one solitary school the big bad charter boats happen to stumble across as you would like to believe.
Somebody is catching them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have not been fishing long but there are less fish in more places. Rockfish Joe has been at it a long time in his area,poor results. Piemma has been at it a long time,poor results. Same in CT waters and Montauk with most going to the porkchop slaughterhouse. Parking lots in Chatham,same in BI( offshore schools)? Less fish to kill in less places will still yield poundage when the $ is at stake. Yet some folks still keep their head where it smells like poop. Am I jealous? No,I burn fuel and catch fish,all types.But it is too bad that Narraganset bay,cuttyhunk,plum island,and valiant rock are no longer part of the "striper coast"despite the abundance of bait. Let's make something clear,there is nice cod bite in the harbor right now, if there were $ being offered there would be poundage being caught and in the view of some it is because the sky is not really falling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

But it is too bad that Narraganset bay,cuttyhunk,plum island,and valiant rock are no longer part of the "striper coast"despite the abundance of bait.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For some strange reason they left these historical haunts and pods of bait to join their offshore brethren......or so some will lead you to believe.