Jump to content

Another good striped bass bust

Rate this topic


CWitek

Recommended Posts

Oh but the commercial guys have a hard quota don’t they which is why they’re so much more responsible than recreational anglers right! The comms and the for-hire sector love to grandstand at ASMFC meetings to pose as the “real conservation hero’s” because they claim no fish = no pay day. But then they’re still poaching and pulling all kinds of BS out on the water when no one is around checking on them.

 

It should be pointed out again that at the last NY striped bass public hearing on Long Island in Fall 2023 that the party boat fleet all argued there are too many big bass their clients want but can’t keep. A month later, NYS DEC ECO busted one of those very same party boats with many under slot sized bass hidden or already filleted during a random search… what a sad joke.
 

How often does this happen but nobody was caught? That’s a number no ASMFC models include when considering sector impacts and striped bass mortality. Which is why the tightest regulations should always be for the groups that profit off dead fish instead of the average guy who fishes for fun. Especially when the stock is overfished, like it still is now and likely will be for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not even realize that this was illegal. Am sure that I have heard people talking about getting tags for their family members that work various shore jobs and doing the same thing. And think that Frank Daignault wrote about something similar.

Edited by Skin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 mins ago, Skin said:

I did not even realize that this was illegal. Am sure that I have heard people talking about getting tags for their family members that work various shore jobs and doing the same thing. And think that Frank Daignault wrote about something similar.

Yes.  The tag holder must be on board.

 

The problem is that a lot of the tag holders are getting VERY old, and can't really board a boat any more.  One commercial fisherman at a recent MRAC meeting was talking about having to take a wheelchair on board in order to accommodate the tagholder.  But they don't want to give up their tags, so younger and more able fishermen are finding creative and not necessarily legal ways to use them.

 

Personally, I'd make the tags freely transferrable, and give the old timers the opportunity to either permanently sell or annually rent their tag allocation on a willing seller/willing buyer basis.  I'd do the same thing with commercial foodfish licenses.  Instead of requirin some sort of history in commercial fisheries, minimum incomes, lotteries for any availabile licenses, etc., I'd just make them fully transferrable to anybody who wanted to go into the business--and that's what it is, a business, and I can think of no logical reason not to let a fisherman sell his business to whomever he or she chooses.

 

After all, you don't need to prove experience in the oil patch to bid on an oil lease.  You don't need to show past mining experience to file a mining claim or buy mineral rights.  You don't need to put in time as a lumberjack to lease federal timberlands.  And you don't have to have put in time as a commercial fishermen to buy federal fisheries permits, etc.  Why should licenses be limited to fishermen in New York.  They should be freely transferrable, so that a fisherman could pass one on to a family member or sell one to the highest bidder, depending only on what the fisherman chose to do.

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CWitek said:

The sad thing is that New York's saltwater anglers had a chance to double the size of the Marine Enforcement Unit, and they told the DEC that they didn't think it was all that important.

 

When the DEC considered a salt water fishing license last year, they made it clear that enhanced enforcement would be one of the first uses of the license.  I sat in on multiple meetings, and those revenues would have doubled the size of the MEU.  But when they surveyed anglers, the majority opposed the license proposal.  They apparently decided that it wasn't worth $10/year to make life tougher for the poachers.

 

And thus they shouldn't complain.

History and experience have taught me that  dedicated money becomes undedicated as soon as other hands can grab it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hairyfishhead said:

How often does this happen but nobody was caught? That’s a number no ASMFC models include when considering sector impacts and striped bass mortality. Which is why the tightest regulations should always be for the groups that profit off dead fish instead of the average guy who fishes for fun. Especially when the stock is overfished, like it still is now and likely will be for years to come.

When you say "the tightest regulations should always be for the groups that profit off dead fish instead of the average guy who fishes for fun," you leave out another for-profit groups, the tackle shops.  They are very involved in the rulemaking process, always fighting against any measure that might limit recreational harvest, no matter how badly needed; I'm not sure that I ever saw the shops, as represented by NYFTTA, support a conservation measure, but I've seen them oippose them many, many times.

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 min ago, Cascade said:

History and experience have taught me that  dedicated money becomes undedicated as soon as other hands can grab it. 

 

The one exception to that is hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses.  Those revenues are effectively protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which penalizes states that divert license funds by holding back millions of dollars in federal matching funds that come from excise taxes on firearms, archery equipment, and fishing tackle.  The state would lose as much or more than it gained by diverting license funds,.

 

A few states have tried to divert license money over the past few years, but after USF&W got involved, the money always went back to its originally-intended purpose.

 

Now, if you were talking about lottery revenues, I'd agree.

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 min ago, Cascade said:

History and experience have taught me that  dedicated money becomes undedicated as soon as other hands can grab it. 

The Gov just introduced a $B annual shortfall by eliminating congestion pricing indefinitely. Layoff ECO’s or raise surf permit prices to compensate, the age old question….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 mins ago, CWitek said:

Yes.  The tag holder must be on board.

 

The problem is that a lot of the tag holders are getting VERY old, and can't really board a boat any more.  One commercial fisherman at a recent MRAC meeting was talking about having to take a wheelchair on board in order to accommodate the tagholder.  But they don't want to give up their tags, so younger and more able fishermen are finding creative and not necessarily legal ways to use them.

 

Personally, I'd make the tags freely transferrable, and give the old timers the opportunity to either permanently sell or annually rent their tag allocation on a willing seller/willing buyer basis.  I'd do the same thing with commercial foodfish licenses.  Instead of requirin some sort of history in commercial fisheries, minimum incomes, lotteries for any availabile licenses, etc., I'd just make them fully transferrable to anybody who wanted to go into the business--and that's what it is, a business, and I can think of no logical reason not to let a fisherman sell his business to whomever he or she chooses.

 

After all, you don't need to prove experience in the oil patch to bid on an oil lease.  You don't need to show past mining experience to file a mining claim or buy mineral rights.  You don't need to put in time as a lumberjack to lease federal timberlands.  And you don't have to have put in time as a commercial fishermen to buy federal fisheries permits, etc.  Why should licenses be limited to fishermen in New York.  They should be freely transferrable, so that a fisherman could pass one on to a family member or sell one to the highest bidder, depending only on what the fisherman chose to do.

Fascinating approach to reducing commercial fishing. Put aging tag holders on boats in striper weather and let nature take its course.

Edited by Skin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CWitek said:

The sad thing is that New York's saltwater anglers had a chance to double the size of the Marine Enforcement Unit, and they told the DEC that they didn't think it was all that important.

 

When the DEC considered a salt water fishing license last year, they made it clear that enhanced enforcement would be one of the first uses of the license.  I sat in on multiple meetings, and those revenues would have doubled the size of the MEU.  But when they surveyed anglers, the majority opposed the license proposal.  They apparently decided that it wasn't worth $10/year to make life tougher for the poachers.

 

And thus they shouldn't complain.

Guys will spend thousands on tackle but complain about a $10 license. Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 mins ago, CWitek said:

When you say "the tightest regulations should always be for the groups that profit off dead fish instead of the average guy who fishes for fun," you leave out another for-profit groups, the tackle shops.  They are very involved in the rulemaking process, always fighting against any measure that might limit recreational harvest, no matter how badly needed; I'm not sure that I ever saw the shops, as represented by NYFTTA, support a conservation measure, but I've seen them oippose them many, many times.

Very true! Also if you go into most tackle shops these days the bulk of what they are selling is bells/glow sticks for bait rod tips, cheap LED headlamps, $100 rod/reel combos, all types of bait and bug spray. Everything the bucket brigade needs to poach stripers under a bridge all night!
 

These striped bass reliant businesses are literally shooting themselves in the foot over and over by repeatedly fighting off any level of conservation without realizing how this will come full circle and hurt them most of all. The rest of us recreational anglers can keep on fishing for fun, with or without any of these charter/party boats, tackle shops or fish markets around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 mins ago, z-man said:

Guys will spend thousands on tackle but complain about a $10 license. Brilliant!

I've heard a few say that they'd stop fishing if they had to pay for a $10 license.

 

It's a strange mindset, particularly given that if you're a surfcaster, you;ve probably spend far more than that--by an order of magnitude--for beach fishing permits, and had no problem with paying those fees at all.

 

Of course, if you're a boat fisherman and complain about $10, you are probably fishing with a very rich friend, because of you pay your own expenses, you're paying thousands of dollars each year.

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CWitek said:

But when they surveyed anglers, the majority opposed the license proposal.  They apparently decided that it wasn't worth $10/year to make life tougher for the poachers.

I wonder how much dishonest propaganda was published to persuade anglers to reject the whopping $10/year license? I would wager that it was significant and from the expected sources. 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 mins ago, CWitek said:

Yes.  The tag holder must be on board.

 

The problem is that a lot of the tag holders are getting VERY old, and can't really board a boat any more.  One commercial fisherman at a recent MRAC meeting was talking about having to take a wheelchair on board in order to accommodate the tagholder.  But they don't want to give up their tags, so younger and more able fishermen are finding creative and not necessarily legal ways to use them.

 

Personally, I'd make the tags freely transferrable, and give the old timers the opportunity to either permanently sell or annually rent their tag allocation on a willing seller/willing buyer basis.  I'd do the same thing with commercial foodfish licenses.  Instead of requirin some sort of history in commercial fisheries, minimum incomes, lotteries for any availabile licenses, etc., I'd just make them fully transferrable to anybody who wanted to go into the business--and that's what it is, a business, and I can think of no logical reason not to let a fisherman sell his business to whomever he or she chooses.

 

After all, you don't need to prove experience in the oil patch to bid on an oil lease.  You don't need to show past mining experience to file a mining claim or buy mineral rights.  You don't need to put in time as a lumberjack to lease federal timberlands.  And you don't have to have put in time as a commercial fishermen to buy federal fisheries permits, etc.  Why should licenses be limited to fishermen in New York.  They should be freely transferrable, so that a fisherman could pass one on to a family member or sell one to the highest bidder, depending only on what the fisherman chose to do.

The tags should expire with the fisherman. Its time to get them out of the fishery and doing that would be the best way to accomplish it. 

ASMFC - Destroying public resources and fisheries one stock at a time since 1942.

Link to comment
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


×
×
  • Create New...