NY Goes 1 fish @28

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by buckman

They won't have a disadvantage if the go to 1@ but they will have a obvious advantage if they go to 2@ 33"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you explain how 2@33 is an advantage? The harvest should be about the same whether it is 1@28 or 2@33? Isn't that the argument for equivalency? Is the advantage that people will go on the charter with the chance that they will take home two fish, even though the odds say in most cases they will only get one fish. Or is it that 2@33 for a charter really isn't equivalent to 1@28?

[Sea Flat]

At least the 30-32" fish would get to reproduce, but still, it's silly. C'mon RI

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Can you explain how 2@33 is an advantage? The harvest should be about the same whether it is 1@28 or 2@33? Isn't that the argument for equivalency? Is the advantage that people will go on the charter with the chance that they will take home two fish, even though the odds say in most cases they will only get one fish. Or is it that 2@33 for a charter really isn't equivalent to 1@28?

Yes it's about the perception.
I guess it's different in Rhode Island but in our area we may try to get our clients a limit and give them the option to take it home but in most cases they don't.. And at 2 fish at 33 inches rarely will they take home the two fish
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by buckman

Yes it's about the perception.
I guess it's different in Rhode Island but in our area we may try to get our clients a limit and give them the option to take it home but in most cases they don't.. And at 2 fish at 33 inches rarely will they take home the two fish
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Alright, but for me that makes it even less of a valid reason for 2@33. The discussion has centered around why would a client pay a grand for a couple of fillets. 2@33 makes it so the client is willing to gamble that they will get more than a couple fillets, although they generally won't get 2 fish. That is alot to gamble if it is about fillets. I guess the charter can mislead them into thinking they will leave with 2 fish even though they won't. That can't be good for business anyway.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Alright, but for me that makes it even less of a valid reason for 2@33. The discussion has centered around why would a client pay a grand for a couple of fillets. 2@33 makes it so the client is willing to gamble that they will get more than a couple fillets, although they generally won't get 2 fish. That is alot to gamble if it is about fillets. I guess the charter can mislead them into thinking they will leave with 2 fish even though they won't. That can't be good for business anyway.

we all fish for the challenge and we all fish in the hopes of catching something bigger and better than we have in the past.
Charterboat clients know it's fishing not catching
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JoeG@Breezy]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Can you explain how 2@33 is an advantage? The harvest should be about the same whether it is 1@28 or 2@33? Isn't that the argument for equivalency? Is the advantage that people will go on the charter with the chance that they will take home two fish, even though the odds say in most cases they will only get one fish. Or is it that 2@33 for a charter really isn't equivalent to 1@28?

Most people I have talked to believe that Equivalency was never about the fish and provided a math exercise to disguise the weight of the argument on economics of the for hire industry. i believe the ASMFC in NY addressed that. Hope you guys get it right, then we can all march on NJ.

[JoeG@Breezy]

On another note, I can't help noticing that RI takes credit for being the most corrupt ( unofficially on the web ). I have lived in NJ for many years, and was raised and worked in NY and currently live there for as many. I will argue all day long that Albany and Trenton own the corruption title, even if Buddy made a RI return.