-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Converted
-
Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
Fishing, Hunting, Golf, Music, Coins, Computers,Collecting old fishing gear,
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
fugazi44 reacted to a post in a topic: Stripers as trawl bycatch--survival
-
Tim, Sorry about that .. don't want fishermen breaking any state laws etc... If you can find or catch a legal sized sand dab or windowpane flounder it will work just as well if not better at times. Or is it all types of strips of fish for bait are illegal in NJ ? How anout strips of Menhaden ? Am fishing alot these days and had a 9.7 and a 6.3 yesterday. The fluking here is very good now. Rhodester
-
If you are a Fluke fisherman and drift for Fluke, After you have filleted the Fluke and before you skin it, I cut or trim the "ribbon" off the side of the fillet, skin and all, and use this as a strip bait for the larger Fluke the next day. The ribbon strip is the portion next to the outer fins that falls off into little pieces when you skin the fillet. It is about 1/2 inch wide or so. ( They can be frozen and used at a later date.) It is particularly effective when used the same day or a soon as you catch a keeper. The top or brown strips are very effective ( oddly, even more so than the white pieces ) when fished in conjunction with an extra long thin 1/2 inch strip of fresh squid and a double hook rig with a small spinner or two and an appropriate size sinker that lightly bounces off the bottom as the boat drifts. This dead stick rig produces some very big fish at certain times. Rhodester
-
There are some other differences that make it tough to repair with newer 704 parts. The main gear shaft is shorter in the 700. The 700 handle is bent more. The bail is a one piece bail that needs constant re-adjusting in order to flip all the way closed with that unmistakable "clunk". The 700 uses only one right hand bail spring instead of two like the 704. The anti reverse stud becomes "unswaged" and loose over time and is tough to repair. The pinion gear is cut slightly different as well. But ... all in all one of Penn's best looking and most highly desired collectable spinning reels. Rhodester
-
Tim, Also, I think we need to start using the correct terminology when it comes to certain words like "responsible use" and "public". We have been around and around and around for years on the subject of who is the "public" when we speake of our shared Marine resources and their "responsible harvest numbers" as calculated by the scientific and technical committees ... and "responsible useage and allocation" of the same. The public is composed of about 270,000,000 people. Of that number possibly, 150,000,000 people buy and eat Marine resources of many kinds and from many places. This portion of the public is where many choose to buy fish and not go fishing themselves. Many in the public cannot physically fish for themselves and depend upon a steady supply of product at the market. This is the vast majority that should be represented at the allocation table in fisheries management and is not. Then we have the 7 million or so salt water anglers both full time and one time a year types that have the physical ability and the time and the money and the desire to try and fish for themselves and possibly take a fish home for dinner. This is great ... but they are not THE public. They are but 3% of the general public. Yet in some cases they are awarded 100% of the public allocation on certain marine resources and cut the vast majority out of the picture. To many this is not the "proper nor traditional use(allocation)" of publicly shared marine (food) resources. Commercial fishermen are but one link in a long chain of people and infrastructure that come together in a large industry to provide the 150 million, fishing AND non fishing public with a reasonable share of what most here say and believe are the "public's" resource. To say that the commercial fishermen are very few in number in relation to the recreational fishermen is correct ... however that is not the right way to count the numbers ... and the commercial fishermen are not the end user or consumer of the resource ... and in fact they as a group should have never been appointed the sole representatives of the commercial/consumer side of the management process and allocation process. This past mistake of misrepresentation needs fixing in order to stop certain lobbying groups from playing the "old numbers game" (remember the Fluke allocation argument not too long ago ?) when it comes to allocation of a food resource and its importance to our nation for both economic and food reasons. "Proper useage" of the "publics" resources is in the eye of the beholder for sure. Rhodester
-
Mike, I like the old original Hab's swimmers that he would experiment with, modify and spend hours painting and drying. Best paint job in the business when you culd get them. I haven't seen him in years nor gotten any more of his one of a kind plugs, but they always performed well and the paint held up etc... Captain Andy in Mass. made some decent utility plugs at one time and had a giant jointed pikey look alike that he called a jointed eel that would catch nice fish trolling slowly at night. I still fish them today. However the best all around and nicest classic looking and best catching plug was a Northport "Nailer" ( or could have been Southport swimmer... My mind is going as I am having trouble recalling the right name here, but it did have the word "port" in there somewhere ... somebody help me out here ) They were made right there in NJ in the mid to late 90s. They looked a lot like, but shorter than, the old M&M (Mike and Mary) plugs and the old original Goo Goo Eye swimmers made in Conn in the 70s and 80s. I forgot the persons name that made them. They were very hard to get as he was making them part time and every one totally by hand so it was a one man, very slow process, like Habs. I could tell this was the case as his mother would always answer the phone when I called in for another order. They were kind of like a medium sized Danny plug but with a rounded nose, about 7 inches long and had a classic, perfectly designed and formed metal lip that you didn't have to fool with, through wiring, the best Mustad 4x strong trebles, super paint job and googly eyes ... and every plug swam like a dream. I only have one all black and one olive back/pearl bottom left in my collection that I just look at now as I am somewhat afraid to use them and lose them now. Those plugs looked and caught the best or me. They actually outcaught my Gibbs wooden needlefish at Block Island on many a night. Rhodester
-
Tim, Good answers. I agree that there is a inherant violation of a trust that goes along with the issuance of a license to harvest more than your share. Attitude is an important factor in deriving intent to break a law as well. "Entrusted with tools" may not be totally accurate but makes a good point. Anyway, what made me ask these questions is that my friend works at a restaurant in Narragansett and had this guy come around trying to sell striped bass fillets, with no licenses, and said that he needed to get rid of them becuse he was going back out to Block Island again the next night to do it again and get some more. He must have known it was wrong, and to make it worse he was going to keep doing it. I guess you are right that the "degree" of the infraction is the most important thing here ... but, to me, sometimes "attitude" and "intent" are just as much of the problem as the degree of violation. R.
-
Big Jim, You said: "I hope that this Mr. Midgett's faux pas isn't viewed as lightly as you would hope we viewed your attempt at humor about the relative severity of his crimes" ! I am not sure what you mean here by "relative severity" and how fishing violations both commercial and recreational, compare to say drug trafficing, first degree murder, child abduction and so on... Where does violating the 3 mile limit federal regulation on the possession of striped bass fit in here ? How about the retention of either a short fish or the retention of more fish than allowed ? How severe do we really want these regulations to be ? And do we really want these regulation violations to apply "equally" and in a "manditory way" for all violations and violators both recreational and commercial ? Which violations deserve a slap on the wrist (as we have seen with the "three mile limit" in the recent past), and which deserves a federal prison sentence ? Is it about the possible or real harm to the fish populations that gets the play and the tough sentencing here ? Just how damaging was this in reality to the stocks and or to the commercial fishing industry were these violations ? This question either went unanswered or was overlooked. The Judge did not elaborate as to how he related the relative severity to the sentencing. Was the "relative severity" of the sentencing due to the fact that they are commercial fishermen and not recreational fishermen ? . This is a critical point as it relates to how we apply the law to all violations and violators of fisheries regulations I think the good answer is not as easily defined as we would think (or want)... as social perception and social politics play more of a role in final sentencing than we would like to admit to ourselves. There is a lot going on underneath the surface when it comes to "relative severity" and as to the WHO the law and punishment applies to and not as much how severe we want the laws and punishment to be to ALL violators. Rhodester
-
There is a little trick to making the pawls last a little longer. No sand. Lubriplate .. a very small amount. Rinse the worm gear under the faucet after every beach use. And when you order the pawls, also order some of the little teeny tiny brass pawl washers that keep the pawl slightly closer to the worm gear. This actually reduces the wear and reduces the chances that the pawl ears hit the first v groove on either side when it is reversing itself. Also make sure the inside of the tube where the pawl rests is clean and well lubed so that the pawl can turn and move very freely. Any rust or any binding up of the pawl tube will cause premature wear and breakage. Have a nice day. Rhodester
-
Nice fish.... Actually, Does NJ have a size limit on Sand Dabs or Windowpane Flounder ? These make the ultimate strip baits and produce instant results. The trick to this "strip baits" thing is when you take your legal sized Summer Flounder (or Sand Dab etc...) home, you fillet the fish in four pieces, two brown pieces on top and two white on the bottom. Normally when you skin a flounder fillet you lose the little "ribbon meat" on the outsides of the fillet after skinning the fish...they fall apart. So BEFORE you skin the fillet you cut the ribbon section off the fillet, skin and all,(scissors or a sharp knife) and you wind up getting four nice long strip baits for use the next day. Now you have two brown ribbon strips and two white ribbon strips per legal fish. The brown strips catch bigger fish. Gauranteed. You can freeze them in cold tap water mixed with sea salt in a old potato salad container or zip lock along with your pre cut long strips of squid. Super saturating them with sea salt firms them up and seems to make them even more appealing to the fish's sense of smell or taste. These ribbon strip pieces are long and sometimes you can even cut them into two six inch pieces. Use a wide gap double hook rig with two #2 spinners and green glow beads and some 20 lb. floro carbon. This "at home"way of obtaining and using Fluke strips for bait SHOULD satisfy the legal peoblems that NJ has with "fillet at sea" laws. But just to be safe, call your local enforcement office and ask if this method is OK to do. They will probably say NO but it is kind of a waste of perfectly good "giant killer" bait. R.
-
Toad, The 700 also has a different length main gear and a different handle than the 704. The 700 was lacking a under rotor rubber o washer so the bail would occasionally kick over on a cast. The 700 are very touchy when it comes to bail adjustment and if the bail gets bent in the wrong way the bail will no longer flip all the way over. The 700 has a one piece bail and one bail spring while the 704 has a two piece bail system and two bail springs. The new bails are three piece now and less temperamental. The spools are interchangable but are made differently. I think the 700 was one of the best looking reels Penn ever made, but that is totally subjective and opinion. I have 3 of them and some odd parts, so I feel quite lucky. Rhodester
-
Steve, The 704z is the same body size and weight as the 706z, however the 706 has a manual bail that at first is tricky to use and it has a slightly bigger spool to hold a bit more line. The 706 manual bail was most popular back in the 70s when the surf hot shots were throwing very big plugs and the original 704 had some bail problems where if the handle was in a particular position, it would trip and close in the middle of a cast and if using mono they would snap off the plugs or eels. Manual bails (706) make eel fishing a little easier but are hard to use when using popping plugs. Either reel would be fine for your rod, but a well maintained 704 is hard to beat. I would first pick the optimum weight that the Lami will throw (2 oz. ?) and then pick the line to match the tip size and plug weight, then choose the spool capacity to match the line diameter. It is kind of a backwards operation but it works. Mono: A thinner type 20 lb. mono for plugs would give you longer casts with some margin of safety .. or 20 lb. Big Game (in the warm summer) or Trileen XL 25 (same diam. as 20 BG but limper) when it starts to get colder in the late fall, would work better for eels and gy-gundo plugs. Braid: ? You are on your own as I have no recommedations as to size or brand. Rhodester
-
Tim, All this does is give NMFS/The Councils the ability to put some sanity back into a situation where there were lawsuit loopholes for certain groups to use to gain control over the fisheries management process. Remember the Summer Flounder lawsuit of 2000 ? The NRDC sued and won on the Mid Atlantic Council's inability ot meet a reasonable chance (50/50)of meeting Summer Flounder rebuilding targets (overfishing targets)set by the Council each year. The term "overfishing" is misused and abused as it has multiple meanings and nuances that the general public may not completely understand. In that particular court case the rebuilding quotas were set at about 20 million pounds per year. The commercial quota was about 13 million and they were staying at about their target plus or minus 50,000 pounds and had specific rules on paybacks for overages and no ability to make up underages the following year. This was not the problem. The problem is where the MRFSS was used to calculate recreational landings from year to year and the recreational quota was set at about 7 million pounds a year and they were exceeding their quotas year after year ... and in 1998 or so exceeded the quota by double at 14 million pounds ... supposedly ... but that was the best available science at the time. Double the allowable level. Overfishing ... technically. The recreational sector was overfishing the rebuilding target but were not overfishing the MSY definition ... so that meant that the stocks were still rebuilding despite overshooting the rebuilding target level. Who was at fault here ? The fishermen ? not really. The scientists at the MRFSS ? not really. The councils ? no, not really. The system ? YES .. Inaccurate data ? yes Inappropriate use of the MRFSS ? yes Inaccurate and arbitrary National Standards and definitions of terms and wording ? yes The current system which starts with National standard #1 and also has a National standard #8 to deal with at the same time, ran into an impossible situation and a no win scenario. How do achieve #1 which is the overfishing definition without having to completely shut down the recreational Summer Flounder fishery for whole year or even a half year and so on ? That would have been a disaster ... and so the councils used basic common sense when setting up rules from year to year. Not unreasonable ... but they eventually got called on it by the NRDC and they won the court case. The Councils lost control of the fishery to the Courts. And another reason for the new changes to the SFA by NMFS is that a flat 10 year number really is arbitrary and doesn't fit the science and the reality that all fish are different and all fish can't be at their peak cycles all at the same time. Can't be calculated, can't be designed correctly, can't be measured quickly enough on a real time basis and can't be achieved even with our forage bases at their absolute peak levels everywhere all the time. An impossible task. Squid only lives for 18 to 28 months and takes very little time to rebuild. This fishery does not need a 10 year time frame for rebuilding. Tautog can live to be 100 years old and takes a very long time to REASONABLY rebuild ... unless we had total closures for 15 to 20 years. Their spawning rates and fecundity levels are much lower than many other fish and need special care in setting a rebuilding time frame and appropriate harvest levels. Each fish and fishery are different and each has it's own optimum level of abundance, rebuilding scheduals and natural cycles etc... 10 years may be too much time or too little time to do the job reasonably. This is why NOAA and NMFS are looking to make our National Standards more precise in both definition and more resonable in practice in order to make all the standards fit better together and not unecessarily hurt the fishermen and communities that live in. This change was long in comming and I can remember writing of this needed change back in the mid 90s when we were running into overages in certain fisheries with no TACs or set quotas. Precise definitions of terms make for good and fair laws and regulations and make for good and common sence practice as well. It's time we got smart about the balance between fish and fish ... and fish and people. Rhodester
-
Found this interesting article from 1882 on the net and thought I would pass it along. Just goes to show us that "the menhaden question" or issue or argument or conflict etc... is not a new or recent happening. And that the politics of this issue have deep roots stretching back more than 120 years. DO STRIPED BASS (ROCCUS LINEATUS) FEED ON MENHADEN? By Gideon Mosher [From replies to questions in a pamphlet furnished by Joseph Church, and entitled "The menhaden question."] December 26, 1882. "Striped bass do not feed upon live menhaden, but upon crabs and lobsters. I have been engaged in the bass fishery for 45 years, 30 or 40 years of which I have been in the habit of preparing bass for market. "I have prepared tens of thousands of them, but never found any menhaden in them, unless it had been fed to them for bait. My experience extends over the entire range of coast from Mononomy to Beavertail and from Baltimore to Cape Cod. I have found bass most numerous in the Chesapeake Bay, which I attribute to the great quantity of crabs found there. I have always observed that bass fishing was best where lobsters and crabs were most plentiful. My particular locality for taking bass has been at West Island, R. I, and for more than thirty years I never observed or heard of bass feeding on or troubling menhaden, and my business has brought me in contact with many of the most successful menhaden fishermen. I have never heard of but two bass being taken in a purse seine. The bass is a shore and bottom fish. "The absence or the presence of menhaden on the coast does not affect the bass fishery, except in the difference it makes in having or not having fresh bait. You cannot catch bass with stale bait. If the menhaden this year are as far from the coast as they were last year, those taken at Sandy Hook carried to a factory and from there transshipped will be unfit for bait. The only way to do would be to put an experienced man on board the menhaden fishing steamer and ice them alive in the way the bank fishermen treat them. In that way one could make them fit for bait for a month." Tiverton, R. I, December 26, 1882. Footnote* The sworn statement of Mr. Mosher is also indorsed by Charles W.Anthony, Edward C. Smith, Ebenezer Owen, Edward Smith, George M. Crabb; William M. Record, and Thomas Record, all bass fishermen of Newport, RI.
-
I met Tom Fote in 1994 at the first ASMFC Striped Bass advisory meeting when I was an advisor for RI. We kinda got off on the wrong foot at first but over these last 11 years I have changed my mind about him and watched as his (and mine ) attitudes towards one another and one anothers agendas and ideas got a litle closer together. We sat together at many many meeting often side by side. He was always as informed or better informed about all of the fisheries as any of the other appointed commissioners. He was always fair except when it came to commercial fishing for Striped Bass in NJ. That was the one issue that he stayed constant about and true to his attitude about Gamefish status. The only thing he tended to do that some people took issue with was talk a bit too long and too often on certain issues. He really was a good commissioner in the true sense of the word. Not the most popular by any means but he did a very good job for NJ and especially his recreational anglers. He works well with most commissioners, a tough negotiator for NJ, has great stories to tell at meals, never a boozer and dressed very causually so that the rest of us could tone it down a bit over time. I give him an overall A- grade as he was an important part of a mangement process that needs to see as many sides to an issue as possible. I know from experience that he will somehow continue to attend meetings when he can and be a part of the ASMFC process in some form or another. He has too much institutional memory to be just let go. Just like the rest of us, he mellowed over time and learned to be a better commissioner. I am looking forward to Metting Mr. Erling A. Berg So now the ASMFC can say it has 6 commissioners with commercial backgrounds and 39 commissioners with recreational or scientific backgrounds. His overall presence will be missed by many of us. Rhodester
-
Fisheries Science and Management Enhancement Act of 2005
Rhodester replied to TimS's topic in Main Forum
Tim, Quote: In all honesty, I think that's the key to the biggest flaw in the system - that managers are not, in any way, required to consider tech committee input or public input. Not really concerned about the advisory committee input, as you noted, it's made up of special interests looking out for themselves." Not totally true. It is way more complicated than what you think, and there winds up being very little leeway in what can be done in the end. I think that you haven't been told how the FMP system works from beginning to end. Rough drafts of Amendments and addendums start with the need for a plan and then the Plan Development Team is charged with creating a plan and some options. The PDTeam is composed of TC members, Staff and a State Director or two and sometimes some outside scientific advice and consulting. A big mix of ideas and options and all the information that they can find on the subject. Amendment 6, the striped bass FMP, was whittled down to three main new ideas from around 50 or so ideas and options from a giant "wish list". The PDT/Staff examines the viability of each idea and fashions options that the TC and AP and the main board vote on. Then it goes to public hearing the first time. Then the FMP is honed down and formalised, approved and then goes out to the public a second time. Then it comes back for fine tuning and final approval. Amendment 6 took about 6 years or so to finalize and approve. Long time and lots of air time. Who or what is a special interest ? Should members of organizations, clubs groups, etc... NOT be allowed to voice and opinion anywhere along the long process ? Independants only ? What place should the JCAA, RFA, CCA ...or the NFI or GSSA have in the process ? You make the whole thing sound so sinister. I hate seeing the general public being led around like sheep by the NGO that drew up and introduced this self serving "enhancement act". It demonizes the managers of our fisheries as easily corruptable saps and beyond being trustworthy or capable of understanding fisheries science. Untrained dummies. Fisheries managers = Stupid saps. I can read between the lines with the best of them Tim. Rhodester