NY Goes 1 fish @28 - Page 2 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

DZ · 03-11-2015, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

IIRC NJ regs are set by the legislature, very difficult to change.

Thanks Mike.

buckman · 03-11-2015, 01:55 PM

Quote:

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

buckman · 03-11-2015, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw

correct...they look a little hypocritical supporting 2@ after arguing about the disadvantage they'd suffer if they were fishing 1@ while other and neighboring states for hires were fishing 2@

I'm curious Scott. I know why I think it would be an advantage but why do you now think it would be an advantage if RI charter boats have 2@ 33 inch? Especially given all the arguments saying that it would not hurt charter business if they are allowed 1@28"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy · 03-11-2015, 02:00 PM

Quote:

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.

CowHunter · 03-11-2015, 02:05 PM

The most complain in nj yet the biggest offenders. I doubt you'll change like mako mike said. The bonus tag is a joke. It's nj com quota, however nobody ever sends tags in so you have a New Jersey commercial season 7 days a week for 9 months lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CowHunter · 03-11-2015, 02:07 PM

I do what I did in mass com fishing on my charters in 12 days every year. But I get to go an additional 4-6 weeks in spring and 8 weeks in fall
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

striperswiper75 · 03-11-2015, 02:11 PM

One would think that CT, MA and NY charter associations would put pressure on their RI peers to change their stance and push for 1 fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DZ · 03-11-2015, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm curious Scott. I know why I think it would be an advantage but why do you now think it would be an advantage if RI charter boats have 2@ 33 inch? Especially given all the arguments saying that it would not hurt charter business if they are allowed 1@28"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buck - I'll try and answer that. At the RI meetings the RI For hire captains were adamant that if RI went one fish and Mass and NY went two, then they(RI Boats)would be at a SEVERE disadvantage and their customers would go to Mass or NY to vacation and fish. Now using that same argument, RI boats would now have the advantage in recruiting back those customers if they get a two fish bag.

buckman · 03-11-2015, 02:20 PM

Quote:

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

buckman · 03-11-2015, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZ

Buck - I'll try and answer that. At the RI meetings the RI For hire captains were adamant that if RI went one fish and Mass and NY went two, then they(RI Boats)would be at a SEVERE disadvantage and their customers would go to Mass or NY to vacation and fish. Now using that same argument, RI boats would now have the advantage in recruiting back those customers if they get a two fish bag.

I agree totally with what you say but in your reality is it an advantage or disadvantage?
I have argued that it's clearly an advantage. Most here have argued that it is not a competitive advantage.
I think Rhode Island will surprise you guys and go with one fish .
But if Rhode Island instead played the game and tried to create an advantage for their boats ..then it's plan worked .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

striperswiper75 · 03-11-2015, 02:27 PM

If RI went 2@33"; does anyone think that the NY based head boats would move their base of operations over to Point Judith/Snug Harbor; to become RI boats?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ronfish · 03-11-2015, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by striperswiper75

If RI went 2@33"; does anyone think that the NY based head boats would move their base of operations over to Point Judith/Snug Harbor; to become RI boats?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they do not become RI boats then when they get back to NY they stand a chance of getting busted for poaching. Ron

redlite · 03-11-2015, 02:42 PM

Now it is my understanding of the laws that if u are from out of state( not RI) and u go on charter in RI and if they do opt for the 2 fish limit, wouldnt it be illegal for those people to keep 2 fish and travel to their home state or thru a state that has a 1 fish law be breaking laws?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

redlite · 03-11-2015, 02:44 PM

Everybody fishing commercially in the canal could just say they were on a charter in RI and keep 2 fish everyday to pack and sell...::.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DZ · 03-11-2015, 02:52 PM

Mike - It's a possession limit - so yes - but what are the odds of getting caught going back to Mass or Conn. Pretty slim. Hopefully compliance and enforcement concerns help change Rhodys current stance. Block Island waters will be an enforcement nightmare.

ProfessorM · 03-11-2015, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlite

Everybody fishing commercially in the canal could just say they were on a charter in RI and keep 2 fish everyday to pack and sell...::.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am sure that already happens, block island comes to mind last year. If someone wants to cheat it is so easy any rules put in place are easy to skirt so I would imagine it will happen Mike.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman · 03-11-2015, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlite

Everybody fishing commercially in the canal could just say they were on a charter in RI and keep 2 fish everyday to pack and sell...::.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm pretty sure using that argument on an EPO will get you the maximum fine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

likwid · 03-11-2015, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronfish

If they do not become RI boats then when they get back to NY they stand a chance of getting busted for poaching. Ron

NY DEM is extremely aggressive down on the east end, despite the bubs crying dongan patent.

JoeG@Breezy · 03-11-2015, 05:00 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-11-2015, 05:09 PM

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.

thefishingfreak · 03-11-2015, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlite

Everybody fishing commercially in the canal could just say they were on a charter in RI and keep 2 fish everyday to pack and sell...::.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you have a comm permit You also now have to clip the right pec fin off all bass over34" that you keep, on closed days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

big jay · 03-11-2015, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

If you have a comm permit You also now have to clip the right pec fin off all bass over34" that you keep, on closed days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did that pass Mike?
I know it was proposed, but I didn't think it was enacted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ProfessorM · 03-11-2015, 05:23 PM

Just my 2 cents. If your fishing in the dark on nite or 2 before comm day, esp from shore, I have extreme doubt they will catch many. That whole clipping thing is really an honor thing at best Mke. I wish comm guys would be more respectful of the rules but I have seen way too much shadyness over the years to really have much hope that it will work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ProfessorM · 03-11-2015, 05:25 PM

I think it did Jay
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thefishingfreak · 03-11-2015, 05:25 PM

From the most reputable source I know, Patrick.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thefishingfreak · 03-11-2015, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfessorM

Just my 2 cents. If your fishing in the dark on nite or 2 before comm day, esp from shore, I have extreme doubt they will catch many. That whole clipping thing is really an honor thing at best Mke. I wish comm guys would be more respectful of the rules but I have seen way too much shadyness over the years to really have much hope that it will work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have been fishing boston harbor for over 20 years on multiple boats and been boarded maybe 3x by the green cops. Everyone knows they work 9-5
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

big jay · 03-11-2015, 05:39 PM

Thanks guys. I missed it going through.
Curb the stacking, spread out the catch, keep the price up.
Less impact on any one one body of fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BasicPatrick · 03-11-2015, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefishingfreak

From the most reputable source I know, Patrick

thefishing

freak made me blush

I think the most interesting (& sad) political aspect about the RI decision is that this is a straight up face off between RISAA & the RI Party & Charterboat Assn (aka Steve Medeiros vs Rick Belevance)

This is EXACTLY why I fight with all my might against split regs/split modes. Instead of having the two most powerful recreational leaders in RI working together in a world where recs are treated poorly to begin with; we have a nasty political war amongst our own. The big boat commercial and extreme environmental advocates are at home laughing their asses off at this. I pray that after this SB business is over the community gets back together as we need to be united on a myriad if other issues.

piemma · 03-12-2015, 04:07 AM

Has RI made a decision public?

scottw · 03-12-2015, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I think the most interesting (& sad) political aspect about the RI decision is that this is a straight up face off between RISAA & the RI Party & Charterboat Assn (aka Steve Medeiros vs Rick Belevance)

I pray that after this SB business is over the community gets back together as we need to be united on a myriad if other issues.

this is odd to me as Medieros and the RISSA hierarchy appeared determined to adopt the position of Belevance and his association throughout the process...if the RISSA membership hadn't screamed at the top of their lungs, this would have been a done deal long ago.....ultimately, Belevance gave Medieros &Co the finger when they offered the compromise involving captain and mate fish and maybe that is where the rift lies but I assumed the haggling now was at the next level trying to not look incompetent, or perhaps less incompetent... after allowing neighboring states the opportunity to make them look completely incompetent, out of touch and corrupt?

I do agree that the momentum has to be carried into the other issues, primarily enforcement, which I think all sides can agree on and where there was always common ground throughout....in the open letter that I cited from a RI for hire he threatened to "drop many dimes"... if RI went 1@ all modes...I hope he was/is true to his word....enforcement needs to be directed by the eyes on the water and at the docks and ramps, if they were willing to help with data collection they could certainly help with enforcement on what they consider their workplace and private/shore recs need to do the same going forward or gains will be meaningless....the problem is that it is pervasive and essentially generally accepted as part of the culture, not just with bass but with most species.....this is from the most recent URI Alumni Magazine