BrianBM

A thought about bag limits

Rate this topic

51 posts in this topic

A thought provoked by the bluefish 2020 bag limit thread.

 

I half wonder if measuring the stock of any species, before determining how to adjust bag limits, is the right way to go.  Maybe the first question for government should be "are you willing to spend money to enforce the limit, whatever the limit may be? "  

 

Considering those bluefish, the ten fish / minimum 12" has been around for awhile. If you're reading this, you are a part of that very small minority of anglers who is serious about fishing. The vast majority doesn't know that there is a limit, or ever has been, and only a moderate minority knows that there've been limits of any kind for years. They don't know, and they won't make an effort to find out. It's normal for park rangers or LEOs to spend more time educating people about the law than to enforce aggressively anyway. It costs money to make an arrest, quite apart from the reluctance of many magistrates to impose a significant penalty of someone who has a few extra or undersized fish. 

 

As far as SW licenses go, I pay for a couple as is, Florida or Virginia or wherever my wife's impulses take us on a vacation. I would be OK with a SW license ... if it went to a dedicated fund. AFAIK, only a few states actually do that. I believe it's more normal that licensing fees go into the state's general fund. (Anyone have the details?)

 

Speaking of bluefish specifically, snapper derbies are popular. (Awww, c'mon, they're just kids having fun, and so on.) Are any parents really going to get a citation because Junior has twenty of them, slowly decomposing in an un-refrigerated bucket? It's not happening. I could easily see the state sending notice to every tackle store advising them of new snapper limits. I could also see most stores ignoring the instruction and running derbies anyway, on the (plausible enough) grounds that they're not accountable for catches over the limit.

 

So, my two cents is that a saltwater license is inevitable and desirable, if it pays for far better enforcement than I've ever seen. Let a parent's license cover the kids, to 16 or whatever you like. Get the email address of the parent or angler as a part of the process, and send them notice of new bag limits. Email is wonderfully cheap. 

 

It's a start, anyway.

 

I'm going to keep a close eye on this thread. Regulation matters; it's important to our future as anglers. The thread started by CWitek went sideways in a hurry. You who took it there, you know who you are.  It is possible to discuss the subject without denouncing other posters as ignorant fools, morons, enemy Obama posters, and so on. I'll delete such posts in thread as soon as I see them.

Edited by BrianBM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NC has a saltwater license program, and enforcement still sucks ass. Guys like me get bothered more than the ones throwing any and everything in a cooler. Shrimpers are allowed to rape and pillage, selling all short fish as by catch, and very rarely will a commercial netter not abiding or 48qt filler recreational get caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, Grayson said:

NC has a saltwater license program, and enforcement still sucks ass. Guys like me get bothered more than the ones throwing any and everything in a cooler. Shrimpers are allowed to rape and pillage, selling all short fish as by catch, and very rarely will a commercial netter not abiding or 48qt filler recreational get caught.

I'm not going to argue this, because I don't know. I do know that shrimpers and commercial boat operators have a far more aggressive attitude to the politics of fishing than the vast majority of recreational anglers. They will have an organized lobbying campaign. They will be seen as local small businessmen. They, through their lobbyists, will know exactly how much attention you can buy from state legislators AND from the local judiciary (judges run for office, too.) The tourists who come and go don't vote locally, and therefore matter only as a source of license revenue.

 

Does your SW license fee go to the general revenues of the state, or to a dedicated fish-and-wildlife fund?

Edited by BrianBM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm grandfathered in on a clause due to lifetime purchased before regulation was enacted. Proceeds go to NC Wildlife from what I understand. There has been a unified push to move shrimpers 3 miles off the beach from recs and commercial guys. The biggest issue we have with nets is Jim from 2 hours inland who purchased a license from another individual, has a corporate job making 100k a year and just likes to kill stuff so he has a commercial license. State law says fishing must be primary means of income, but that's rarely if ever enforced either. I don't complain about it much online, I just try and do what I can to get the laws changed. So many factors that play into the big picture, but for those of us that follow the laws, it makes a small difference and that makes me feel a bit better if nothing else.

Edited by Grayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, Grayson said:

I'm grandfathered in on a clause due to lifetime purchased before regulation was enacted. Proceeds go to NC Wildlife from what I understand. There has been a unified push to move shrimpers 3 miles off the beach from recs and commercial guys. The biggest issue we have with nets is Jim from 2 hours inland who purchased a license from another individual, has a corporate job making 100k a year and just likes to kill stuff so he has a commercial license. State law says fishing must be primary means of income, but that's rarely if ever enforced either. 

Interesting .... does NC have a State income tax? I'm guessing not, else this sort of thing would be easier to detect and/or riskier to try.

 

It's the sort of thing that might not be hard to trace via social media posts, but that's exactly the sort of thing that every teenager can do but baffles most State bureaucracies.  People are incredibly naked on line, and will disclose all kinds of things that a prudent rascal would keep hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes to the state income tax, there's many ways to have a small business and not pay taxes, especially with something like fishing where you can work your write-offs and profit reports to your advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're under estimating the people who know and follow the regs. I also think the people who know and follow the regs would be responsible for most of the fishing pressure. The bad seeds, or those who simply don't know, will obviously stand out.

 

 

However, I do believe that there needs to be better education on the regs and why they're important. I actually wrote the DEC commissioner like 5 years ago stating that state parks should be required to have the regs posted in a few languages at the most popular fishing access points, response was basically "that is not our problem but I will forward to those responsible"...right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have some enforcement of existing regulations on the East End. But of course the DEC can’t be everywhere all the time. Additionally they are tasked with enforcing other things besides fishery regulations, pesticide applicators are on their radar for example as are hunters. The new regs  should be given a shot   As to a NY saltwater license, there would be a legal challenge from the East End that the State would have a problem with , hence the current “registry”,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like we could just copy some if the hunting legislation and aim it to fishing.  In hunting the seize poachers guns i think in fishing seize the tackle.

 

No license mandatory fine.  Poachers get loss of privilege 

 

We need a good lobby and a few legislators to get this rolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BrianBM said:

I would be OK with a SW license ... if it went to a dedicated fund

 

I'm not, because It wont.   One more layer of beuracracy isnt the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 mins ago, pakalolo said:

the DEC can’t be everywhere all the time.

 

Somehow we all see poaches and bucket brigades and scant few of us are full time professional anglers.   

 

DEC could write citations all day long from dawn to dusk.  BUt they dont.   

 

Charging for a license isnt going to change a laissez fair culture of non-enforcement.

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.