Jump to content

Another good striped bass bust

Rate this topic


CWitek

Recommended Posts

42 mins ago, z-man said:

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

They don't complain about a $10 license that would go towards more enforcement organically - it takes a propaganda movement by various publications/orgs to make them object. They are already paying many times that $10 for freshwater access. They spend $10 on three clams or bunker...or a bomber...or a friggin' bucktail these days. No way they'd object to $10 that would directly and positively impact the quality of their fisheries - unless they were lobbied to reject it. Find the business(es) or publication(s) that lobbied anglers to reject the $10 license - those folks are the real enemy :read: 

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

30 mins ago, Cascade said:

Bass tags are transferrable to family members. Certain regulations do apply.

Yes.  

 

But I'd like to see them transferrable to anyone with a commercial licnese.  That way, the fishermen don't have to deal with the requjirement that they be present when the tag is used, and could just outright sell the tags, without getting into the revenue sharing agreements that they have to enter into today.

"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

39 mins ago, CWitek said:

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

 

Every one of them is lying :wave: That's two and a half gallons of gas. Four clams. One cheap plug. A six pack. Five Owner circle hooks. A spool of really crappy leader material. 10% of a party boat fare. Not a single person would stop saltwater fishing over a $10 ANNUAL license. 

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

The problem is that $10 for you is not $10 for me. There are people out there who love to fish, that cannot afford hooks, or a clam or a bunker, let alone a Bomber or a bucktail. I know people that have stopped hunting over the fees, stamps and licenses. Admittedly over $10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 mins ago, CWitek said:

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.

Saltwater fishing attracts some strange characters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 mins ago, TimS said:

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. 

A lot.

 

One influential tackle shop owner, in particular, ran an intensive disinformation campaign.

"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

I'm sorry the problem with the fishery is not money, all the money in  the world won't change the striper population.  It's people who can't help themselves from keeping what ever they can get away with.

Charge what ever you want for a license it won't change anything.

I'm tired of repeating myself. bring back the 80s. It's called MORATORIUM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 mins ago, Fergal said:

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. 

The problem is that New York has the second-largest commercial quota on the coast.

 

Fewer fishermen would only mean that those remaining would each get more tags than they otherwise would.  And should the time ever come that the last commercial fisherman went out of business, New York's commercial quota would only be either transferred to the recreational sector or transferred to another state.  In either case, no bass would be saved.

 

 

"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

8 mins ago, CWitek said:

The problem is that New York has the second-largest commercial quota on the coast.

 

Fewer fishermen would only mean that those remaining would each get more tags than they otherwise would.  And should the time ever come that the last commercial fisherman went out of business, New York's commercial quota would only be either transferred to the recreational sector or transferred to another state.  In either case, no bass would be saved.

 

 

That’s not currently the case. There’s no transfer of quota. CT, ME, NH quotas are not utilized, correct? They certainly haven’t been transferred either. NJ’s is now a rec fishery, so yes- no fish saved there.
 

Anything that gets these greedy pigs out of the fishery is a good thing. At a minimum, when crap like this is pulled, the tag holder not present should lose their tags along with any tags held by the boat involved in the poaching. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 mins ago, Fergal said:

That’s not currently the case. There’s no transfer of quota. CT, ME, NH quotas are not utilized, correct? They certainly haven’t been transferred either. NJ’s is now a rec fishery, so yes- no fish saved there.
 

Anything that gets these greedy pigs out of the fishery is a good thing. At a minimum, when crap like this is pulled, the tag holder not present should lose their tags along with any tags held by the boat involved in the poaching. 

Addendum I to Amendment 7 permits the transfer of commercial quota between states.

 

No transfers can be made while the stock remains overfished, but once the stock rises above threshold, even if it is still well below target, transfers may be permitted at the discretion of the Management Board.

 

While you're right that CT, ME, and NH haven't yet transferred quotas, those state quotas are 13,585 pounds, 143 pounds, and 3,289 pounds, respectively--less than 20,000 poiunds total.  That is far, far less than New York's 595,868 pounds.  While states might not bother the three New England states for their trivial quotas, the nearly 600,000 pounds available to New York will be attractive to every commercial state on the coast.

 

And remember that Addendum I was adopted when the stock was overfished, so CT, ME and NH never had a chance to transfer quota.  They may be very willing to do so if biomass increases--and right now, even if the stock doesn't rebuild by 2029, it is not expected to still be overfished at that time, so transfers will then be possible.  CT and NH may very well be willing to transfer quota at that time; after all, CT had a "bonus fish" program something like New Jersey's not long ago, although if I recall correctly, it only allowed anglers to take what would otherwise be short fish in the Connecticut River, hoping to attract urban anglers.

"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, Skin said:

There are people out there who love to fish, that cannot afford hooks, or a clam or a bunker, let alone a Bomber or a bucktail. I know people that have stopped hunting over the fees, stamps and licenses. Admittedly over $10.

If they fish ten times a year it's $1/trip. If they fish 20 times a year, it's fifty cents/trip. Nobody that loves fishing is going to stop of a $10/year fee. Every single thing involved with fishing costs much more than a $10/year license that will ultimately make it easier for them to catch fish they can eat. 

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

1 hour ago, CWitek said:

A lot.

 

One influential tackle shop owner, in particular, ran an intensive disinformation campaign.

That sucks...I wish more anglers realized who they are fighting against when they want better, more healthy fisheries - it's not who they would expect.

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

5 hours ago, CWitek said:

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.

Exactly.  I always hear here (and elsewhere) that the states should increase taxes/fees and put it towards enforcement when I know most people scream every time any gov. talks about increasing fees/taxes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TimS said:

If they fish ten times a year it's $1/trip. If they fish 20 times a year, it's fifty cents/trip. Nobody that loves fishing is going to stop of a $10/year fee. Every single thing involved with fishing costs much more than a $10/year license that will ultimately make it easier for them to catch fish they can eat. 

 

The only people who would stop are those that are psychologically apposed to paying at all because its something they got to do previously for "free". Many times I have come across literal homeless people sleeping rough near the water and they have basic walmart gear far exceeding $10. No adult is out there handlining with just a pack of aberdeens and a spool of mono because its all they have to their name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

Exactly.  I always hear here (and elsewhere) that the states should increase taxes/fees and put it towards enforcement when I know most people scream every time any gov. talks about increasing fees/taxes.  

I agree, in general, the government takes more than enough money...but this is a very specific need with a very clear benefit to the people paying this "tax". If the state took over these commercial poaching prosecutions and implemented some real deterrent type fines, the fines could pay for more law enforcement. But that's not gonna happen....

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

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...