Who Would Like 2 Striped Bass Per Day

[RJ]

I would vote for it. :D How about you?

[devontie]

I would like to see it changed to two stripers per day with one at 28 and one at 36. I would like the charter boats to live by the same. I have been fishing when I caught a 28 or 29 inch bass early on and I kept fishing and later caught a monster which I had to release. I would like to see a similar ruling for fluke. I wolud like to hear what everyone thinks of this kind of limit.

[surfbeater]

RJ: How about a choice in your poll for 1 bass/day/angler?

[LkyLindy]

WE Must vote for 2/day whether we want it or not.Remember nothing says you have to KEEP 2 fish or any for that matter-.When the Dec offers us Recs something we have no choice.They are heavily pro Comm and things will only get worse for us unless we speak up and DEMAND our fair share.Plus on an historical catch level,that they love to go back to-the more the Comms catch in the past ,it seems the more they get in the future. unfortunately , this puts us in the unenviable position of having to scramble for what ever they will allow us.Again-we must vote for 2 fish BUT-keep only what you feel is proper

[RJ]

Right On.:thumb: Voting no...is the same as voting for 1 per day as we already have:)

[Stoker1]

IMO one fish per day @ 28 inches is adequate for table fare if desired.

One question, what is the standard reference(s) when comparing pounds of striper harvested annually by Commercials vs. Recs? I'm asking because I'm not sure myself. Is it data put together by the NMFS? which shows 75% lbs. harvested by recs per 25% by coms in 2001? or other another source? Is that data reliable?

If the data is true then perhaps there shouldn't be an increase in the number of rec. fish allowed to be kept per day. Don't get me wrong by saying that, I'm not defending the comms., I just care about the state of the striper fishery, just like I'm sure the bulk of the membership does.

[Rockfish]

If the biomass can support a 2 fish per day limit than I'm all for it.
Remember that historically there were no limits and that they were imposed to allow the stocks to increase in numbers. Since it has rebounded there is no legitimate reason not to increase our bag limit. Particularly when the DEC is saying it can be done and that they are giving the comms a large increase. I was under the impression that was what conservation was all about.
By giving us recs a fair share when the fish are available (and they certainly are) they are creating an atmosphere in which we will more likely be willing to cooperate in the future.
I would also like to see the boat owner put on an equal footing with those who fish on party and charter boats. At present we are being punished for owning boats. I propose 2 fish per man per day for all sportfisherman. Or some kind of seasonal bag limit.
Natural everyone would have the option of not keeping the second fish or waiting for a trophy after keeping one fish.
Dan
in Massapequa

[Steve Evelly]

I'd prefer it stay at 1 per day. If it has to be 2 I'd like to see 1 at 24" to 28", one over 42". That way you could keep a table fish 24" to 28", and a trophy. Leave the 28" to 42" prime breeders alone to make lots of babies.
I believe there are far too many stripers being killed and it's not just commercials killing the fish. Walk the docks at Montauk around 3 or 4 pm any day from mid-May to mid-November, every boat in town has 4 to 12 dead stripers behind it. Add in night trips and 5 or 6 packed party boats fishing nightly and I wonder how long these fish can take that kind of pressure. Montauk is by no means the only port where this is happening either.
I'm not a biologist so I can't spout bio mass or stock numbers, but I've been around a long time, seen it crash once with way less pressure on the fish than they are getting now. Seems these days everyone on the planet is a striper fisherman.
My bet is we put this fishery on it's butt again and I'd venture to say it will be sooner than later. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[Stoker1]

Steve, some good points. Assuming recreational anglers include the charter and party boats targeting stripers whose clients are recreational anglers (not sure about this though), private boat owners and your average Joe fishing from shore like me;) , that is a lot of recreational pressure on stripers if people choose to keep fish.
Now increase the limit to two fish per day for the shore bound and private boat owners and the harvest could go up substantially. Can the fishery support this or not?, I don't know but hope the regulators who set the limits do.

IMO just because NJ allows two fish per day doesn't mean NY should also.
I'm concerned like you, I dont want to see another crash again.

[Rockfish]

I don't think anyone wants to see the numbers crash again. However the situation has changed through regulation. Sportsmen are no longer permitted to sell there catch. Previously plenty of guys would bring home a boatlosd of bass and sell them for gas money. Plenty of guys used their catch to support their hobby and some even made it a part time job.
Today things are quite regulated, and if the numbers are up and bag limits can be increased fine. If not than they should not be increased for the comms either.
Otherwise we are conserving the fish for the comms, and that is unfair. Also that being said, there is no reason why limits can not be reduced if the numbers go down in the future.
Dan
in Massapequa

[Steve Evelly]

Rockfish,

I agree the lack of regulations were root cause for the crash. Remember though during those times you had other options, people had flounder and fluke in vast numbers, bluefish were everywhere and LARGE, Blackfishing was easy and sharks and offshore fishing was worlds better than it is now. Now, fluke, inshore on the western south shore, are scarce, flounder damn near extinct, bluefish tougher to find, blackfish (last fall excluded) tougher to come by, offshore fishing i.e shark, tuna, very tough. With fewer options more and more regular Joe's are chasing stripers. Striper and Porgy are about the only fish worth targeting and lets face it, porgies are fun, but catching 1-1/2 pound fish can only keep you interested for so long.
I used to fish the Wantagh Bridges at night all season long 20 years ago, after 9 pm you may have had to share the bridge with another boat or 2, maybe 3 or 4 on the weekend. Now there are 25 boats there every night and there's enough clam in the water to feed every bass in the bay. If there is a good run of fish there may be more boats than that. As long as the fishing holds up the boats are there (in other words, until the resident population is fished out). If I want to fish those bridges these days, I won't go there until after midnight (unless the weather is snotty).
Stripers right now are a fairly easy target, thus everyone in the world is chasing them. Not sure if you're a surf fisherman or not, but there must be 50 times the number of guys on the beach these days than there were just 7 or 8 years ago.
Many, many more people, fewer other viable fishing options, and doubling the bag limit means too many dead fish. It will crash again and it won't take that long.
I'm not one of the total catch and release folks, I've got no issues with taking a fish for the table, but keep it at 1 fish, I don't believe these fish can continue to thrive under the relentless pressure they are under these days.

[Rockfish]

The reason there are so many fisherman targeting bass is that there are so many bass and they are so easy to catch. I fished those same bridges 20 and 30 years ago, infact 41 years ago to be exact and I can tell you that they were never more plentiful in my experience, than they are now .
Twenty years ago nobody fished for bass because it was a waste of time. And by the way 20 years ago when they were so tuff to find, sharpies were slaughtering them every night around the VZ bridge and up the east river. I happened to go pulling with some of those guys and caught hundreds of lbs of bass, per tide, when no one could find a striped bass.
The bass were being taken before they reached our waters by guys who had them figured out like clockwork. I still remember being told which dates they would arrive at each area and they were usual correct within a day or two.
Requlation has changed that, our waters are loaded with bass and any one can catch them now. Its up to the regulators to determine if bag limits can be increased, but they should be fair to all. As with all game management limits change from year to year based upon stocks.
I'm not a biologist either, and I havn't counted the biomass numbers. I do however know that its easier than it has ever been in my lifetime to catch bas and everyone seems to agree. Furthermore the experts have said that an increase is reasonable and they've already given it to the comms. Further more sportfisherman fishing on party and charter boats can keep 2 bass.
Why not give all sportfisherman 2 and see what happens. As far as dead fish floating behind charter boats that is a different issue.
Maybe if the sportfisherman thinks he's getting a fair shake he'll be more careful with the resource.
I for one am not interested in saving fish for the comms, and all my life I practiced conservation and followed the rules.

[LkyLindy]

Steve and Rock-

This just boils down to politics-The Bass are just a pawn in the never ending power showdown between the Comms and Recs and the Dec who against every shred of common sense sides with the Comms-Our opinions as to the health of the fishery has to take a back seat to Reality-We have to protect our right to fish with the Dec by accepting the 2 fish.It may cause a fishery problem-maybe not but we are between a rock and a hard place-Steve originally I was against the increase but unfortunately we have to look at this as Politics as Usual my friend

[Steve Evelly]

Rockfish, I think you misunderstood or I didn't make it clear, the bass I was talking about behind the charter boats weren't floating, that would be criminal and I've thankfully never seen that. What I meant was, walk the docks, when these boats come in they lay their catch on the docks for all to see (they're fishing for tourists / tomorrows charter). Kind of like the old cod boats used to do with 'hangers' if you know what I mean. Six pack charter, dozen bass layin on the dock, 40 or 50 boats fishing Montauk waters every day. Nice weather in the summer if you walk these docks you will see hundreds of fish caught legally, every day.
I agree there are more bass around now than at any time I can remember and I've also fished bass for 35 years or so. But it took the moratorium and 15 years with no fish around as you noted to get here.
The number of fishermen these days is staggering. I agree that what the charter / party boats get all recreationals should get
but I'm not for giving any more fish up, recreational or commercial. I don't feel over the long run the fish can handle that pressure.
That's just my opinion, we can banter back and forth forever. We'll sit down in 10 years and see who's right (and believe it or not I hope it's you).

[LkyLindy]

Hey RJ-
Is that your fatso twin holding that Bass?-lol:laugh: :laugh:

[Rockfish]

Why not increase the bag limit to 2 fish for all, as a test for 1year?
If at the end of 1 year it is determined that too many fish are being harvested, than call for a 50% cut accross the board for everyone including the comms and recs who fish on commercial boats. If the fishery can be maintained hold status quo and keep watching the numbers annually.
The reality is that the 10 percent of the fisherman, (the guys who are out there every day are catching 90% of the fish).
And the 90% who are lucky to get out once or twice on a weekend are the ones being limited to only 1 fish per day. The fisherman who takes his boat out on sunday, not only has to find the fish, by himself starting from scratch, but when he does find them can only keep 1.
The comms. and those fishing commercial boats usually know or are with a captain who knows where the fish were yesterday or last night. And that is why they have no problem filling their tags, and or limits, yet they can legally keep more fish.
Does that sound fair to you?
Dan
in Massapequa

[BigBrewDude]

I would like the option of keeping two stripers a day. It would be nice if there was a smaller/larger split limit (like the one Steve mentioned), but if we (recs) don't get the extra fish, the coms will.

[surfbeater]

Keep it the way it is, 1 fish per day, or make a slot limit. Raising it to 2 fish may be sustainable, and LkyLindy you're right, there's nothing that says we have to keep 2 fish, but I for one don't think there are that many Recs out there who wouldn't keep a deuce.

Just because the Comms are getting an increase is not enough of a reason for me to raise the Rec limit, and there's nothing that says we cannot continue to keep pressure on their harvest/limits. We should by all means.

The thing that concerns me most, is while 2 fish per day may be sustainable, in doing so you are managing the fishery for quantity, but not quality. Most of us dream of joining the 50 lb. club one day. Putting more pressure on the fishery will not help us one bit. If you'll be happy with shorts and rats vote for the increase.

I say be disciplined and let the recovery continue, and fight the Comms tooth and nail.

[RJ]

Read my previous post on the article I published. There are so many bass around you may NEED to incease harvest to weed out the smaller fish to allow larger fish to again populate the waters.

[surfbeater]

I would agree with the principles stated in that post RJ, but I think there are some differences between fresh and salt water fisheries, and species of bass.

Stripers (with the exception of "locals") are migratory, while their fresh water counterparts are landlocked and exist in a much more fragile ecosystem. A lake offers a more finite supply of food, while stripers annually cruise up and down the coast seeking more diverse and abundant forage.

Perhaps fewer natural predators (eagles, osprey, otters, etc.) exist in freshwater fisheries to help reduce the populations and weed out the smaller fish? I don't think that's the case in the marine fishery where plenty of predators exist and stripers running the coastal gauntlet encounter their greatest threat, man.

I still think the approach should be more careful, for Recs and especially for Comms.


"Monotony is the awful reward of the careful."
--A. G. Buckham

BBD: What is the awful reward of the careless?

[RJ]

Whether the ocean or a landlocked lake, the principles are the same. There is no lack of big fish around. Smaller fish beat big fish to a bait every time, the numbers of smaller fish far out weigh the numbers of larger fish, and large fish did not get large by being stupid. Once a bass reaches adult size...they have very few if any predators other than shark and man.

We have to weed out smaller bass to get to the larger bass. Anytime I fish, if I find only smaller bass cooperting. I leave to find larger fish. You 99.999999% of the time will never pull a quality fish from a school of schoolies, You want big fish you either have to sit and wait with bait for weeks at a time, or hunt and search them out. But you won't pull them fomr a small schoolie class of fish.

[Rockfish]

This argument reminds of another many years ago. In New York State back in the 50's whitetail deer were not very plentiful. Everyone seemed to think this was due to a lack of open space and overhunting. In the 60's they tried something different. They allowed some of the hunters to shoot does and fawns.
While the conservative old timers thought this would decimate the herds, the opposite occurred. The herds became even stronger, and today its possible for a hunter to shoot 2 or 3 deer every year between archery permits and doe permits and the herds are stronger than ever.
It seems the deer grew healthier and stronger when they had less competition, and a few grew to be big bucks. When left alone they had been breeding themselves out of the food supply and the culling did them good.
I believe the same is true for the bass. Although it is agreed that regulations are necesary, that does not preclude allowing a reasonable harvest. By taking a reasonable number of individuals out of the biomass, the remaining fish have less competition and a better chance to grow large. The difficult part is deciding how many fish to take, and that can only be determined by trial and error. We should not be so afraid to take another fish, when they are so plentiful. We don't know what the result will be until we try it. What we do know is that a disproportionate amount of this years increase (100%) is being given to the comms, and that is not reasonable I.M.H.O.
Dan
in Massapequa

[RJ]

Well put but mistaken onnthe increase to comm's If you read my article, the went from 590,000 pounds to I believe it was 843,000 pounds.

[Rockfish]

Incidentally, I noticed in some of the previous posts a reference to local stripers. I was under the opinion that all the bass are migratory, although they didn't all come from the same river system and they don't all travel to the same place. But my understanding is that the fish we are catching on L.I. are either passing by or hanging out for a while but not really local.
Also any of these fish that measures at least 28" has already spawned at least once whether in Chesepeake Bay or up the Hudson. That being the case pressure from legal fishing should never really damage the fishery. What destroyed the fishery in the past was the totally unregulated total destruction of entire schools of fish of all sizes, by haulseiners, gillnetters and pinhookers in an era when we thought the ocean had no limits. I remember when one gillnetter caught so many striped bass on the west bar that his 26' boat sank and he had to be rescued along with his 1500 ibs of bass. All the rec boats around the Wantagh bridges all night can never catch what the comms catch in one good set of their nets. Did anyone ever see pictures of the thousands of pounds of bass the haul seiners used to pull in out east. That kind of mass destruction and the illegal selling of shorts which was very common back in th 70"s is what killed our fishery. Thats what the regulations put an end to and thats why the bass are back in good numbers. And thats why I believe they can handle a reasonable harvest.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Rockfish]

Rich,
I did not mean to say that the comms got a 100% increase.
What I meant is that the comms got 100% of this years increas.
In other words, they got it all we got none.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[RJ]

got it

[LkyLindy]

If I'm not mistaken even if we get the 2 fish bag ,it will not go into effect until 2004 at any rate
It will be interesting to see what happens -Just like monday quarterbacks there will be a lot of "I told you so's" regardless

Sheeesh-hindsight is a marvelous thing:argue:

[RJ]

Byron Young told me yesterday that yes indeed nothing will happen on this till 2004. I'm sure you will all have ???'s for him when he appears on our show March 22

[BigBrewDude]

Surfbeater, the awful reward of the carless is for things to be... interesting. Like the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."

[Mudman]

I like Steve's plan, a nice 24"succulent striper per day would be OK and that 1-42"+ works for me.

[basssman]

I agree somewhat with Steve Evelly, if it goes to 2 fish per day,
I would like one fish between 24 and 30 inches, and one fish over 36 inches to allow for a breeding stock.

[surfbeater]

BBD: The awful reward of the carless is having to walk or take the bus! :D

One source speculates that the "popular Chinese curse", "may you live in interesting times" may be a variant of "I rather be a dog in peaceful times, then live as a man (woman) in turbulent times.” Careless is pitching into 160 degree wort! :beer:

One fish is still enough for me, but a slot limit would be OK.


There is a precipice on either side of you (a precipice of caution and a precipice of over-daring.)

-Winston Churchill

[Fluke]

There are a lot of valid points expressed, but how's this for a thought. The DEC comes off like your benevolent benefactor by allowing you to keep one more fish (if you care to) Whoop-de-do. At the same time, the Comms. get a 40% increase in their TAL. (I've heard 30%, but I believe it's closer to 40). Next year comes along and they realize they made a mistake, so, they cut back half of your take and half of what they gave the Comms. The key word is half. Sum total: You got nothing and the Comms. got a 20% increase.
Soooooooo
Don't give the Recs. a 2nd fish and don't increase the Comms. Leave the regs alone for another year to see if the increase in biomass is legitimate.
Does anyone remember the boats and 4 wheelers running the beaches out east.
Just something to think about.

[RJ]

How a about this...since the comm's got a 40% increase in fish...you can't look at it as an increase in fish...it is an increase in PAY!! Who in this world gets a 40% raise? Does your boss give you a 40% raise? The comm's are being given more money not fish.:!:

[Steve Evelly]

That 40% raise comes at the cost of many, many dead stripers. Is there anyone out there experiencing striper fishing so good you can take away 40% more fish and still have good fishing? How can anyone justify a 40% increase in take, commercial or recreational?

[LkyLindy]

It's business as usual-

[Rockfish]

I think we are just flapping our gums, we've already been sold out by DEC. The deal is done, the fix already in.
Dan
in Massapequa
:(

[Steve Evelly]

Rockfish / Lindy, All too right. Business as usual he who has the most lawyers / lobbyists wins.

[Fluke]

Is it possible we have been addressing our opinions and disatisfaction in the wrong direction. Who gives these people on the DEC, their positions. Maybe the threat of some politician not being voted back into office, overides lawyers and lobyists.
Who's the man/men

[BigBrewDude]

First off, Surfbeater, you are absolutely correct, pitching yeast into 160 degree wort is careless! And heartbreaking...:crying:
Second, Rockfish, I don't think we've been "sold out" by the DEC, YET. Come this time next year, if the comms get another increase and the recs don't, then even I'll have to agree we've been given the single finger salute.

[Rockfish]

Why would the regs do anything different next year. They gave the comms what they paid for and got away with it again. The whole system is set up in favor of the comms, why do you suppose they get tags and we have a daily limit.
On a good day they fill their tags, you get 1 and are told to be happy you have a meal.
Dan
in Massapequa

[BigBrewDude]

One of the main reasons we (recs) get the single finger salute is because we are unorganized and don't speak with one voice, if we speak out at all.
It's like voting, if you don't participate in the process, you can't say the system sucks. If you do particpate, and your voice isn't heard, get a bunch of people who are saying what you're saying and try again.
I know its frustrating, and most of us on this board DO participate, but we can't give up.
Boy do I sound like a cartoon character of an activist...
And yes, I DO know the system is skewed towards favoring the coms (or whoever has the most money and lawyers).

[Fluke]

RJ- I thought I heard you say you were having G. Colvin on your radio show. Why not open it up to your listening audience. I think there are a lot of questions that need answering. No softballs questions allowed.

[RJ]

March 22 is the date and in case you didn't know...every show for the past 10 years is live and the phone lines are always open...and I am the last one to say thows softball questions. I have had guests leave at the commercfial breaks because they did not like what I was asking.

[Rockfish]

I think your guest waited till March 22 to make his appearance because he knows that its to late to change the regs for this year. He'll be able to claim that no one asked for an increase in time, and if he's lucky and its a nice day, we'll all be out fishing for flounder and mackeral and blackfish.
The decisions were made long ago in a back room and our input was not asked for, or welcomed. I would not expect any thing different next year either. The bass are being regulated for a profitable commercial harvest, without regard for the sportfisherman. In good times we can expect one fish and in bad times none. The comms will get all the surplus. We'll be asked to use circle hooks and put the fish back carefully so that they can survive till they're caught in nets.
Dan
in Massapequa

[RJ]

Originally posted by Rockfish
I think your guest waited till March 22 to make his appearance because he knows that its to late to change the regs for this year. He'll be able to claim that no one asked for an increase in time, and if he's lucky and its a nice day, we'll all be out fishing for flounder and mackeral and blackfish.
Dan
in Massapequa

March 22 was the first date I had available so it had nothign to do with his choosing the date.

[Fluke]

Rockfish- It's sad, but true. Every change in regs., whether good or bad, seem to favor the Comms. Knowing this, is bad enough. Not being able to do anything about it is really frustrating. I can't give up on the possibility that somewhere down the line, decisions will be made not predicated on politics.

[Rockfish]

Rich pointed out on another thread that all of these decisions have to be approved by the legislature. I guess that means the DEC is not the last word. I did a little surfing and found that our legislators have a web site and we can e-mail them directly. They even have a committee for environmental conservation.
Why waste time begging the Buearoctrats at DEC, when you can let our elected officials know that we believe our public resources are being mis-managed in favor of the comms.
Maybe we can still make a difference.
I just sent an e-mail to senator Johnson advising him that some of us believe that if the resource cannot handle 2 fish per sportsfisherman, it certainly cannot handle a 40% increase for the comms.
Why don't we all contact our elected officials and let them know what we think about DEC., we may not have money and lawyers, but we all have votes, and they need them to keep their jobs.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[RJ]

I had pointed out the legislature aspect in one of the other threads here as well the other day and on the radio show oevr the weeks. This topic sure gets folks going:D

[Rockfish]

I think its a pretty basic concept in a democracy that the people allow the government to govern for the good of all the people.
When we accepted restrictions of a resource that had historically been unrestricted it was to preserve that resource for future use.
I don't believe anyone ever imagined that when the resource was rebuilt the regulations would then be used to redistribute that resource to a certain segment of the user group and denied to another. Thats whats happening now and it should stir people up. Its unacceptable!
Dan
in Massapequa

[Fluke]

I have already written to Owen Johnson (Rich, any relation?) regarding fluke. Maybe we shouldn't pick a particular specie and just go with the overall handling of all species by the DEC. I guess, he isn't getting enough mail/email to make an impression.

[Rockfish]

Maybe if enough of us sent enough mail to our elected officials, our message would get through. I believe these DEC people are appointed by our elected officials, and take orders from them, thats why they ignore us.
Dan
in Massapequa

[BigBrewDude]

Just remember to send your mail via snail mail, not email. Most Poiticians don't put much weight in email because they can't be sure that the sender is a constituent. Snail mail has a verifiable address, and the polis know if the sender is a constituent.

[Fluke]

Good Point!!!!!

[Stoker1]

This thread has come around full circle with an action/how to plan that makes sense. Letters written en mass I believe can and will have an effect with getting elected officials attention. I wrote to the ASMFC regarding Article 6 and am motivated to write now to the local officials about this issue. We have to do what we have to do to protect the fishery.

[Fluke]

Personally, I think by writing to the ASMFC, the DEC etc., your message falls on deaf ears. It would seem they are appointed positions. What pressure can we apply to them. On the other hand, by writing to the politicians, who seek your votes, maybe we can get their attention.

[LkyLindy]

Why not write to both??

[Fluke]

Lky- What's the repercussions to the DEC is they don't comply.

[Rockfish]

If I'm not mistaken, the DEC inforces the laws and the legislature actually makes them. I expect the legislature will follow the recomendations of DEC if no one is complaining to them.
I doubt that the individual legislators have really had much reason to question DEC recomendations up till now. On the surface they may seem to be doing a good job at least according to the reports they file. If on the other hand they begin to get a lot of negative mail, they might take a closer look at the issues. What we need to do is get one or more members of the legislature that are close to our problem (ideally a fisherman or at
least a Long Islander) on our side. When he understands, he can convince the others that DEC is failing to properly manage our resources.
Dan
in Massapequa

[Fluke]

Rockfish- You are 100% right IMO. If I'm not mistaken, Sen. Owen Johnson is the closest to what we are looking for. He is involved with the Long Island Marine Division. That is who I addressed my correspondence to.

[Rockfish]

And so did I. If we can get others to do the same we may have a chance to accomplish something. But I think it will take a lot of letters over a long period of time, still its worth a shot. At this time, I really don't know how many people feel the same way, and neither do the legislators. We need to find a way to stir up interest in sportsman's rights. Maybe Rich would like to take up the cause he's got a radio and tv show and is something of a celebrity. I'm not sure if he's willing to take a stand although I think he's with us in spirit. How about it Rich, want to lead the charge for sportsman's rights, equality in game management.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[surfbeater]

These are your representatives who wheel and deal with their respective Atlantic state commisioners and hold the fate of our fishery/sport in their hands. Just in case anybody doesn't know where to send their letters:

New York State's Commisioners on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

Gordon C. Colvin
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
205 Belle Meade Road
East Setauket, NY 11733
Phone: 631/444-0433
FAX: 631/444-0434

Senator Owen H. Johnson
23-24 Argyle Square
Babylon, NY 11702
Phone: 631/669-9200
FAX: 631/669-9007

Patrick H. Augustine
25 Stuart Drive
Coram, NY 11727
Phone: 631/928-3540

[basssman]

Hey Rich,

Most of us have the same common interests regarding this issue. Would it be to much to ask if you draft a form letter that we can all send individually to our elected representatives.
We need one common voice loud enough to be heard and it's important that we all have our facts straight!!!!!

[Fluke]

A thought:
In addition to email, snail mail etc., how about collectively composing some form of petition that could be placed in tackle shops, party boats etc. After all, they would benefit in addition. We need a literary genius to get this off the grounf floor.

[Rockfish]

I like the petition, although I don't know about the form letter.
I think if everyone writes an individual letter it will have more impact. You are right however we need to get the facts straight.
In my letter I expressed my concern on behalf of myself and others that in our opinion the DEC is mis-managing our resource in favor of the commercial interests. I did not ask for the second fish since this seems to be a point we all don't agree on and I'd like to see some unity in our ranks.
Basically what I said was that if the fishery cannot support a second fish for the sportsman, it certainly cannot support a 40% increase for the comms.
In the interest of unity as well as simplicity I think we should demand a freeze on any increase for now. The point is we should share any increases when they become available. This is our resource as much as anyone elses. We brought it back and it belongs to all of us.
Thats what I said and I guess everyone will have a slightly different viewpoint, but we should be telling it to our legislators since the DEC does not seem interested or is for whatever reason in bed with the comms.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Fluke]

Rockfish- I agree entirely with your opinion. The problem we face, is, where we are emotionally concerned enough to write a letter, I'm afraid there are far too few that will take the time to do so. In an effort to get their opinion sent to the right place, all we need is their signature. As I stated previously, the tackle shops and Rec. boat owners have a financial stake in this situation, also.
I think we need someone who is a gifted letter writer, equipped with the facts. Maybe RJ would like to get involved. I think the time has come. :beer:

[Rockfish]

Whatever it takes to get the ball rolling is fine with me. An imperfect effort is far better than none at all. For too long the DEC has had a free rein over our resources, its time for sportsman to speak out. I'd really like to hear some more voices speaking up.
We need numbers to have strength. If everyone one these boards would write a letter and talk to a friend or two, we might get this started, and I think its going to take some time before we see any results, but if we do nothing I believe it will get worse every year.
By the way the DEC is asking us to keep records of our catches and help them to collect data, but when its time to increase limits they leave us out of the picture. They also claim not to have enough manpower to issue a report to us based on the data we gave them. I propose that we refuse to cooperate until they open up a dialogue with the sportfisherman whom they are asking for this data.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Mudman]

Fluke! Your the guy for the job. You make your points quite clear and you support them with facts. RJ can't type or spell worth a damn, I don't know who does his editing but whoever it is he/she earns their pay.

Go Fluke! Go fluke! Go fluke.......

[Fluke]

Mudman- Thanks for your vote of confidence. I don't know if I'm talented enough to draft a petition. I also think Rockfish has some valid points about participation. I would be curious as to how many people visiting this thread would support such an effort. I think there are many that feel the way we do, but are they willing to step forward. I also believe we need someone with a little clout and a "bully pulpit" to spearhead this effort. Can you think of anyone?????
Possibly we can form some type of committee.
Who out there is in favor of some type of action:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Mudman]

Rah-Rah Go Get-em!
We're enthused now but how long will it last once the weather changes. There are organizations out there that support these idea's and they have the machinery in-place to lobby these idea's, support them. There are many clubs that have different idea's from each other and it would be great if they could come together as ONE body and agree on an issue, but it will not happen. I woud not want to have someone at least anyone I knew become a spokesperson because somewhere down the line he'll loose the support and be left downstream without the paddle.

[Fluke]

Which organizations do you feel support the Recs. Are they local (Conn., N.Y., N.J.) In reality, we should be advocating the things we don't want as opposed to what we do want. I guess we all want equity. I think when you get involved with some organizations, you have to deal with egos. Somehow true conservation falls by the wayside. If requests were kept to a minimum, there can't be too much room for disagreement. The bottom line is, we have to put enough names (votes)in front of the politicians, to make an impression.

[Mudman]

Coastal Conservation Assoc. & Recreational Fishing Alliance
The Satwater Fishing License is still the way to go.

[Fluke]

I've heard of both those organization and am curious as to what they've accomplished, given the existing regulations.
Why do you feel a Saltwater lisence is the way to go. I'm not opposed to one, provided that it accomplishes more than just creating another beaurocracy.

[Fluke]

I'm going to spelling class next week.

[RJ]

Is everyone voting on this poll?:D

[vin]

I find it interesting that some of those who are against the 40% commercial increase are also in favor of 2 bass (a 100% increase on the recreational side). And as of this posting, the majority of the persons who participated in the poll are also in favor of the 100% increase in recreational harvest.

It seems to me that you can't have your cake & eat it too. Either you want to see more bass killed, or you don't. To complain about the commercial increase & then in the next breath talk about how great it would be to be able to keep a 2nd fish seems hypocritical.

Everyone is certainly entitiled to their opinion. If you're in favor of the 2 fish - fine - speak your mind. The fishery can handle the increase & New York fishermen are certainly entitled to those fish. (At least that is what the ASMFC has led us to believe by their actions as of late.) But understand that by asking for the extra fish, it takes much of the steam out of the argument against the commercial increase.

Dead fish are dead fish - regardless of who does the catching.;)

[RJ]

Exactly. As I have been saying, the biologist...of which One I am not...say the resource can handle the pressure. The commercials got their increase, we should get our increse...but we haven't.:mad: Giving us an extra three weeks by opening the season early really is a joke. I have been sating for 10 years on my radio show that if we can two fish we should take it.

[John Papciak]

I think Owen Johnson is a leading force in the Encon (Environmental Conservation) Committee. This means that no related NY law gets passed in the state without his OK.

He is an ASMFC Commissioner, but has one of his staff, Brian Culhaine attends on his behalf.

As per fluke, this is Mid Atlantic Council jurisdiction. I dont know what Owen's role is on the council. If there is no role, writing letters to him would be as effective as appealing to the state to open Cedar Beach to 4x4s outside of Babylon (no jurisdiction).

On the other hand, I am not sure if Owen Johnson will go for another term, at which point, its anyone's guess as to how this will change the climate.

There are commercial fishing representatives in Albany more often than recs, thats for sure. You can write a letter, meanwhile the NY Seafood council will throw a big seafood reception for all the politcians. Get it?

On the rec side, there is very little in that way of organized or concentrated lobbying. RFA had a lobbyist, but I dont know much about the details and how much of that person's time is billed to the RFA. The rec folks have thrown a couple of fundraisers over the years for local pols, but I think the comms still outspend us by a big margin.

In terms of making inroads, it is very difficult to get the sleeping rec fishermen masses to be invovled to make the necessary financial contributions.

The balance will not be tilted in favor of the rec masses until there is a recreational fishing license - or something of the sort. Or, and I highly doubt this, one of our organizations -NYSF, CCA, RFA, etc. suddenly gets an increase in membership of about 10,000% and the accompanying funds to move a few mountains.

[vin]

On the flip side of the coin, we recreationals (as a whole along the striper coast) have seen some substantial increases over the years while the commercials have received none. New York has been holding at 1 fish by choice - many of the other states have already been at 2 fish. In Jersey you can even keep a 24"er w/ the bonus tag. The whole recreational sector got one heck of an increase w/ the lowering of the limit from 36" to 28" a few years ago.

My point is that we tend to always complain about increases on the commercial side, but maybe we should try to maintain some perspective about what is fair to everyone. When the ASMFC (by way of the stock assessment report) decided in December that there are more bass in the system then ever before & everything is just rosey & things can remain status quo on the recreational side, it became very difficult to turn to the commercials & deny them their long-awaited increase.

So it appears that with the commercials & recreationals (potentially) taking more fish out of the system, and now with talk of the opening of the EEZ (federal waters) to striped bass fishing, our striped friends could potentially be under more pressure in the coming years than they ever have. Only time will tell if those report numbers are acurate or overly optimistic.

Keep in mind also that those numbers reflect the total number of fish in the system - mostly small fish. There is still a serious problem w/ the lack of larger fish in the system, and that problem isn't getting resolved anytime soon under these new regs.

Rich - just out of curiosity - why are you in favor of the 2 fish? Most of the guides I have spoken to have taken the more conservative stance @ 1 fish. Actually, many (like myself) have voiced their preference for increasing the size limit by way of F=.25 or lower. What's your take on this?

[RJ]

I have been touting (?) the limit of two fish for several reasons.

1. many folks eat the fish they catch and may not fish that often...no reason why they should not be allowed 2 fish.

2. Many of these folks are not sportfishermen fishing every waking minute of every day like many of us do. Those of us that do...don't even keep one fish when we go nevermind keeping 2.

3. I firmly believe that by keeping more smaller fish we can get back larger fish.

4. It is good for business, rental skiifs, tackle shops, etc

5. Most importanly the DEC, ASMFC and MAMFC LOVE to take historical data into play when deciding who gets what! We must lay claim to our two fish so when they make the next ammenedment, decision or allocation we are firmly represnted by the numbers of fish historically caught and taken by rec's.

6. Even more important...the experts and scientists say the rescource can withstand it.

[vin]

All very valid points, Rich. As far as #3 goes (killing more small fish = large fish), I've heard this theory posed before by others, but I'm not sure about the logic. I've heard some argue that with the subsequent decrease in the overall population, there would be less competition for forage & therefore the larger fish will thrive. This is one argument for this theory & I have heard others as well. I'm not sure I buy into it & I have 2 arguments here - one theoretical & one from my observations.

First off, it's a simple fact that in order for a fish to grow large, that fish actually has to survive to get to that point. So for every small fish taken from the system, that's one less potential cow down the road. Let's face it - it's not all that difficult to catch a 28" bass. They're practically committing suicide on clam bellies all over the bays all year long. A larger fish, though - that's a different animal. They're wiser from experience & therefore harder to catch. So my point is that if you let these fish grow a bit more, they will obviously have a much better chance of someday reaching cow status. Again - it's a theory only.

Secondly, my observations have shown that, in general, since the limit was lowered from 36" to 28", my personal catches of bass have certainly increased, while the average size of fish has decreased. I have noticed that while 36"+ fish were fairly commonplace during the years w/ the 36" limit, they seem to be harder to come by since the 28" limit took effect. Conversely, I've seen the average size of fluke increase the last few years. I've been fluke fishing for 20 years or so - most of those years under the 14 or 14-1/2" limit. My largest fluke during those years was 21" (approx. 3-1/2 lbs)! Since the limit went to 17" a few years ago, I've taken fish up to 6.5 lbs. & multiple fish over 5 lbs. This is local bay fishing for the most part - not the ocean, north fork, etc. Could this be coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe I've gotten better at it over the years & therefore can target the bigger fish in the population. But if I were to guess, I'd say that it can be attributed to the fact that we're letting more of the babies grow up to be wiser & larger.

Rich - you are absolutely correct in that everyone fishes for their own reasons & they are certainly entitled to keep what is legal. They are also entitled to be heard with regard to the 1 bass vs. 2 issue. But what we should also keep in mind is that we are ultimately the ones responsible for passing these fisheries down to our children. Regardless of what the experts are telling us, from my point of view there is something amiss in the striped bass population & therefore I tend to release most of my fish. It's my personal way of playing a part & doing what I feel is responsible. And yes - I do keep a fish from time to time. Everyone has to make their own decisions on this & hopefully take only what you need & return the rest for the future.

Just my $.02

[Fluke]

I'm trying to understand how you can make a comparison between the Rec.'s 100% increase and the Comms. 40% increase. That must mean the Recs are getting 60% more than the Comms. Duh! That 100% increase is 1 fish. Only 1. How many more fish does a 40% increase represent to the Comms. The analogy is a joke.
In theory, this whole thing is supposed to be about conservation. Something seems to be lost in the translation. Why don't we just talk about numbers of fish and/or poundage in making comparisons. Maybe then we can see the true picture.
If the stocks are building as reported, there are safer ways of doling out a surplus without raping what we've accomplished. I believe Recs. are asking for 2 fish as a protection against the future. Many of them won't take the 2nd fish. On the other hand, to jump the Comms. by 40%, to me, it appears, either a reckless gamble or the end product of lobying. Somehow, I don't see the Comms. taking anything less than the 40%. The increase could have been given out in smaller increments and then measured to see the effects.

[RJ]

Originally posted by Fluke
I'm trying to understand how you can make a comparison between the Rec.'s 100% increase and the Comms. 40% increase. That must mean the Recs are getting 60% more than the Comms. Duh! That 100% increase is 1 fish. Only 1. How many more fish does a 40% increase represent to the Comms. The analogy is a joke.
In theory, this whole thing is supposed to be about conservation. Something seems to be lost in the translation. Why don't we just talk about numbers of fish and/or poundage in making comparisons. Maybe then we can see the true picture.
If the stocks are building as reported, there are safer ways of doling out a surplus without raping what we've accomplished. I believe Recs. are asking for 2 fish as a protection against the future. Many of them won't take the 2nd fish. On the other hand, to jump the Comms. by 40%, to me, it appears, either a reckless gamble or the end product of lobying. Somehow, I don't see the Comms. taking anything less than the 40%. The increase could have been given out in smaller increments and then measured to see the effects.

You are correct all the way around. The only the comm won't take their full 40% increase is because of weather, their boat sank or the fish did not visit us this year. Either they they did not get just more fish...but a 40% pay hike! When was the last time any one of us got a 40% pay raise?

[RJ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vin
[B]All very valid points, Rich. As far as #3 goes (killing more small fish = large fish), I've heard this theory posed before by others, but I'm not sure about the logic. I've heard some argue that with the subsequent decrease in the overall population, there would be less competition for forage & therefore the larger fish will thrive. This is one argument for this theory & I have heard others as well. I'm not sure I buy into it & I have 2 arguments here - one theoretical & one from my observations.

First off, it's a simple fact that in order for a fish to grow large, that fish actually has to survive to get to that point. So for every small fish taken from the system, that's one less potential cow down the road. Let's face it - it's not all that difficult to catch a 28" bass. They're practically committing suicide on clam bellies all over the bays all year long. A larger fish, though - that's a different animal. They're wiser from experience & therefore harder to catch. So my point is that if you let these fish grow a bit more, they will obviously have a much better chance of someday reaching cow status. Again - it's a theory only.

Too much competition for food keeps fish stunted. Remember when the limit was 36 inches the population was at a low point, that is why there mostly larger fish in the population and the ones caught were 36 inches. There were s couple of local scientists that proved with spearing that if you continue to sort out larger fish, the population becomes stunted and the genes produced by these stunted fish produce smaller fish. If you sort out the smaller fish and reduce the competition for food then smaller fish become larger fish...and very fast as a matter of fact.

Secondly, my observations have shown that, in general, since the limit was lowered from 36" to 28", my personal catches of bass have certainly increased, while the average size of fish has decreased. I have noticed that while 36"+ fish were fairly commonplace during the years w/ the 36" limit, they seem to be harder to come by since the 28" limit took effect. Conversely,

If you continue to let fish grow larger, they produce more offspring which in turn continues to overpopulate the population with fish and more fish competing for the same amount of forage base. If the populaiton of bass continues to grow, if the forage base does not keep pace you got a real problem and the forage base is not gorwing with the population as of now.

[John Papciak]

Here is some trivia on this topic. Please feel free to correct me on this, but here's how I see it.

In NY, there are roughly 1000 commercial fishermen who are issued tags to sell Striped Bass - Byron probably knows the exact number, but I think its around 1000.

Included in this list are folks who are involved with the party/charter industry. Not all.

But also in this list are some "recs" who were grandfathered in.

Last time I checked, the fish have to be caught east of Debs inlet.
But there is a vibrant black market in Jamaica Bay.

Each commercial fishermen is allowed something like 140 fish. The fish must be between 24 and 36 inches, if I'm not mistaken.

Not all commercials fill out that quota of 140 fish (again, whatever the number is). Some trade or exchange tags or barter, though I dont know if this sorta stuff is legal.

Then again, some exceed the quota. Its common knowledge that some will try to sell the fish without tagging them first. I've personally seen it and know of a few who have been ticketed - the most recent being a well-known montauk charter captain.

Its very difficult to get rec consensus on even this issue -which one would think is a no-brainer - as the rec industry is comingled with the commercial sector as so many who cater to rec fishermen hold a commercial license.

[RJ]

Same goes for tuna fishermen who sell their catch to local restaraunt..illegally I might ad. The only specie in danger of extinction is the true sportfisherman:rolleyes:

[vin]

Fluke:

You're absolutely right - you have to look at the actual numbers to see the real picture. So according to the statistics contained in Amendment 6, in 2000 (the most recent data) New York recreational fishermen harvested 259,085 striped bass. New York commercials harvested 54,894 fish that year. This breaks out to 82.5% of the bass in New York taken by recreationals and 17.5% taken by commercials. I've limited this to New York only because that's what were talking about - an extra recreational fish for New York only. Just to give you some perspective on this, the entire commercial fishery along the entire Atlantic Coast harvested 1,057,712 fish. In other words, NY recs alone (not counting the recs from all the other states) accounted for almost 25% of the commercial take for the entire coast from Maine to North Carolina.

So you see, we recs kill a substantial number of fish here in New York. Now if we go to 2 fish, that number won't necessarily double because the charter boats are already keeping 2 fish. However, we will most certainly see a substantial increase in the recreational take. To bring it a step further, let's assume a modest 50% increase under a 2-fish limit. That add another 130,000 fish or so to the total on the NY recreational side. The NY commercials' 40% increase would translate to an additional 22,000 or so fish. The "it's only 1 fish" argument is misleading.

You were right Fluke - the numbers are very telling. If you'd like to see them for yourself, take a look at Amendment 6 on the ASMFC website (www.ASMFC.org).

[vin]

Rich:

I might agree (in theory, of course), but right now we're killing large & small fish. We're effectively cutting off the population at age 7 or so (28"). Now if you wanna talk slot limits, that's a different story.

[RJ]

Not true. Since we only keep one fish and we never know what that size might be, we are killing all sorts of sizes of fish.

I still say kill more smaller fish and you will have larger fish in the population, although the overall population of fish may be smaller in numbers...but they won't be in size.

According to nature, unless we go back to the days of walking off the Mayflower...you guys can't have both..high populations and large fish. They just don't go together. Mother Nature is selctive and all fish are cyclical in nature..man is the only ingredient not covered by MN.

[vin]

I still say kill more smaller fish and you will have larger fish in the population, although the overall population of fish may be smaller in numbers...but they won't be in size.

Well, I guess we're gonna find out. I hope you are right.

[surfbeater]

You're absolutely right - you have to look at the actual numbers to see the real picture. So according to the statistics contained in Amendment 6, in 2000 (the most recent data) New York recreational fishermen harvested 259,085 striped bass. New York commercials harvested 54,894 fish that year. This breaks out to 82.5% of the bass in New York taken by recreationals and 17.5% taken by commercials. I've limited this to New York only because that's what were talking about - an extra recreational fish for New York only. Just to give you some perspective on this, the entire commercial fishery along the entire Atlantic Coast harvested 1,057,712 fish. In other words, NY recs alone (not counting the recs from all the other states) accounted for almost 25% of the commercial take for the entire coast from Maine to North Carolina.


Whether or not you want 1 bass or 2, will somebody tell me where the Rec numbers in Amendment 6 come from? Unless I'm mistaken, Recs haven't been required to report their catches. What crystal ball is the ASMFC looking into to obtain this data?

[vin]

They come from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) & you can take a look at the process here:

MRFSS (http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/)

[RJ]

MRFSS is a joke and totally unreliable. That is why the ASMFC is doing a new survey study

[Fluke]

If you step back and look at the overall situation, you really have to scratch your head and wonder.
First of all, you have these governing bodies, coming up with rules and regs. predicated on historical values that are probably inaccurate to begin with,
Then, after the rules are laid out, they aren't enforced for a multitude of reasons.
Then you have to throw in some self serving interests compounded by politics and conscience.
Soooo, we continually kick this around and end up chasing our tails.
WHAT NEXT


:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[vin]

What's next is really nothing. The ASMFC made up its mind on the bass issue months ago. The only thing still on the table is whether or not NY will go for the extra fish - and hence this thread. My personal opinions aside, I truly believe that everyone has a right to be heard on this - regardless of your personal motivations. I just wanted to set the record straight on the recreational & commercial harvest because I don't think that many people realize that WE are the ones taking the most fish out of the system. I know I was surprised when I read the report for the first time.

It seems a lot of people are of the "we want ours too" attitude. Whether simply as a matter of principle or honestly wanting and/or needing that extra fish, I just hope that people think a bit about the consequences of that extra fish. Maybe Rich is right. Maybe more dead fish = more larger fish. But this is still a maybe & no one knows for sure how the fishery will be impacted. And when we do find out, It just may be too late. I'll be returning most of my fish as I usually do. Everyone else will have to decide for themselves.

As far as the surveys go, yes I do agree that there is certainly room for improvement in this area. In a perfect world we would have a device that allowed us to look beneath the ocean's surface & count all of the fish. But we don't. We have other methods & obviously people will have their opinions on their accuracy (or lack thereof). Still, the fact of the matter is that these are the numbers that are used by the ASMFC & other agencies and that's simply the way it is right now. Rich says that they're going to another system in the future, so maybe that will be an improvement over the current system.

[RJ]

Anything would be an improvement on what they have now. As for the future...I think the biologists don't even know what is swimming in the ocean. That is lot of water!

[Fluke]

Unfortunately, statistic gathering is far from an exact science. Everyone involved in the sport and Comm. interest, know this. When the governing bodies come up with statistics, it is a "Best guess" scenario. I, personally, can not remember the lst time I was approached to determine my catch. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who has. Several years back, I remember the Comms. dragging the beaches with car and boat. No one counted their catch either.
If the situation weren't so sad, it would be humorous. There are things that can be done to make the numbers a little more accurate. The odds are, they'll never be done.

[surfbeater]

RJ is right (as usual), the MRFSS is a joke.

Their methodology is suspect. Talk about "Fudge" Factors, a Ouija Board would yield more reliable data! Over the many years I have fished (as I'm sure a lot of this forums members have), several of the of the MRFSS "Intercept Points" (WE 2, JB 6, AB, etc.) and like Fluke, have never once been approached and asked about my catch. Has anyone?

I can't wait to see what method ASMFC comes up with to gather Rec catch data.

[Fluke]

As some point in time, these governing bodies should be called upon to justify there numbers and explain their methodology. There are so many factors involved that effect the numbers, that it's virtually impossible to come up with anything resembling accurate. Sooooo, nobody will ask recreational fishermen how many fish we caught and somebody else will determine we caught too many.

[vin]

I attended a fisheries management seminar a few years ago subtitled "The Business of Counting Fish". The seminar's intent was to educate the public on the process of fisheries management & how they actually go about "counting" (or estimating) the number of fish in a given species population. At the end of the seminar there was a question & answer period during which someone asked the marine biologist the following question: "If you could have one thing that would make your job easier, what would it be?" Without hesitation, the scientist responded that more accurate recreational catch data would make a tremendous difference in the accuracy of the population analysis.

That got me thinking. If these scientists had access to a pool of fishermen who they could poll from time to time, that might very well go a long way toward accurately auditing a species population. This was one of the arguments for the saltwater fishing license - to create this pool of potential information. But many people are against it - mainly for monetary reasons - and I can certainly understand why. I wondered if there was a way to have some sort of voluntary registration process for fishermen - free of charge to the fisherman, of course - that would give the scientists direct access to those in contact with the resource. A voluntary registration process for the sole purpose of collecting data for the sake of the fisheries just might fly. Maybe once or twice a season the registrants would be sent a survey to complete & return. Maybe some of the more "hard core" and willing participants would actually keep a log of their catches.

I think that we also have to realize that there will never exist the perfect system. As long as the fish continue to swim in the sea and out of sight for the most part (which I hope they continue to do), there will always be some guesswork involved in the process.

[RJ]

Originally posted by surfbeater
RJ is right (as usual), the MRFSS is a joke.

Their methodology is suspect. Talk about "Fudge" Factors, a Ouija Board would yield more reliable data! Over the many years I have fished (as I'm sure a lot of this forums members have), several of the of the MRFSS "Intercept Points" (WE 2, JB 6, AB, etc.) and like Fluke, have never once been approached and asked about my catch. Has anyone?

I can't wait to see what method ASMFC comes up with to gather Rec catch data.

You give me far too much credit:D

[John Papciak]

Thanks for the plug Vin.

I ran that seminar.

We had a fisheries biologist from Woods Hole, Gordon Colvin (Byron's Boss) of the NY DEC, Neil Delanoy, Captain of the Laura Lee Party Boat, a commercial dragger Captain who is also on the council, an enviro from Audubon, a D.C. lawyer who wrote most of Magnuson, Tony Dilernia who was on the council. Even Steve Sloan was there.

So they all took turns at the podium and then had a gentlemen's debate on fluke.

The dragger captain had just pulled in from a winter canyon trip but still drove out to do the seminar.

There were questions on the legality of making striped bass a gamefish and whether this viloated any of the standards of Magnuson (I recall Gordon commenting that it would not necessarily- assuming Magnuson would apply there).

Maybe some day we should do it again.

Anyway,

As far as getting better data, the problem is that the statisticians need something better than a phonebook to do sampling. They cant use a voluntary system as they would introduce bias into the method. Just like Rich suggests that die hard conservationists are the only ones going to hearings (which is partially true).

But, if there was a bone fide list of registered fishermen - like there is for ALL commecial fishermen in NY, this would make it very easy to sample as many fishermen as needed. But bring up the L word - even it its only 50 cents - and guys go nuts.

Heck, I've never been sampled about my catches either, but then again, even though I'm a registered Republican, I've never been asked who I was voting for in local or national elections - but darn they always get in real close, don't they?

So round and round we will go on this. Year after year. If it helps the recs, we dont question the sampling methods, but if it hurts us, we cry foul.

[Fluke]

John & Vin- Interesting post. It would appear that you both confirm the existing problems, with getting anything near accurate fish counts. That being the situation, I think I would still like to know what criterior is used for the estimates (Guestimates) How is it possible for anyone to say we exceeded or fell short of our TAL. So what follows is, Regs. are developed on hyperthetical data.
As far as licensing is concerned, I don't think there is an objection in principle. The fear is, a beaurocracy would be created and a misallocation of funds.
As a suggestion, why not create licensing for a locked in time frame, solely for the purpose of determing it's value. It could be voted on . If it doesn't produce the information we desire, it expires. If it's beneficial it gets extended for another period of time.
This battle that goes on, year after year , is rediculous. A "best guess" scenario is not much better than nothing.

[Rockfish]

I really don't think it would be that hard to count the recreational catch at all. If we're really serious than lets get serious. Strictly enforce a system of licensing striped bass fisherman with tags.
Let them pay for whatever tags they are allowed for the season, just like deer hunters. Don't tell them when or where they can fill their tags, but require the tags be punched out immediately when
used and mailed to DEC within 48 hours.
Then seriously enforce the system with heavy fines to violators.
In a few years they would have real numbers to work with as well as the funds they require. Forget about how many fish per day a man needs. You buy your tags and you use them when you want to, but don't get caught with an untagged bass.
Its not rocket science, a system that works can be developed.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[BigBrewDude]

Rockfish... your suggestion has lots of merit. Even if a saltwater fishing license had to be imposed to properly fund such an enterprise, it would be worth it.
Of course this all would be predicated on compliance and enforcement, but it would acclomplish a couple of goals... enforcement of laws, provide information as to how many legal fish are caught by recs, and it would give those of us who want more than one fish a day a legal way to do it.
Good f'n idea! :beer:

[Fluke]

Rockfish- Do you suggest we do that with all species of fish:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[BigBrewDude]

It certainly couldn't hurt for some other species, such as (appropriately enough) fluke and flounder.

[Rockfish]

Although I believe a tagging system would work for all species, I don't believe its neccesary except for striped bass. I would suggest a license and tag system only for striped bass. Many sportfisherman would be unwillying to buy the license so let them fish for the less endangered species. This would take a lot of pressure off the bass and if it worked properly and was managable could be expanded to any specie that needed help.
Any system would need to be revised and perfected over a period of years, but at the rate we are going, I have no confidence at all in the DEC's numbers or motivations.
They have no idea how many fish we catch nor how many of us there are and I also believe that many more illegal fish are brought in than legal fish due to none existent enforcement.
Incidentally I believe there is a new system in place for tuna, sharks and swordfish, this may be a beginning.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Fluke]

Rockfish- Are you suggesting a licence for stripers only.
Suppose it's decided to track fluke. Would that require a 2nd license and then a separate license for each specie of fish. I would be in favor of a saltwater fishing license, period. I would then have recreational fishermen file a report as the pinhookers do. Failure to file would result in the revocation of the license.
Is this an inconvenience?? Definitely. Would there be 100% partcipation?? Definitely not. Any information gathered would be better than no information. If we, as recreational fishermen want fair and equitable Regs., then we shouldn't mind being inconvenienced for as long as it takes to get some semblance of accurate numbers.

[Rockfish]

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. However since this would be such a dramatic change in the way things have been done in the past, and many salt water fisherman would fight it, I suggest allowing unlicensed fishing for non-endangered species, for now.
I believe that a few years of a license and tag system for bass would prove to everyone that the inconvenience was worthwhile.The true believers would be paying for their bass, and the trial system. The skeptics who refused to purchase their tags would still be able to legally fish, but could not keep a bass.
And the DEC would have the funds needed to enforce the regulations and continue to perfect them without the use of tax money.
The DEC knows how to implement and inforce such a system. They have used it for many years to manage the white tail deer herds with great success.
Pressure on the striped bass would also drop as the casual unlicensed fisherman would be required to throw them back.
And no one would be asking why you need more than 1 bass per day. Each individual would have the right to decide how and when he would use his annual allotment of tags.
And the renegades who continue to load up on shorts to sell to restaurants and unscrupulous fish markets would stand a much greater chance of being caught and punished.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Rockfish]

Clarification: It did occur to me that someone might object to the term endangered species being used to describe the striped bass.
Actually I do not believe the species is endangered and that is probably the wrong terminology. I could not think of a better word to describe a species which is presently abundant but so many people are afraid to threaten with increased fishing pressure. Maybe important specie would be better, although I'm sure many would point to other species as just as important. I don't wish to create another controversy, and hope my limited vocabulary will not.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[surfbeater]

Interesting idea, but would have to be implemented in conjunction with a salt water license. I wouldn't object to either (as long as the price is right).

The only caveat is that just like in the Comm fishery, untagged bass will be taken and therefore go uncounted. Still, the Rec catch data would be 1,000% more acurate than it is now.

Compliance, enforcement and penalties would be essential.

[Fluke]

Your idea is innovative. I think it would have to be kicked around and fine tuned. As I was reading your post, I thought about the black back flounder. Do you think you could license fishermen strictly for them using the same guidelines. How many fares would be lost for the Party Boat Capts. That's 1 of the reasons why I think a Saltwater license should be all encompassing. Another thought. If you license only for stripers, there's a lot of info that will be lost involving other species. In my particular situation, I'm not a deer hunter and although I enjoy striper fishing, I target other species equally, therefore, I would be in a position not to get a license and go about business as usual. I think everyone should be encouraged to buy a license initially. If it happens, the law should have a built in time frame, to be extended or cancelled, as needed. There would have to be strict accountability of funds and actions taken.
I do think we agree on 1 think. Something has to be done. It can't remain status quo.

[Rockfish]

How about a saltwater fishing license for about 15 bucks covering all plentiful minor species. Then as required tags can be sold for
restricted species such as striped Bass and blackback flounder, or any species that gets in trouble.
Buying the tags will be optional, but don't get caught with untagged restricted fish, big penalty. And tags must be sent to DEC within 48Hrs (no Postage required)
Casual fisherman should have no problem paying 15 bucks.
Party boats shouldn't lose anyfares, although they might be required to comply with additional regulations such as checking licenses and limits.
And the DEC will have the revenues to develop and enforce a system that makes sense, with numbers that are real.
Best of all the restricted species would benefit by the reduction in fishing pressure that would result.
I for one would be willing to pay for my tags and anyone who didn't want to could still fish for unrestricted species like porgies
and fluke for a 15 dollar annual fee.
Certainly this is not a complete plan, just an idea that needs development, but the DEC has been implementing a similar system all over NYS for many years and it may be time for a salt water application for recreational fisherman. What we have today stinks.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Fluke]

Rockfish- I think you're closing in a plan that is feasible. I think you might want to reconsider the charge for the tags. I don't have a problem with it, but I believe you would meet with opposition from the casual angler. His thinking would be, assuming he's fishing a party boat, I paid $15.00 for a license, $35.00 for my fare (not including gratuity) and now I have to pay for the fish. What will it cost him to bring his family? A little pricey.
I would suggest starting with the license fee by itself. Along with the licence, attach a number of postage free post cards, listing the various species. All the angler has to do is fill out the card with the number of fish (By specie) and drop it in a mailbox. The license would have a number as would the post cards, for identification purposes. If it is determined there is a monetary shortfall, increase the lisence fee. It's a one time shot.
There's a lot that can be fine tuned (ie. kids fees, Sr. fees etc) I'm sure there are a lot of good ideas out there along these lines, if we can get more imput. If everyone could agree on some kind of a constructive proposal may thing would change for the better.

[Rockfish]

That would leave us with an honor system. Why would anyone bother reporting their catch. And where is the protection for the striped bass. They would still be accidentally caught and kept by every casual fisherman, who paid the same license fee as the purist. And how would the DEC have any idea how many of the licensed fisherman were targeting bass or just fishing for bergalls and sea robins. What you are proposing is nothing more than a fee for fishing, its not solving the problem.
A tagging system when combined with manditory 48hr reporting will create a reliable system of counting the fisherman and the fish they catch. The tags themselves need not be more than a dollar or two apiece but they will pay for the implementation of a system that can work.
The fees for the license and the tags amount to a very small part of the cost of our sport. Hunters and freshwater fisherman have always paid them. And there have always been seperate regulations and fees for different species. Tagging has always been a useful tool in monitoring herd management. These are tools that DEC is very familiar with and could be adapted to salt water fishing. DEC would control the total catch by limiting availability of tags. Fisherman would decide which species they were willing to buy tags for, same as hunters do. Unsold tags could be distributed in a special late season offering or next year.
DEC would actually know how many fish were being caught and where and by whom and could make adjustments based on factual information not guess work. And monies would be generated for enforcement of regulations. The system is already in place. The comms have been buying the striped bass tags all along. They pay for the system and it serves them well. We pay nothing towards the system and get screwed in return. What can you really expect. Money talks. Forget about surveys and honor systems they mean nothing. I and most of the guys I know have a standard answer when questioned by survey takers and other fisherman, (Bad day, no fish). Most fisherman are liars, it goes with the territory.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Fluke]

Rockfish- By using the tag system, does that imply that all fishermen will report their catches honestly. You're always involved with an honor system. I don't think a license will be palatable with the majority of the anglers. I would think it should be uncomplicated and easily digested. As I said previously, I don't have any objection to using tags. I honestly believe that would meet with more opposition.

[Rockfish]

I envision a system by which you would account for each and every one of your tags, or not get any next year. Fish would be tagged immediately if kept, the tag would be filled out with some kind of description of the fish, time and place of capture, and that tag must be returned within 48hrs. Perhaps extra tags could be offered to individuals who tagged out mid season as a reward for cooperation. Unused tags would be returned before next seasons tags could be issued.
And the whole system would be enforced by spot checks financed by license receipts and stiff fines to violators. It works for hunters. At least the resource users would be paying for what they take, and the casual fisherman could still keep the uncontrolled species if he doesn't want to buy tags and hassle with paper work.
Again, the DEC knows the system, they have already created it its just a matter of implementation. The fact that many fisherman
will object to any system that involves payment is probably the reason we re in the state we're in. We get what we pay for.
When we pay our fair share we can hope to have equity with the comms. And really what are we talking about, less than the price of a good meal to fish all year.
Dan
in Masapequa
;)

[Fluke]

You seem pretty convinced that the tag system is the way to go. We do have differences of opinion, but why not give it a shot. If it doesn't work out, explore other alternatives. I agree that the $$$ is insignificant. So now, who out there is listening.

[DownandDirty]

I'd like it changed to a 28' and one additional "Trophy" of 42' or greater.

However, I'd like to see the commercial fishing tonage reduced and more "farm raised" culling.

Why should recreation anglers suffer the bite?

I'd like to see more restrictions on Weakfish now that they have been hammered to near extinction on the north shore of the western sound.

[surfbeater]

I'm on the same page as Rockfish. Tags have been used by DEC for freshwater fish, and for hunting. The DEC simply would have to add another species to the system.

Implement Striper tags along with a saltwater license. No license, no tags.

Unused tags must get turned in at the end of the season or before next season's are purchased.

Extra tags should be made available if needed by an angler in the middle of a season.

Get caught with an untagged bass and have your license revoked for the current and following season (and be publicly flogged).

Maybe party boats get an exemption for the SWL, but bass taken must be tagged by the captain. (I believe captains currently must report catches anyway)

[Fluke]

I have some minor differences of opinion, but you put me on the same page. Right now, all we have to work with are hypothetical numbers. If we had any semblance of credibility in the numbers, it would be a big plus. The next consideration is, how do we get it done??

[JIMF]

Why does one wish to eat more than one stripper on any one day?( can one eat more that one ? I was brought up thinking you should only kill what you are going to eat...that doesent apply to people of cource .... a little far eastern thinking. JIM
:confused:

[BigBrewDude]

The system Rockfish envisions seems to be the easiest way to increase the DEC's funding, improve enforcement, and gather data. I don't WANT to spend more money to go fishing, but I would like there to actually be fish out there.
I certainly don't NEED more than one striper a day, but it would be nice to have that option.
About unused tags... would the buyer be reimbursed for those, or is it a case of use 'em or lose 'em?
Like I mentioned earlier, I don't want to pay to go saltwater fishing, but 20 years from now, I would like to be able to go fishing and catch something.

[Rockfish]

I've been thinking about the license and tag system. How's this for a start. $15 per year buys a recreational salt water fishing license, allowing the holder to take his daily limit of all tag free species, and to catch and release tagable species.
$35 per year will buy a private boaters fishing license covering all on board the licensed vessel. License holder would be responsible for any violations on board his boat.
$250 per year will buy captains recreational fishing license covering charter boats and party boats ( passengers covered under captains license and use his tags) Captain responsible for violations on his boat.
The DEC would need to decide which species are to be tagable.
I would suggest Striped Bass the first year, just to get the kinks out and develop the system.
Tags could be relatively cheap maybe a buck or two, but would be distributed a little at a time maybe 5 to an individual 10 to a private boat and 100 to a captain.
Tags would have to be filled out and returned as used and could be replenished by DEC until annual harvest totals were reached.
I'm sure the DEC has plenty of ideas of their own and could develop an even better system, this is just start, but they would be getting real data and the funds to do something with it.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[BigBrewDude]

Would 100 tags be enough for a party boat for a season? Captains of party/charter boats might need more. Us land bound fishermen and private boaters need the party/charters on board (sorry, couldn't resist the pun...) in order for the system to work. Limiting them to 100 stripers may also hurt their potential income.
Then again, I may be wrong, and 100 tags is enough.

[Rockfish]

100 tags would not be enough for a season, maybe just a couple of weeks, but thats the incentive, fill out and return the tags then more can be purchased. This way DEC knows how many fish are being caught and when, and can make decisions on how to distribute future tags. Perhaps so many fish are being caught that the season need to end early, or no more tags can be sold etc. If party boats use too many tags to quickly they might have to switch over to fishing a different specie for a while. There would be a way to really control the harvest, and actually know who was catching.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[BigBrewDude]

Damn, Rockfish,
you HAVE put a lot of thought into this! I'm impressed. This is an idea I can get behind. :beer:

[RJ]

Time to chirp in here now.
1. You are asking anglers to dig into their pockets not once, but several times and that is just not going to go well or happen in the long run and I would no way be able to support paying for license, then paying for tags, then paying again for extra tags. No way!

2. There is no way you can ask party boats to go along with this idea, since they already pay the state $250 per season for the privilege to operate a party boat in NY state and to possess striped bass.

3. We are in a position where we want to count striped bass and other species better than we are...granted, BUT there is no shortage of striped bass anywhere. People who haven't a clue how to fish are catching bass and several per trip. Putting a price tag on a fish is not going to help count it.

4. You cannot ask either a party, or charter boat captain or a private individual to be held accountable for violations on their boat. You would have to arm everyone or have a bouncer on every boat. Parents can't even hold their own kids accountable for taking out the garbage on collection days and you want them to police friends, family members or friends of friends on what they can or can't keep? Come on!

5. Fact: The DEC already "counts" on enforcement and fines for 50 to 60% of their annual operating budget now and they are still woefully under funded and undermanned!:rolleyes:

6. You have a family of four fishing on a private boat...why can’t they keep more than one fish. Most are weekend warriors anyway so if four people fish together even clam chumming chances are they may catch four or five per boat that are keepers, they could last them a few meals that week with a few fillets in the freezer.

7.Again, if the government is taking our taxes then they need to find a way to get accurate data. If you folks have ever attended any of these meetings in Washing, Virginia or Atlantic City...then you wouldn’t know that the rules dictate party and charter boats captains have to keep accurate details and logs as to how many fish they catch, keep and even clean…

and then the ASMFC or MAMFC don't even use the data collected, but would rather send out a dragger with a bunch of government workers at the helm with college kids to fish for flounder, porgies or whatever to collect the MRFS data and the boat ends up with a paltry catch….

while a commercial dragger right next to them fills the hold in two tows…that is the name of game here folks…government waste, mismanagement and ineptitude and relying on the wrong source for fishery data and the numbe2rs your guys are looking for...take them fomr the captasin who fish everyday!!:!:

[Fluke]

I don't think there is anybody out there that doesn't recognize the need to develop a system that would give more accurate counts than the system we are currently using. As it is now, regulations are predicated on hyperthetical numbers. Without getting into specifics, there is nothing in place to establish what recreational fishermen are truly catching and the accuracy of the reporting of commercial catches is open to questioning.
For lack of any other suggestion, licensing seems the only way to go. Granted, nobody wants to pay more, in the way of taxes, but you can't have it both ways. I think Rockfish has the basis for a plan that could establish some degree of accuracy. Sure, you can jigger the numbers to make it more palatable, but unless someone can come up with a better plan, what are your options. Aside from a little "fine tuning", I would suggest a time frame for the licensing to eliminate the possibility of creating a non-functioning beaurocracy.

[RJ]

Nope!:) Still can't agree with that. We have the tools in place already. Take the info from the captains and have us report our catches as the pin hookers and commercial fishermen do.

Let the DEC take the numbers through a phone line or 800 number and let us rec's do the same "trip" reporting the comms do and you will have your numbers with no licenses, no fees and no paying for tags.:)

[John Papciak]

Commercials all have a license, and as far as bass are concerned, they are given tags for each and every bass to be taken and sold.

Rec reporting, like with an 800 number, would be voluntary, and would be sketchy and thus suspect.

I wonder if, since all charter/party boat operators have a license to operate the vessel, if you can get them to add trip reporting to the list of daily requirements. Do you think it would fly?

Then we still have to get good numbers for the rest of the recs.

[RJ]

Trip reporting like the comm's do is the best way to get our numbers. While there are penalties for comm's not reporting (never really enforced) the comm's trip reporting can be sketchy as well and even if we do the same and some may not report, most would which is stil ahead of where we are now.

[John Papciak]

Thinking this through...

Imagine rec reporting via 800 number for fluke, and when the total reported and extrapolated via this method exceeds a certain level, the NY rec season closes.

No more guesstimates and issues about overages and paybacks.

But man would this get the rec community in an uproar.

[Fluke]

Maybe there is the basis for another poll. Who would be in favor of a saltwater license designed to determine a more accurate count in recreational fishing.
There's obviously a difference of opinion.

[RJ]

But at the same time, many of feel we are NOT catching as many as they say we are....and it would give them a better idea of how many fluke there are in the biomass. They admitted a few years back they had the biomass number wrong and it was more than they thought there was.

[Rockfish]

Personally, I don't care if they institute a license or not. I simply want my fair share of fish. I originally wanted a second bass and I certainly believe there are enough of them. Many of the people on these boards seem to think a second fish will decimate the biomass, and while I think thats nonesense, I'm willing to pay for a system that makes sense and will lead to equity.
If the DEC could do a proper job of managing the fishery without additional funding what are they waiting for?
I do know one thing for sure. If fisherman are left on an honor system to report their catches and there are no incentives to do so, most will not bother. As it is now some guys are catching their limits 3 and 4 times a day and telling no one, I see it at the ramps, others are supplementing their incomes with shorts to the restaurants, and there is no enforcement.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[LkyLindy]

For all the years I've fished I was always dead set against licensing and government intrusion into the lives of us fishermen.However times have changed and we can't keep the bureaucrats out of our lives.Too many people too little good stuff(RE fish).If it is the only way to compile accurate numbers so the Recs get our fair share of the resources ,then so be it.It will probably be in our favor for accurate numbers to be gathered.remember-no matter how the Dec collects Rec numbers now -they are totally ridiculous.If they somehow come to the dock and ask-well you know fishermen-the count will probably be too high.Who knows who even gets polled-I've never been asked-have you>??.Unfortunately ,money and influence talk,so it may be doubtful thatf we'll ever have parity with the Comms unless it is proven that the Recs have more clout and economic purpose than the Comms, which is probably the case at any rate. Well I believe April 24th there is an important meeting at the DEC in Setauket on Belle Meade Rd -I suggest we show up in force. It haas to do with the payback issue which I posted about a few days ago-Be there or be square:mad: :mad:

[Rockfish]

Incidentally, all of my numbers were suggestions. I am suggesting a system that would pay for itself and give accurate numbers, while encouraging participation with incentives, and punishing non compliance with penalties. The purpose of the system is to maximize the harvest without endangering the biomass. Certainly DEC would have to tweak the system.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Fluke]

The honor system, on its own will produce non-compliance and/or inaccuracies. I am still waiting for someone to explain how the data is compiled to establish the recreational catch. There are a lot of falacies in the existing system. It's time for a change. It's also time, we put teeth in the laws. In principle, I'm opposed to another levi, but if it takes a little sacrifice, so be it.

[Rockfish]

The "data" is a figment of someones imagination. The DEC is letting us all down, BIG TIME. And it's a shame, after they proved that regulations can work. (ie. "striped bass" and "white tailed deer").
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[Mudman]

That'll be great, tag your bass and lash 'em to the rail, just like the deer. Even better would be to have issued tags for fish over a certain weight and that would be all you could have for the season. If you poach, you loose your boat and everything in it and pay a fine and be banned from fishing for the rest of the season. Let's do it!

[Fluke]

A lot of constructive ideas kicked around, but as usual, will fall on deaf ears. We have a system in place now, that's bogus. I think everyone knows that, including the DEC. Unfortunately, the situation will remain status quo. The only way that changes can be made is at the polling booth. Our local politicians should be asked what their positions are and we should respond appropriately.

[surfbeater]

The politicians would pay more attention to us if we had a saltwater license. They would know just how many of us there are, and they could decide whether or not they could survive without our votes/support.

Mudman: Take their boat? I'm in favor of penalizing offenders, but that is a wee bit extreme.

[Mudman]

I've been in favor of the SWFLic from the begining and I feel it would solve most of our concerns. If the money is chanelled into other area's you would still have countable voice that could be used as a weapon against that person or affiliation. How about keel hauling instead of taking their boat?

[Rockfish]

Make them walk the plank.
Dan
in Massapequa
;)

[surfbeater]

They should definitely get something stiff....a fine along with loss of SWL.