TWO BASS FOR RI CHARTER AND PARTY BOATS?

[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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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."





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

I believe it is based on all Rec anglers and the options also work for all Rec's , beach or boat or charter . they all were calculated to meet to 25%.
It's not that the charters are asking for more fish they are just asking for a different option that reaches the same result.
The difference of opinion is whether those options do reach the same result.
I don't know how you prove it either way . It's an inexact science, if you want to call it a science at all. It's anybody's guess.
One thing I do know is that if the charter fleet is allowed 2@33inches and the shore guys don't see a rapid increase in catchable fish in the ditch , there's going to be a lot of squawking 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

I believe it is based on all Rec anglers and the options also work for all Rec's , beach or boat or charter . they all were calculated to meet to 25%.
It's not that the charters are asking for more fish they are just asking for a different option that reaches the same result.
The difference of opinion is whether those options do reach the same result.
I don't know how you prove it either way . It's an inexact science, if you want to call it a science at all. It's anybody's guess.
One thing I do know is that if the charter fleet is allowed 2@33inches and the shore guys don't see a rapid increase in catchable fish in the ditch , there's going to be a lot of squawking ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no doubt...

I guess I'd argue that you can't use the 2@33" equivalent as I assume it was arrived at taking into account all rec. users catch and not for for the user group that you are talking about ...you are going to have to come up with an equivalent number that applies to that group and their disproportionate contribution and accounting for the other groups operating under 1@28 if that is what happens....can the group operating under 1@28" for a 25% reduction still achieve that reduction if for hires fishing in the same waters are fishing under 2@33" when the numbers are added together?....

everyone was included to arrive at those numbers...
some are trying to use the same numbers while not including everyone...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

no doubt...

I guess I'd argue that you can't use the 2@33" equivalent as I assume it was arrived at taking into account all rec. users catch and not for for the user group that you are talking about ...you are going to have to come up with an equivalent number that applies to that group and their disproportionate contribution and accounting for the other groups operating under 1@28 if that is what happens....can the group operating under 1@28" for a 25% reduction still achieve that reduction if for hires fishing in the same waters are fishing under 2@33" when the numbers are added together?....

everyone was included to arrive at those numbers...
some are trying to use the same numbers while not including everyone...

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by buckman

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This year? You were more likely to catch one at 43" than either 28" or 33".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

28"..can't speak for the ditch but shoreline certainly

[JLH]

Originally Posted by buckman

Can I ask you a question ?
When you fish the ditch or beach are you more likely to catch one at 28 inches or one at 33 inches ? Never mind two at 33 inches .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Much more likely to catch one over 33" than under 33" from the beach last season. The size of larger fish being caught isn't a problem it's the overall numbers being caught and the lack of smaller fish. Having a few big fish around and not much else doesn't make for a healthy fishery.

[t.orlando]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's not that the charters are asking for more fish they are just asking for a different option that reaches the same result.��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Damn........and I thought two was more than one

[buckman]

Originally Posted by t.orlando

Damn........and I thought two was more than one

It's not an automatic two you actually have to catch them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by scottw

Quote:

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

EXACTLY!

you get a cookie

I think the same way but am not smart enough to put it in words like you just did
thank you

[Slipknot]

if the catching goes downhill in the ditch, then maybe all the yahoos will not come back and less people will fish there, that would be nice
maybe people will keep their mouths shut but that won't happen

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

if the catching goes downhill in the ditch, then maybe all the yahoos will not come back and less people will fish there, that would be nice
maybe people will keep their mouths shut but that won't happen

It has gone downhill. People don't see it because of the daytime blitzes. Those are transitory fish. They're out in the bay and follow the mackerel and other bait schools in on those tides. I've noticed a decline in the numbers of resident fish for five years, maybe more. And when was the last time you heard of guys having 30-50 fish nights during the start of the fall? Nights when you stopped setting on fish and waited until one hooked itself because you just wanted to make it more challenging?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Mike P

It has gone downhill. People don't see it because of the daytime blitzes. Those are transitory fish. They're out in the bay and follow the mackerel and other bait schools in on those tides. I've noticed a decline in the numbers of resident fish for five years, maybe more. And when was the last time you heard of guys having 30-50 fish nights during the start of the fall? Nights when you stopped setting on fish and waited until one hooked itself because you just wanted to make it more challenging?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know Mike, I was referring to the daytime blitz thing going downhill
it sucks that resident fish have pretty much all dissappeared in the last 5 years, I have done more fishing elsewhere because of it.

last time 30-50 fish was maybe 8-10 years ago I'm sure you were there
I'll never forget a night Jim and I had where his arms were falling off, maybe it will happen again some day