TWO BASS FOR RI CHARTER AND PARTY BOATS?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I was still involved with fresh water tournament bass fishing, I don't think I flipped back to the salt until after things started to pick up again. I think some of the early and late migratory routes are still basically instinctual, is bait a factor at times, sure it is; but I've been around tons of bait the last several years with nothing bothering it. I'm not buying into any argument that the bait is offshore and that's why we all perceive the stocks to be suffering.

Stop catching Inshore bass you knuckleheads. You're killing all the fish that are imprinted with your favorite rock coordinates .
The Charter guys are only catching the fish you can't reach 😊😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[piemma]

If the bait went offshore and the bass with them then what the hell were the 15 millions pogies doing in Narragansett Bay with no bass on them?
What, the bass didn't want to eat pogies?

Ridiculous argument. The bait was everywhere in the Bay with hardly any bass on them. The bass just weren't there because there were less of them.

I was on Ohio Ledge in September and there were huge schools of pogies that went completely unmolested because there were no bass. Period!

[big jay]

Originally Posted by tlapinski

This just came across my desk, NJ has submitted its proposals to the ASMFC:

http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cf...9&ParentCat=19

Here you go guys - EQUALITY between For-Hire and straight recreational.

2 Fish for everyone, plus since New Jersey ended commercial fishing, they still have their "bonus" tag for a 3rd recreational fish.

Btw - I called the "CE" loophole was going to be a sh*tshow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by piemma

If the bait went offshore and the bass with them then what the hell were the 15 millions pogies doing in Narragansett Bay with no bass on them?
What, the bass didn't want to eat pogies?

Ridiculous argument. The bait was everywhere in the Bay with hardly any bass on them. The bass just weren't there because there were less of them.

I was on Ohio Ledge in September and there were huge schools of pogies that went completely unmolested because there were no bass. Period!

My response was somewhat in est .
However we see equally huge schools a striped bass offshore that go un molested except by the occasional seal. Just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[afterhours]

The ASMFC has to go away.

[JohnR]

Some of us were at the meetings 10/15 years ago when they wanted to go from 1 to 2 fish in Mass for recs to allow for another 300K pounds for commercial and stated back then this was going to happen (hi Patrick ) . Some of us have been standing on the soapbox since way back they to stay at 1@36 as the limits were getting dropped in this miraculous display of recovery management that was the Striped Bass.

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

Nothing about jealousy, all about doing whats best for a health stock.

Originally Posted by 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.

Thank you

Originally Posted by buckman

I think the problem here is that some want the fish to come back quick , no matter if some very good people ( yes honest guys have charter boats too ) get hurt in the process . It's simple not that the stock just fully recovers , it's gotta happen fast .
We are all above the pettiness , jealousy thing .
Correct ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently we are not above the pettiness jealousy thing because one group wants more than the rest that also happens to elevate the risk.

Titanic Deckchair committee

[piemma]

I have to say, KUDOS to everyone who has posted on this thread. It has to be one of the better discussion threads on the Board in a long time.
Different takes on one subject that everyone clearly cares about.

I commend everyone who has participated.

[bobber]

again- I agree wholeheartedly^^^^

this didn't go down the drain of name-calling and personal insults like happens on the other site whenver opposing viewpoints come together.

and I'd like to add that I still respect everyone's opinion and their rights to pursue options to achieve their end goal.

(I just think I'm right-er than you(se) other guys....... :0

[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

[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]

Originally Posted by buckman

Stop catching Inshore bass you knuckleheads. You're killing all the fish that are imprinted with your favorite rock coordinates .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this was great BTW

[thefishingfreak]

It's not an exemption. We are all being offered a choice. To pick one "option" off of a list of "options" given to everybody.
Somehow the scientists and fisheries managers who created these "choices" with their corrupt science, voodoo math and built in deceit, have offered up the same reduction outcome within 2% with lots of different scenarios. 9 of them to be exact. There's even charts and pictures and stuff with different percentage values placed next to these 9 "options" for all to see.
You are all upset at the Charter boats for picking a choice that is available. Not some loophole, or special treatment.
You want me to pick the option you pick, because you believe the stock is in much greater dyer straits then I do and that is an argument that is never going to be won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

It's not an exemption. We are all being offered a choice. To pick one "option" off of a list of "options" given to everybody.
Somehow the scientists and fisheries managers who created these "choices" with their corrupt science, voodoo math and built in deceit, have offered up the same reduction outcome within 2% with lots of different scenarios. 9 of them to be exact. There's even charts and pictures and stuff with different percentage values placed next to these 9 "options" for all to see.
You are all upset at the Charter boats for picking a choice that is available. Not some loophole, or special treatment.
You want me to pick the option you pick, because you believe the stock is in much greater dyer straits then I do and that is an argument that is never going to be won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

think you're gonna need a mulligan on that one...

[PRBuzz]

Doesn't moving the limit to 2@33" just put more pressure on those schools that have predominately, let's say >60-70%, of the fish in the school are that size or larger? Those schools exist, the comm bass guys have no problem finding them and many reaching their daily quota, 15 fish >34". It does help to have a boat.

Schools of smaller fish will still be fished but C&R.....

[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.

[buckman]

Let's be perfectly clear, the Stellwagen Bank charter guys are not saying that there is no reduction needed. Quite to the contrary they have agreed to a reduction . Like Mike has stated sometimes it's not catching the fish and taking them home but to be able to hold out the possibility that they can catch 2 fish and take them home. Let's face it part of the experience of fishing is to take home a couple fillets and throw them on the grill and reminisce about the day while you're family is eating a good healthy meal. But being able to eat a second meal after spending 250 bucks to go fishing makes it an even greater experience.
When charterboats fish every day and their livelihood depends on finding fish, yes they are capable of getting on fish if they are around.
I understand the guys that make plugs for $$ and for joy wanting the inshore fishing to pick up. I would hope most of you would understand that this is not about the charterboats stuffing their pockets and slaughtering bass, but about continuing the tradition and a lifestyle and doing what many of them have done their whole lives.
Yes they are adapting, they are pushing whale watches and seal watches and sunrises ,sunsets and the whole experience but they need to be able to at least offer the ability to take home some fish. Especially when the targeted reduction is being kept in mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

the Stellwagen Bank charter guys are not saying that there is no reduction needed. Quite to the contrary they have agreed to a reduction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you guys are really losing me now...

it's not an exemption(exception).... it's.... picking from several choices....

a reduction "is" needed and the charter guys "agreed" to it despite the numbers that created the need for a reduction coming from flawed science and disillusioned shore types who can't catch fish anyway and haven't seen the acres and acres of bass frolicking offshore...?

good to have a sense of humor in all of this...

[ronfish]

After reading all the doomsday scenarios in this thread I wonder what the guides would do if the fisheries managers decided that a total moratorium was needed coast wide for stripers. Sure you could catch-n-release stripers but couldn't possess any. I wonder what the guides would do then- quit or change species they targeted? Ron

[buckman]

Originally Posted by ronfish

After reading all the doomsday scenarios in this thread I wonder what the guides would do if the fisheries managers decided that a total moratorium was needed coast wide for stripers. Sure you could catch-n-release stripers but couldn't possess any. I wonder what the guides would do then- quit or change species they targeted? Ron

There is a likelihood they wouldn't make enough money to stay in business .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

you guys are really losing me now...

it's not an exemption(exception).... it's.... picking from several choices....

a reduction "is" needed and the charter guys "agreed" to it despite the numbers that created the need for a reduction coming from flawed science and disillusioned shore types who can't catch fish anyway and haven't seen the acres and acres of bass frolicking offshore...?

good to have a sense of humor in all of this...

Exactly ) I'm just begging you not to put me on your list and go all Ferguson on my ass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Prior to the Am 6 increase to 2 @ 28" the coastal regs were 1 @ 28" for quite a few years. I still have all of that analysis in a box somewhere in my closet.

O.K., I'll take you and Slip's word for it, I didn't and still don't remember it. I do remember 1 at 36.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if it's a bad law (and that's a big "if"), and if the charter guys are advocating for that law based solely on greed (and that's not a big "if"), an dthat law gives some people more of a right to a public resource than the rest of us (and that's not debatable) it's fair to criticize them.

There are bad laws. People who advocate for bad laws for personal profit, potentially ta the expense of a public resource, are fair game for criticism.

Jim, If it truly is the "conservational equivalent" they are not getting more of a share, just different rules.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Exactly ) I'm just begging you not to put me on your list and go all Ferguson on my ass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll put you on my Christmas list

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by buckman

I understand the guys that make plugs for $$ and for joy wanting the inshore fishing to pick up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the record i'm in favor of a moratorium right now if we can't get gamefish status. I want to see a world class fishery which in turn would provide a large economic boost to everybody. As far the $ goes i can always ( laying the groundwork now and proto'ing) build plugs for LMB ( where the $ is), musky, GT, roosterfish, etc. That and most of my customers would stand on a rock for 4 hrs in the middle of the nite for a chance to c&r a decent striper.