TWO BASS FOR RI CHARTER AND PARTY BOATS?

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by afterhours

I'm starting to think that THOSE who vehemently oppose 1 @ 28" may more concerned about the bass they won't be able to keep and sell than sending joe sport home with one more 28" fish.....am I wrong thinking like this?

Dunno Don...

Like everything in life it's likely a mix:
A. Guys who think there is no problem
B. Guys who think there IS a problem but want all they can while it lasts.
C. Guys who could care less.
D. guys who TRULY believe 2@33 for charters is = 1@28.

I honestly believe guys fighting for 2@33 ON THIS SITE are in group D.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

Dunno Don...

Like everything in life it's likely a mix:
A. Guys who think there is no problem
B. Guys who think there IS a problem but want all they can while it lasts.
C. Guys who could care less.
D. guys who TRULY believe 2@33 for charters is = 1@28.

I honestly believe guys fighting for 2@33 ON THIS SITE are in group D.

That's where I fit . But I also believe that even if it's not exactly the same it's close enough to be a vast improvement that should accomplish the targeted reduction and still give the charters in my area a chance at surviving .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

Please go back and either READ or RE-READ my post and tell me you still believe that the math makes sense when you apply 2 VERY different rules to 2 VERY different populations. That is the lynchpin you have consistently avoided to address.

And just for the record: I AM IN FAVOR OF 1 FISH.

HOWEVER: I accept that IF I believe the math for A, then I accept it for B. So I ACCEPT either option will work IF APPLIED EQUALLY ACROSS THE POPULATION.

Look, either way, some groups are going to get hit harder than others. It sucks, but that's the way it is. I have ZERO sympathy for the "My job is going away" argument. A few years ago, my industry went mostly to india. I saw the writing on the wall and adapted. Was I happy? no. But I adapted. If charter guys don't see that they are in for a tough haul and make changes them they will not survive. period. Does it suck? sure. Would I be happy? no. Your position IS no different than mine WAS. Did I cause outsourcing? nope. Did the gov't help me? nope.
Was i PISSED? you better believe it. But you adapt. I hope you can do the same.

Of course it works .
2@33 for charters and 1@ 28 for recs will absolutely reduce overall mortality by at least 25%.over last year . Most here I believe feel it's not enough.
We differ on your last statement . It's not about me BTW.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MAKAI]

I can understand your angst. I've been a commercial electrician for almost 35 years. There's been good times and bad times for the industry over that stretch, due to factors out of our control.
When it's slow it sure sucks, the dog would eat better than me.
But that's when you either put on the big boy pants and buckle up and do whatever it takes to get by or go on the dole.
Going on the dole ain't in this punk from Southies blood. Kinda wish it was. I know enough people on it, every day is Sunday.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

Here is an excerpt from a Zach Harvey article about forward thinking Charter Captain Al Anderson. Full article linked afterwards.

{While I’ve long understood some of the bad blood between other captains and Anderson, I’ve more recently come to see and understand Anderson’s perspective. Where sportfishing communities in other parts of the country seem to have been much more receptive to key aspects of conservation, the overwhelming majority of ports in the Northeast have long been meat-fishing legacies — few places more so than Anderson’s home port of Point Judith, R.I. Charter fishing there has long been understood as an investment in filleted freezer ballast as much as an exciting day on the water.

Anderson, whose charter rates are more than double what many of his competitors charge, has for years refused to trophy-hunt except on occasions when he knows big fish will be tagged and released, and actively discourages clients from keeping as much as regulations permit. These are policies that have cost him clientele and led many of his competitors to dismiss him as arrogant.

What I think has been widely misunderstood about the man is that his singular, Ahab-grade commitment to fish tagging and conservation is not a gimmick or publicity stunt. Again, Anderson is a man who has made policy of principles, even when many of those principles run against the main current of the community around him. The world rarely embraces such men in their own time, but it surely needs them and seldom forgets them.}
Zach Harvey is fishing editor for Soundings.


April 2014 issue

http://mobile.soundingsonline.com/ho...columns/291904

[ivanputski]

In times of drought and water shortages, people are asked to not water their lawns, not wash their cars, and take shorter showers because there is a limited and dwindling supply of water left.
Some of the arguments here are like a carwash owner that simply refuses to cut his carwash time from 6 minutes to 4 minutes in times of drought because they are convinced "no one is going to pay for a 4 minute carwash and I'm going to go out of business!"

Well, in the end, what's a carwash to do when the water runs out?

[buckman]

You guys are so dismissive it's comical. First of all I didn't say this was about me as a matter fact i said this isn't about me. I've never been out of work a day in my life . But there of been plenty of times I've had to fight for my job against overzealous regulators . I'm not a fisherman for a living .
The bottom line is a lot of you guys are taking this to the extreme . It doesn't have to be that way .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by buckman

Of course it works .
2@33 for charters and 1@ 28 for recs will absolutely reduce overall mortality by at least 25%.over last year .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please explain to me how this will work given the different catch percentages between the two groups. An example would be great. How does "of course it works" address the following issues:

A. Charters (as a population) catch MORE/BIGGER fish per capita. (otherwise they would quickly be out of business).

B. NON-charters (as a population) catch smaller/less fish per capita.

You are giving group A the choice that will in aggregate kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.
You are giving group B the choice that in aggregate will kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.

explain to me how this will hit the 25% target?

Here's an EXTREME example to prove my point:
Group A - no one catches fish > 30 No one catches 2 fish"
Group B - No one catches fish < 33"

1. LIMIT coast wide 1@28. group one goes unpahsed. group 2 takes a hit. NET RESULTS -REDUCTION in KILL
2. LIMIT coast wide 2@33 group 1 gets screwed. Group2 is unphased - NET RESULT - REDUCTION in KILL
3. Limit for group 1 1@28, group 2 2@33 .... BOTH GROUPS ARE UNAFFECTED NO REDUCTION IN KILL.

Now that is an extreme example to prove a point. But it in UNDENIABLE that the 2 different limits you ask for will have LESS affect than either limit enforced across the entire population. There is currently NO science that has been presented that quantifies what that difference is. If you have it, I'd LOVE to see it.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

B. NON-charters (as a population) catch smaller/less fish per capita.

Do you have any data that backs this up? Not so sure this is really true....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Do you have any data that backs this up? Not so sure this is really true....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In aggregate? seriously?

Evidence, no. But anecdotally (which I agree is crap) absolutely. It's pretty well accepted that the minority of fisherman catch the majority of the fish. And look at it another way. i couldn't catch a cod to save my life. Put me on a charter on the fish.... different story.

And from a logical point of view.... whose gonna shell out $$$ to catch LESS fish than they otherwise would? If charters did not provide access to BETTER fishing the business model would not exist. If you can find ONE charter that Advertises "Spend More Catch Less!" I will concede that the folly of my ways...

[Clammer]

MAKAI I love your last sentence ..........toooo bad there are far tooooooomany that believe that ,s what,s lifes about &&&&&&&&& ride it all their lives

[ivanputski]

Priority #1 right now should be what is best for the fish population... PERIOD.

Those who vehemently oppose the idea that bass stocks are in trouble most likely have views that are motivated by money.
We are playing Russian Roulette with an entire fishery.
If the bass population never collapsed in the past, then maybe you can stick to a "no way... never gonna happen" mentality... but it did, and it seems that some just refuse to accept the idea that bass are in any trouble at all.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

please explain to me how this will work given the different catch percentages between the two groups. An example would be great. How does "of course it works" address the following issues:

A. Charters (as a population) catch MORE/BIGGER fish per capita. (otherwise they would quickly be out of business).

B. NON-charters (as a population) catch smaller/less fish per capita.

You are giving group A the choice that will in aggregate kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.
You are giving group B the choice that in aggregate will kill more fish FOR THAT GROUP.

explain to me how this will hit the 25% target?

Here's an EXTREME example to prove my point:
Group A - no one catches fish > 30 No one catches 2 fish"
Group B - No one catches fish < 33"

1. LIMIT coast wide 1@28. group one goes unpahsed. group 2 takes a hit. NET RESULTS -REDUCTION in KILL
2. LIMIT coast wide 2@33 group 1 gets screwed. Group2 is unphased - NET RESULT - REDUCTION in KILL
3. Limit for group 1 1@28, group 2 2@33 .... BOTH GROUPS ARE UNAFFECTED NO REDUCTION IN KILL.

Now that is an extreme example to prove a point. But it in UNDENIABLE that the 2 different limits you ask for will have LESS affect than either limit enforced across the entire population. There is currently NO science that has been presented that quantifies what that difference is. If you have it, I'd LOVE to see it.

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by buckman

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So... That has no impact on my argument. Unless they are statistically insignificant. Which I do not believe they are.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

So... That has no impact on my argument. Unless they are statistically insignificant. Which I do not believe they are.

They are statistically less significant. And once again, in my area, which is the Cape Cod Bay ,Racepoint area, two at 33" will result in less fish being killed. Significantly less. IMO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Redsoxticket]

Originally Posted by afterhours

I'm starting to think that THOSE who vehemently oppose 1 @ 28" may more concerned about the bass they won't be able to keep and sell than sending joe sport home with one more 28" fish.....am I wrong thinking like this?

Absolutely no doubt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Bottom line there was a public comment period 95% of those who commented decided that a 1@ option would be the best option for recreational anglers. If charter fares are recreational anglers they should abide by those rules. The opportunity to express an opinion otherwise was prior to x date. Now that the board has made a decision the state managers are saying we have heard from many voices that for hire vessels will be hurting if they can not continue with 2 per fare??? Let's explore CE. Ok so where were these voices and why were they not on record. It wasn't even close. Now we are dealing with this end around Monday Morning QB BS. The masses that followed the guidelines spoke their mind and supported one stance or another are now being told hey eff you we are going to do what the hell we feel like. If charter fares want a different limit then they need to be classified as something other than recreational. Their fish need to be counted and the numbers need to be applied to the overall quota in a different manner.

For every guy that is running two a day three a day trips with 6-10 fares there is also the big fleets running two or three with 3 mates a captain and 50 heads. It adds up to a s$&t ton of dead fish. Not saying shore and boat anglers don't take a ton either. I am simply saying everyone needs to play by the same rules if they are to be considered the same type of angler.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Clammer]

i read a update in a paper this morning but I don,t know how to transfer it ..

[JFigliuolo]

Originally Posted by Clammer

i read a update in a paper this morning but I don,t know how to transfer it ..

WHAT THE F(**(&^ !!!!!

Where's Clammer????? No way would he write a clear sentence.... NO WAY.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JFigliuolo

In aggregate? seriously?

Evidence, no. But anecdotally (which I agree is crap) absolutely. It's pretty well accepted that the minority of fisherman catch the majority of the fish. And look at it another way. i couldn't catch a cod to save my life. Put me on a charter on the fish.... different story.

And from a logical point of view.... whose gonna shell out $$$ to catch LESS fish than they otherwise would? If charters did not provide access to BETTER fishing the business model would not exist. If you can find ONE charter that Advertises "Spend More Catch Less!" I will concede that the folly of my ways...

The spend more catch less agument above is exactly why the charter guys want customers to have to opportunity to catch 2 Fish I suspect......

There is Rec and Charter guys and then there is comm guys (many of which go back to Rec or Charter when Comm season is over) there are some great Comm guys and some that are horrible...there are some great rec guys and some that couldn't catch a cold...anyone can go get a charter license, but not all of them can be consistently good..I have many rec friends that can outfish charters...in fact, i have a few rec friends who get calls from Chaters asking them where the fish are....the good ones stay in business for the moat part but the bad ones don't, they just circulate through and try to make it, then drop out for a new one to come along...especially bass charter where you don't need a huge boat way offshore...

Off topic I know....but I just think we need to be cautious when making big generalizations with facts....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

From 1900-2010, freshwater fish species in North America went extinct at a rate 877 times faster than the rate found in the fossil record, while estimates indicate the rate may double between now and 2050. The reason is spelled very simply MAN.

What's happening in the Marine environment?
As of January 2011, 113 marine species and sub-species were formally listed as being at risk or vulnerable to extinction, including:
56 birds
37 fish
15 mammals
3 invertebrates
2 reptiles

Pretty much the same for marine, spelled the same too; MAN.

Hope stripers don't go the way of the doto bird.

[paradoxjim]

Just some random thoughts; take them for what they're worth (not much?).

I was mate on a charter boat during the mid-80's. We did not target striped bass, but we did catch a lot of blues. The charters usually had us keep all of the fish, but when we got back to the dock, they did not want all of the fillet. This makes sense, right?

Same charter boat; we spent 6 weeks primarily targeting giant bluefin, per customer request. They would sign a release before the trip that the boat would own any fish caught. Fishing for no meat, just for the opportunity to battle a bluefin. Want to know how many days we went out and did not even have a bait hit? And the customers always tipped me, fish or no fish. I guess they had a good time spending their cash and catching nothing.

Limits are for honest anglers. Look through the police reports (RISAA newsletter makes it easy) and look at all of the dishonest anglers that are unlicensed keeping a variety of undersized fish and more than their limits. Do you think that they even care that there is a regulation?

Why not explore making recreational fisherman (that are honest!) be required to have a tag to kill a bass and bring it home? You'd have to buy them at the beginning of the year, when all of us honest guys buy our fishing licenses. I'd probably buy 2 for my family of 3. If I had a desire to eat more than that, I could buy fish at the market. If I didn't keep 2 fish during the year, oh well. More money in that "earmarked" fund for the state that gets funnelled into the general budget. At least with this kind of system, we could start to get an idea of how many dead fish honest fishermen would like to bring home in a year.

Yeah, I know. There is no budget to enforce any of it. I have encountered 2 environmental officers in the past 5 years. One on an October night at a popular beach location and once on a rainy October day at a Connecticut launch ramp. I had not kept any fish on either occasion, so they didn't have much to check.

Beat me up as you wish. I have thick skin.

[piemma]

Originally Posted by buckman

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That may be true but they are:

1. More mobile as they are in boats and

2. More skilled at what they do because it's their business and they have the best technology available.

Therefore I don't buy the statement that they have less effect on the fish populations. There were more 50# fish caught at the Block this summer by the charters than all of the Surfcasters have caught in the last 40 years.

[t.orlando]

Originally Posted by buckman

The charters are a much smaller segment of the overall population of Recreational fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then they should abide by the 1@28 rec limit. If your 2 fish loophole passes, whats to stop anybody that wants to keep 2 fish illegally from saying they were on a charter if caught?

[buckman]

[QUOTE=Got Stripers;1059570]From 1900-2010, freshwater fish species in North America went extinct at a rate 877 times faster than the rate found in the fossil record, while estimates indicate the rate may double between now and 2050. The reason is spelled very simply MAN.

What's happening in the Marine environment?
As of January 2011, 113 marine species and sub-species were formally listed as being at risk or vulnerable to extinction, including:
56 birds
37 fish
15 mammals
3 invertebrates
2 reptiles

Pretty much the same for marine, spelled the same too; MAN.

Hope stripers don't go the way of the doto bird.[/

Man that's a reach
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ivanputski]

If recreational regs are 1@28" and you are a recreational angler before you step on a charter boat, then you are still a recreational angler once aboard a charter boat.
A charter boat is not a magic portal to special rules that allow you to still kill 2 fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

If recreational regs are 1@28" and you are a recreational angler before you step on a charter boat, then you are still a recreational angler once aboard a charter boat.
A charter boat is not a magic portal to special rules that allow you to still kill 2 fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This will blow your mind then. They don't need a license either .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ivanputski]

I know... Because they are covered under the umbrella of the boat
. A license doesnt kill or save fish, so If you are equating the license special treatment to the reg. special treatment, they are not equal.
Why? Because a license is not going to result in more or less dead fish. I made my point before that i dont care about dollars of ANY kind in this equation ( be it state license fees, charter income, whatever). All i care about right now is protecting fish that have no option to protect themselves from being wiped out.

Do you think the 2nd dead bass on board gives a crap if the guy has a license or not? The extra fish getting killed is the issue... I dont care one bit if i paid for a license and another guy didnt... I care about protecting bass right now.
Its all about the fish...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

Its all about the fish...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And there you have it ! That is where we differ . I think people can also be figured into the equation .
We are not talking about White Rhino here .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ivanputski]

People can be figured in as population shows signs of recovery Sorry if that sounds cold, but 1@28" still allows you to operate. Adjusting in creative ways to sell the experience is not that hard.
If we have a 1980's repeat, people will be the only factor in the fishless equation.
Simply ignoring the decline and saying " aaahhhhh i'm not convinced there is even a problem" just seems crazy to me. Im not a charter captain, but i was able to think of half a dozen very creative and enticing marketing strategies that i would implement that would draw customers attention as well as my competitors. As a charter business, you need to know how to adjust to catch customers... Not just fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device