Angler #1

Making the Canal a Real Recreational

Rate this topic

303 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, l.i.fish.in.vt said:

Tim, if the captain and crew give the fish to anyone not in possesion of a daily limit,they are no longer in possesion and can keep their limit on the second trip,not ethical but legal.it is the same as a capt going out in the morning catching his commercial limit,selling the fish,then running an afternoon charter,he can still legally have a rec limit for himself on the afternoon trip

From my understanding, that changed last year. What you said used to be the case; now a comm permit holder can only keep their comm limit on comm days and keep as much of that comm limit for personal consumption- all 15 if they’d like but they cannot sell 15 and go out for 1 more rec fish.

 

As for the ability to enforce that regulation, I don’t know ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TimS said:

How do they legally distribute those fish? If anyone on the charter takes one of the crew's fish, they will be over the limit. If the crew keeps them for themselves from both trips, they are over the limit. There's no legal path forward for them - while they might be legal while on the water, when they get back to land someone is going to be "possessing" more than their limit. That, I believe, would make them poachers. Even if they drove them home between trips, they would be possessing more than their limit, right?

 

Trips ONE:

4 guys + crew of 2 = 6. That's six bass - everything is legal.

They get back to the dock - guys each keep their one, crew each keeps their one - everything is legal.

 

Trip TWO - same day:

4 guys + crew of 2 = 6. That's six bass - everything is legal.

They get back to the dock - guys each keep their one - crew already each has their limit from first trip, they can't possess the 2 additional fish. They also can't give them to the guys who each already have their limit. That makes those two additional fish illegal and the captain/crew poachers. No?

 

TimS

The MAFMC recently held a two day workshop in state enforcement measures that I attended. All of the states that were represented (NJ, DE, MD, RI and MA were there NY wasn't) said that if a charter customer had a receipt tat said the Captain and/or crew had given them their fish, it would be perfectly legal. FWIW, I have done a little research into these so called "possession" laws and they have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. Basically they only apply to fishermen in the act of fishing or immediately after they get done fishing. Have a party boat receipt that says the crew gave you fish? You're golden. Go to the fishmonger and buy more than the possession limit, no problem. Bring them in from out-of-state? Welcome pilgrim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, l.i.fish.in.vt said:

Tim, if the captain and crew give the fish to anyone not in possesion of a daily limit,they are no longer in possesion and can keep their limit on the second trip,not ethical but legal.it is the same as a capt going out in the morning catching his commercial limit,selling the fish,then running an afternoon charter,he can still legally have a rec limit for himself on the afternoon trip

They keep the fish to give to strangers back at the dock? Do you suspect that happens very often? :)

 

I suspect they probably give them to the charter...or put them in a cooler in their trucks...a lot more frequently than they give them to strangers. Only because every time I've heard of the captain/crew keeping their limits they gave them to the charter.  I don't have an objection to a guy that fills his commercial limit, sells them and then runs a charter keeping his rec (1 fish) limit that afternoon - no laws were broken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 mins ago, MakoMike said:

All of the states that were represented (NJ, DE, MD, RI and MA were there NY wasn't) said that if a charter customer had a receipt tat said the Captain and/or crew had given them their fish, it would be perfectly legal.

I can write up a receipt myself...and claim there was a captain and twenty five crew members on board and they all gave me their fish. I can even copy/paste a nice logo on it and sign it in ink. How that changes the law is beyond me..and I'm back to suspecting the laws, as well as people's mind sets, need to change if there's even a chance for striped bass to survive.

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, z-man said:

Some charter boats on Cape Cod run 3 trips a day in the summer. 

Amazing...one thing I like about charters is their freedom to stay out and find some fish on those tough days - having a party boat like schedule to meet would be a deal breaker for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 mins ago, TimS said:

I can write up a receipt myself...and claim there was a captain and twenty five crew members on board and they all gave me their fish. I can even copy/paste a nice logo on it and sign it in ink. How that changes the law is beyond me..and I'm back to suspecting the laws, as well as people's mind sets, need to change if there's even a chance for striped bass to survive.

 

TimS

Tim, it's all a not-so-subtle effect of their selective enforcement syndrome. The politicos don't want people ticked for buying their desired level of seafood at their local market. Nor do they want to discourage people from patronizing their party/charter boats. Unless that kind behavior became rampant no one is prepared to do a damn thing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, l.i.fish.in.vt said:

Pescador, regulations definitly didn't change last season,i had several calls to the Marine fisheries,to confirm what i said.

In that case, I will take your word for it. Perhaps it is different for charter/commercial fishermen rather than just commercial fishermen.

 

I do know for a fact, that in 2017 a commercial  permit holder without the boat permit could keep 3 fish on a commercial day, as long as 1 of those fish had a fin clipped and was used for personal consumption. In 2018, this fisherman could only keep 2 fish on a commercial day even if he sold his fish at noon and went back out in the afternoon. This was verified by a conversation with an on duty EPO, and a citation I witnessed for a commercial fishermen in possession of three fish, one of which had clipped fin. 

 

Again, if that fisherman offloaded the two fish he intended to sell and then was in possession of one more with a clipped fin, could that EPO enforce this regulation, I don’t know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, john1234 said:

Mass should adopt the rules that are lined up for Virginia.( Thread in the main forum).

If you read CWitek's post in that thread he explains that Virginia is NOT changing the regs as the OP suggested - they are simply talking about what changes they MIGHT make. One suggestion was a slot limit - it wasn't accepted or even officially proposed and I'd be astonished if anything remotely close to it was actually made law. Same reason - industry advocacy organizations will fight, kick, scream and yell - the same arguments they use for everything, here they are in no particular order - bookmark this post and you can come back to see which ones they used...they will be in this list in one form or another :)

  1. The non-financially vested biologists/scientists/technical committee are WRONG - there's plenty of fish - they don't know what they are talking about - we financially vested politicians, lobbyists and industry advocates know the TRUTH. (*they might leave off the last bit, but it's implied ;) )
  2. The fishermen out there twenty times a month don't know what they are talking about, there's plenty of fish, they are just looking in the wrong places.
  3. The recreational landings numbers are wrong, bad science, we know better, we better not do anything hasty in case things aren't as bad as the last ten years of data has shown us. Had the numbers been aligned with our agenda they would have been gospel and we would expect IMMEDIATE relaxing of the draconian regulations.
  4. Global warming, no point in trying to stop over fishing.
  5. Plenty of fish out there, they just don't come near shore any more, we know better than unbiased peer reviewed science.
  6. Other than the miles and miles of adult and peanut bunker, the shoals of sandeels, mackerel, shad and sea herring - there's no forage, that's why there's no bass.
  7. The people that made money by us fighting the regulations that would have prevented overfishing can't afford to lose any of that money now that they have over fished the stocks we let them over fish - it's unfair, economy, jobs, starving kids, draconian regulations (insert high pitched noises here )
  8. If you don't agree with us you are working for PEW and are a tree hugger and probably belong to PETA.
  9. People won't pay to go fishing if they can't kill a 50# bass every time they catch one even though 99.99% of them have never caught a 50# bass and pay to go fishing all the time.
  10. The regulations won't help - netters, poaching, fish pots, commercial fishing, bad spawn, Russian trawlers, it's not us - blame them.

I could go on...but you will hear these arguments EVERY time science, biology, reason and logic tells us we need to reduce mortality. There are more, but these are some old favorites.

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 mins ago, TimS said:

If you read CWitek's post in that thread he explains that Virginia is NOT changing the regs as the OP suggested - they are simply talking about what changes they MIGHT make. One suggestion was a slot limit - it wasn't accepted or even officially proposed and I'd be astonished if anything remotely close to it was actually made law. Same reason - industry advocacy organizations will fight, kick, scream and yell - the same arguments they use for everything, here they are in no particular order - bookmark this post and you can come back to see which ones they used...they will be in this list in one form or another :)

  1. The non-financially vested biologists/scientists/technical committee are WRONG - there's plenty of fish - they don't know what they are talking about - we financially vested politicians, lobbyists and industry advocates know the TRUTH. (*they might leave off the last bit, but it's implied ;) )
  2. The fishermen out there twenty times a month don't know what they are talking about, there's plenty of fish, they are just looking in the wrong places.
  3. The recreational landings numbers are wrong, bad science, we know better, we better not do anything hasty in case things aren't as bad as the last ten years of data has shown us. Had the numbers been aligned with our agenda they would have been gospel and we would expect IMMEDIATE relaxing of the draconian regulations.
  4. Global warming, no point in trying to stop over fishing.
  5. Plenty of fish out there, they just don't come near shore any more, we know better than unbiased peer reviewed science.
  6. Other than the miles and miles of adult and peanut bunker, the shoals of sandeels, mackerel, shad and sea herring - there's no forage, that's why there's no bass.
  7. The people that made money by us fighting the regulations that would have prevented overfishing can't afford to lose any of that money now that they have over fished the stocks we let them over fish - it's unfair, economy, jobs, starving kids, draconian regulations (insert high pitched noises here )
  8. If you don't agree with us you are working for PEW and are a tree hugger and probably belong to PETA.
  9. People won't pay to go fishing if they can't kill a 50# bass every time they catch one even though 99.99% of them have never caught a 50# bass and pay to go fishing all the time.
  10. The regulations won't help - netters, poaching, fish pots, commercial fishing, bad spawn, Russian trawlers, it's not us - blame them.

I could go on...but you will hear these arguments EVERY time science, biology, reason and logic tells us we need to reduce mortality. There are more, but these are some old favorites.

 

TimS

Anything’s a step in the right direction I’d say Tim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, TimS said:

If you read CWitek's post in that thread he explains that Virginia is NOT changing the regs as the OP suggested - they are simply talking about what changes they MIGHT make. One suggestion was a slot limit - it wasn't accepted or even officially proposed and I'd be astonished if anything remotely close to it was actually made law. Same reason - industry advocacy organizations will fight, kick, scream and yell - the same arguments they use for everything, here they are in no particular order - bookmark this post and you can come back to see which ones they used...they will be in this list in one form or another :)

  1. The non-financially vested biologists/scientists/technical committee are WRONG - there's plenty of fish - they don't know what they are talking about - we financially vested politicians, lobbyists and industry advocates know the TRUTH. (*they might leave off the last bit, but it's implied ;) )
  2. The fishermen out there twenty times a month don't know what they are talking about, there's plenty of fish, they are just looking in the wrong places.
  3. The recreational landings numbers are wrong, bad science, we know better, we better not do anything hasty in case things aren't as bad as the last ten years of data has shown us. Had the numbers been aligned with our agenda they would have been gospel and we would expect IMMEDIATE relaxing of the draconian regulations.
  4. Global warming, no point in trying to stop over fishing.
  5. Plenty of fish out there, they just don't come near shore any more, we know better than unbiased peer reviewed science.
  6. Other than the miles and miles of adult and peanut bunker, the shoals of sandeels, mackerel, shad and sea herring - there's no forage, that's why there's no bass.
  7. The people that made money by us fighting the regulations that would have prevented overfishing can't afford to lose any of that money now that they have over fished the stocks we let them over fish - it's unfair, economy, jobs, starving kids, draconian regulations (insert high pitched noises here )
  8. If you don't agree with us you are working for PEW and are a tree hugger and probably belong to PETA.
  9. People won't pay to go fishing if they can't kill a 50# bass every time they catch one even though 99.99% of them have never caught a 50# bass and pay to go fishing all the time.
  10. The regulations won't help - netters, poaching, fish pots, commercial fishing, bad spawn, Russian trawlers, it's not us - blame them.

I could go on...but you will hear these arguments EVERY time science, biology, reason and logic tells us we need to reduce mortality. There are more, but these are some old favorites.

 

TimS

Tim the mortality issue is the real key to successfully engaging the continued loss to some classes of fish. Both users group's can bear wittiness to this every increasing reduction of this resource. How do we manage this reduction from both user groups at the same time that speaks to only what the resource can handle safely?

 

At what point does the recreational user say that the removal of one fish every day for the whole season is more then it can handle logically? Given we now have more  so called recreational users then ever before that continue to remove large amounts of fish and as these users grow in numbers we will see even more fish being removed from the resource. The present philosophy will be unmanageable in my opinion.  

 

At what Point does the commercial user also address the removal  of what is presently allowed as not being sustainable long term for the benefit of the resource as well? It can not remain ,  all  about the money ?

 

How do we know from which tribe of fish these fish are being removed from are coming from? If we can agree that the real local stocks are less in numbers, then those who migrate here from down south.  Do we have any scientific data that can distinguish the over all health of other tribes we all fish on. , that may also play a part in how many fish are allowed to be removed?  Or Does it make any difference to any one doing the research ?   My personal experience from long ago tells me that we need to be observing what is the health of our local tribes in order to keep those marked fish as healthy as we can . They augment the tribes from down south. Both tribes are under different types of challenges I am sure , but they are all grouped as one , How does poaching, for example, the local tribes[from Canada and ma.} affect it, over say, those who come up from the south?   The same as or no different?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, Angler #1 said:

 

 

 

 

 

4 mins ago, Angler #1 said:

 

How do we know from which tribe of fish these fish are being removed from are coming from? If we can agree that the real local stocks are less in numbers, then those who migrate here from down south.  Do we have any scientific data that can distinguish the over all health of other tribes we all fish on. , that may also play a part in how many fish are allowed to be removed?  Or Does it make any difference to any one doing the research ?   My personal experience from long ago tells me that we need to be observing what is the health of our local tribes in order to keep those marked fish as healthy as we can . They augment the tribes from down south. Both tribes are under different types of challenges I am sure , but they are all grouped as one , How does poaching, for example, the local tribes[from Canada and ma.} affect it, over say, those who come up from the south?   The same as or no different?

 

 

Am I the only one that's bewildered by this? :confused:

Are you suggesting that there's a large stock of native breeding stripers that live in our waters, year-round?  

What current evidence do you have to substantiate this theory? Or is it anecdotal? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 mins ago, john1234 said:

Anything’s a step in the right direction I’d say Tim.

I agree...even though they have done nothing yet, talking about doing something is definitely a good first step :th:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.