Forum Navigation

New Posts

Search

  #76  
Old 03-06-2012, 09:52 PM
riptide riptide is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: Bourne
Posts: 3,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by rellikanut View Post
oh oh,who do you think they would rather fish with then ?
After 13 years of chartering I welcome ANYONE to come and compete in the business. There are allot of guys that can catch a ton of fish, dealing with the hundreds of personalities and varying skill levels of the sports on your boat is a whole other game. And if they come over to the charter side lookng to make money BEST OF LUCK! Chartering is a TON of work for peanuts....thats why you Comm fish right! If you don't LOVE chartering for the sake of chartering and your in it for the cash, you wont last!
__________________
Good Luck,

Capt. Terry Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 03-06-2012, 10:37 PM
jContender jContender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 11
Quote:
I'm all for a spirited exchange especially when its kept above board and that comment should not have slipped through my keyboard. Sorry J my bad!
...no offense taken...been in this argument since the 70's.....not much gets me going..only when something that I have been doing for many years is suddenly being deemed as a threat to a fishery that is as important to me as it is to you, be it economical, lifestyle, etc...

and the passion you speak is the same most of my close fraternity has; we have ALL been at this a very long time. Most guys like myself must vary what we fish for, i.e., dependent on quotas, bag limits,etc. It just seems to be a sign of the times with all small-time commercial fishing endeavors....

Quote:
When it all boils down I think we are all allot closer to common ground that most might think.
Very true....we all want to continue to do what we all love to do....
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-06-2012, 10:39 PM
Bob Parsons's Avatar
Bob Parsons Bob Parsons is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 1996
Location: Barnstable
Posts: 7,200
I've been watching this thread carefully and while I did caution one poster, recently, you guys have done a great job. It's great to see passion with civility.



I know quite a few people would like to see 1 @36 as a solution. Others would like to see some other form of compromise. I wonder what the effect would be to change the keeper size to 30". Small change but it would these fish one or two more years to breed. For those that feel commercials must share the burden as well. up their size to 35". Keep the weight quota the same but since fish are bigger, it would take fewer fish to reach the quota.

Just a thought based on nothing.
__________________
If at first you do not succeed-sky diving is not the sport for you.


Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-07-2012, 07:43 AM
Junior11's Avatar
Junior11 Junior11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Marblehead
Posts: 235
Bob, I never thought of that idea about the increase in the commercial size to 35 as killing less fish, but the same weight. That idea may have some merit.

While we are thinking and talking rationally, what do people think about the idea of cutting it to one fish, but at like 30, or 32"? from there we can creep the limit up as needed, but to raise the limit 8 inches in a single year it is going to make it really tough for some to catch a keeper or two all year. I know the idea is to reduce the take, but unfortunately this will keep some people from being able to enjoy the resource. If our target is to have 36+ inch fish for the sake of maximizing breeding capability then fine, but why not try to creep it up gradually? Also, why 36? as I have asked before? to me it seems like 34 might be the best number... I keep 4-5 fish a year for PERSONAL consumption, and to be honesty I wouldn't want a 36" because I may not eat it all. Personally for whatever reason, I think 34" for everyone might be the number. Either way, it seems like MA has an open ear, but without participation from the entire coast would do fairly little.

The ASFMC I feel does a pretty good job, however they are monitoring and governing such a vast area, that it makes it tough to make blanket changes. Correct me if someone knows better, but I think they manage on a state by state basis, but staying under a total allocation for the take of bass coastwide. The problem with this being is let's say the number is X and each state is allowed X divided by 10 bass if it was distributed evenly and one state reduces their own take even more than that then the total amount of fish isn't being reached then it is tough to really change anything. That said, it seems like they have their fingers on the pulse of things and have began to talk about measures to make a few reductions.

Also, we can save as many bass as we want, but if we don't fix the bait, we are not going to see any improvement with the inshore fishing. The bait, especially the pogies, is the biggest problem with the inshore fishing. Those years of the crazy nights in the fall with fish up everywhere on peanut bunker can't happen if there are no peanut bunker. I feel as though a big part of the reason we aren't seeing the numbers of small fish, is because of the lack of small bait. The 8"+ mackerel are not exactly an easy snack for a 20" fish.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-07-2012, 05:40 PM
Onshore's Avatar
Onshore Onshore is offline
Veteran Reel-Timer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On the Indian River Lagoon, Melbourne, Florida
Posts: 4,309
[QUOTE=Junior11;304423] The ASFMC I feel does a pretty good job, however they are monitoring and governing such a vast area, that it makes it tough to make blanket changes. Correct me if someone knows better, but I think they manage on a state by state basis, but staying under a total allocation for the take of bass coastwide. The problem with this being is let's say the number is X and each state is allowed X divided by 10 bass if it was distributed evenly and one state reduces their own take even more than that then the total amount of fish isn't being reached then it is tough to really change anything. That said, it seems like they have their fingers on the pulse of things and have began to talk about measures to make a few reductions. QUOTE]

For recreational fishermen ASMFC sets a max length limit and a max bag limit for Coastal regions and, sperately for Chesapeake Bay.

Coastwise it is 2 fish not more than 28" at present. Any state can change that limit as long as it is more conservative (lower length and a lesser number( bag).

In the Chesapeake areas of Virginia and Maryland and in the Potomac River it is a much lower length limit because during the open season they have many small fish but few over 28".
BillH
__________________
XGloucesterman

This and other original paintings and fine art prints of fishing and marine subjects may be seen on my website
http://bill-hubbard.fineartamerica.com/
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 03-07-2012, 07:00 PM
Frankie G's Avatar
Frankie G Frankie G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hingham, MA
Posts: 961
As a recreational fisherman, I would support a return to the 1 fish per boat per day at 36+ though I also agree that cutting the bag to even one fish per man and upping the limit to 30" or 32" would do the trick and perhaps graduate it slightly higher over the years until until. I enjoy keeping a fish once in awhile, but I would forego this with the 36" limit often I am sure. I was only a boy when there were no stripers to catch in Boston Harbor. If someone caught one, it was a monster. I saw it come back and I want it for the future for my boys and others to take part in.

We can argue that the commercial quota should be cut or, the solution I like, would be a tagging system like deer- or restricting permits to those who generate their income from fishing. At least with fewer permits and a slightly larger size, it would take longer to fill the quota. Sure if the rec. limit went to one per boat @ 36" or something lower/better than 2 @ 28" PER MAN, one would hope that the comm. limit could creep up a few inches. You'd hope to have broad buy in for the long term survival of all who rec/sport/commercial striper fishing. Maybe what it takes is for one group to set an example rather than have the mentality that if we gotta give so do they. We have to start somewhere or else w. I don't want to hurt any business either- tackle shop, charters, comm. fisherman- the world has become a tough enough place to live as it is. But the reality is that if we continue on at this pace, we all know what the ultimate end game will be. If fewer recs go fishing because they can't bring home one for the table with a higher limit, that is just tough luck. For me, rec. fishing has never been about always being able to keep one. Hardly. Though I do keep a couple each season and spread the wealth amongst friends, family and neighbors.

I learned to striper fish pretty much on my own. I started in 1985 as a boy and even though I knew there were very few I tried everything...all kinds of crazy things with weights, chain link treble hooks--crazy stuff. But as the fishing improved, I learned where and how to find excellent fish...consistently. Some may ask if I feel so strongly, why do I not take action? And my only answer is that the only action that I am able to take right now is to teach others, including my sons and friends, the importance of conservation and to illustrate that through my actions.

Very good discussion here. Civilty and respect will deliver better participation,information and education sharing.

Frank
__________________
Formerly known as "The Captain"
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-08-2012, 10:18 PM
mctrout's Avatar
mctrout mctrout is offline
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: NYC
Posts: 788
It is nice to see a civil conversation, because for my part, I have learned and adjusted some of my opinions based on reading this thread. Usually I just skip as it is just people picking on one another.
As I think about it further, I see the point of a smaller increase in size of the REC would go to one fish. 30-32" even as it does seem to me that 36" AND one fish a day is drastic. Unfortunately, many of the "REC" groups are against this. Not sure of the "street Politics" of it though. Just like anything, I think people feel they should try not to budge from the outset and maybe they will end up with lees of a loss in the end.

I can't and will try not to speak to the MA side of things as i don't fish up there enough. Here in NY I know alot of locals in Montauk that have tags that they got from their deceased husband or father. They sell the tags to the Gillnet guys for half the take. Legally, they are supposed to be on the vessel during the catch, but that is very rare from what i can see. They are supposed to show proof they caught them. I guess there are ways around this. One person in particular got the tags from her charterboat husband who unfortunately died 8 years ago.

I will try a little math so bear with me. 525 Tagholders in the NY bass fishery. Most of which are 6 pack charter captains and their mates. the Minority are Gillnet boats. Some very large and some just skiffs, all of which jump in on us, 30 feet from shore, in a state park and create some dicey situations, but I digress.

so 225 fish 24-36". Most keep 36" fish only but for the sake of averages I will say 34" fish. the average weight would be 16.5 pounds based on charts so...
225*16.5=3712.5 Lbs. Lets say an average of $3.75/LB (??) that is
3712.5*$3.75=$13,921.87
since she dosent pay for boat costs or gas that is $6,960.93.
On the face of it, I don't like it. especially since the vast majority of the 525 are like this. If those tags went to the full-timers (and we have a long season in NY. July to Dec i believe) they wouldn't have to spilt with these people.
O the other hand, her husband was a good guy, had them for many years, and I know it helps her, but is it right? she also goes on unemployment every winter since it is a summer town. If you knew her politics, you would find this ironic BTW

Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I think I would be happy just cutting the REC limit, but again, this is NY. We don't have 1000s of permitholders keeping the biggest fish they can find (if I have that correct?) as I would hate to watch that day in and day out. wait, i do watch that in the REC fishery on my and every other dock in Montauk.

Anyway, Ive said enough. Hope there will be some movement on this in the near future and I will follow along in the meantime. 70 degrees today so should be soon..
__________________
Capt. Brendan McCarthy
www.urbanflyguides.com
917-847-9576

"if you are all an act, then what am I??"- a quote from Stephen Colbert to Bill O'Reilly
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-09-2012, 05:17 AM
Living Waters Living Waters is offline
NH Inshore Reel-Timer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Shallow Water
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by mctrout View Post
i do watch that in the REC fishery on my and every other dock in Montauk.

.
Well said.

We all see that. It's what I referred to earlier as the rec. "horror show."

Let's start with rec limits.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cape Wind Part II LeakinLena New England 62 05-16-2010 07:41 AM
Mass. Ocean Planning Public Hearings PMcHallam Conservation and Ecology 0 09-01-2009 08:29 AM
Fishing Law - Fact or Fiction? msiler New England 23 09-27-2007 12:08 PM
ASMFC to hold American Eel Hearings David Churbuck Conservation and Ecology 2 03-21-2005 04:34 PM
Mass DMF announces public hearings... bdowning New England 6 11-06-2000 06:15 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.




vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


Copyright 1995-2013, Cahill Digital