I've been out on a few party boats (Sheepshead Bay) in the past two weeks, and on Wednesday, I went out fluking on one of them. It was a slow pick - out of 20 guys, ONE keeper fluke came up. However, there were lots of fish in the 18"-20" range (obviously illegal), that came over, and were kept. Actually, a lot of these big-but-short fish were caught and kept by one of the mates. So if the Coast Guard were to inspect the boat, I'm assuming that the boat's owner would take the fall for the short fish, right? (that's why I threw back 3 REALLY NICE fish that didn't make the 20.5"). Or would it be the angler? I was kinda surprised by how almost the entire boat - including the mate - completely flouted the law. Mate didn't have any problem filleting the shorts, either (understandably). I was actually kinda mad at myself for throwing back my 3 when I saw about 35 shorts taken apart on the fillet table. So is it the boat's owner or the angler who takes the fall for an illegal fish?
Keeping Shorts - Who Takes The Fall?
1 - 20 of 162 Posts
I think it should be the angler. The mates can't check every fish. However, I have heard of charter boats being fined per fish for illegal fish kept by the anglers. Also, even if I saw the whole boat keeping shorts, I still would never keep them. I refuse to be corrupted by others.
I agree that it should be the angler as well, Java. However, I don't think that if someone keeps a "reasonable short" that they're corrupt. I'm divided on the whole issue. One side of me feels that it's silly to be subjugated by an arbitrary length as set by a capricious committee of politicians that listen to dubious science. For this reason, I would have no problem, morally, with keeping a fluke that was around 17"+, even though the law is 20.5". However, another side of me says that the law should be followed, because if I'm willing to take a fluke that's 17+, there would be others who would take them at 10"+ (or worse). Economists refer to this phenomenon as "tragedy of the commons".
personally, I can't understand the whole idea of size MINIMUMS. In my opinion, it should be size MAXIMUMS that dictate whether a fish is legal or not. Think about it - by taking larger fish, we're taking the most robust, healthy, successful breeders out of the population...these are the fish that have "made it" to maturity, and that natural selection has selected for. It is far more probable that a current 20" fluke would survive to breed multiple times, than it is for a short fluke to even survive to maturity. Think about it: any time a predator attacks its prey, it ALWAYS singles out the young, the immature, etc., because they are an easier kill. Taking big, mature, breeding-age fish just seems counterintuitive to nature, to me. If it's so easy to set a law that enforces a minimum length, then it should be just as effective to enforce a law that enforces a bag limit.
Think about which would be better for a fishery: Keeping 4 large, adult fish, or 6 small, immature fish...
But I still follow the law...within reason.
This post edited by cgcg7373 06:28 PM 05/31/2008
personally, I can't understand the whole idea of size MINIMUMS. In my opinion, it should be size MAXIMUMS that dictate whether a fish is legal or not. Think about it - by taking larger fish, we're taking the most robust, healthy, successful breeders out of the population...these are the fish that have "made it" to maturity, and that natural selection has selected for. It is far more probable that a current 20" fluke would survive to breed multiple times, than it is for a short fluke to even survive to maturity. Think about it: any time a predator attacks its prey, it ALWAYS singles out the young, the immature, etc., because they are an easier kill. Taking big, mature, breeding-age fish just seems counterintuitive to nature, to me. If it's so easy to set a law that enforces a minimum length, then it should be just as effective to enforce a law that enforces a bag limit.
Think about which would be better for a fishery: Keeping 4 large, adult fish, or 6 small, immature fish...
But I still follow the law...within reason.
This post edited by cgcg7373 06:28 PM 05/31/2008
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
"Possession"
It all has to do with who possesses, or is percieved to possess, the "shorts" ( a word that should be used very loosely with fluke). If the fish is in your own cooler, bucket, ect.then it's on you. If shorts are found in a community container, such as an insulated box in the stern, then most likely the boat will be held liable, if the "owner" of the fish cannot be determined.
I would submit that, ultimately, it is the managers who are "flouting the law", since the original intent of Mangunson is to preserve fish stocks for the user groups to USE, aka keep. I was out Wed, on a friend's boat, pretty nice day out there. Wonder why there were only about 20 fares on a fluke boat on a nice weather day? The fact that they have to throw back 20" fluke can't have anything to do with that, could it ( it's a rhetorical question,it's not directed at you!)?
It all has to do with who possesses, or is percieved to possess, the "shorts" ( a word that should be used very loosely with fluke). If the fish is in your own cooler, bucket, ect.then it's on you. If shorts are found in a community container, such as an insulated box in the stern, then most likely the boat will be held liable, if the "owner" of the fish cannot be determined.
I would submit that, ultimately, it is the managers who are "flouting the law", since the original intent of Mangunson is to preserve fish stocks for the user groups to USE, aka keep. I was out Wed, on a friend's boat, pretty nice day out there. Wonder why there were only about 20 fares on a fluke boat on a nice weather day? The fact that they have to throw back 20" fluke can't have anything to do with that, could it ( it's a rhetorical question,it's not directed at you!)?
Joined
·
6,822 Posts
Basically correct, JC. My post was meant to be simple, and thought-inspiring.
If the deckhand throws a short in your pail, it is the vessel's fault. If the deckhand cuts the fish, it is the vessel's summons. If the deckhand encourages the client to keep it, then the officer can fine either or both. If the crew doesn't know a client is keeping illegal fish in his container, then it is the client's summons. However, NYDEC may summons the vessel if a pail containing illegal fish is unclaimed by anyone.
It's all about intent and comlicity.
Paul
If the deckhand throws a short in your pail, it is the vessel's fault. If the deckhand cuts the fish, it is the vessel's summons. If the deckhand encourages the client to keep it, then the officer can fine either or both. If the crew doesn't know a client is keeping illegal fish in his container, then it is the client's summons. However, NYDEC may summons the vessel if a pail containing illegal fish is unclaimed by anyone.
It's all about intent and comlicity.
Paul
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Paul, thanks for the clarification. Seems like there can be a lot of grey area on a party boat trip when it comes to violations of the regs. If caught, the right thing to do would be for whomever is truly liable to man up and admit it, in a situation where an ECO cannot immediately determine who is at fault.
I recall one bottom fishing trip I was on last May ( the boat, or even the port, will not be named!) when a number of very nice size porgies started coming up. The capt & crew informed the customers that they were out of season,they'd be taking a risk if they kept them, and left it at that. Several people did keep a few, but the mates did not cut them on the way in.
I recall one bottom fishing trip I was on last May ( the boat, or even the port, will not be named!) when a number of very nice size porgies started coming up. The capt & crew informed the customers that they were out of season,they'd be taking a risk if they kept them, and left it at that. Several people did keep a few, but the mates did not cut them on the way in.
Joined
·
4,127 Posts
My Understanding Is.
Party/Charter boat Captains & crew are not police officers. They don't carry guns. They are responsible for informing passengers what the size & bag limits are for the species they catch.They should tell the passenger the fish is short or they've caught their limit which is their responsibility but can't force the passenger to return the fish. If they bag, bucket, fillet or help the customer with illegal fish then they take on responsibility by association. As far as captains and crew members catching and promoting the possession of short or over bag limit fish the captain & boat should be heavily fined again & again till they learn to obey the rules. Party/Charter boats are not happy with the rules & neither am I but we must deal with the cards we are dealt.
![]()
![]()
![]()
This post edited by steamboat1 10:05 PM 05/31/2008
Party/Charter boat Captains & crew are not police officers. They don't carry guns. They are responsible for informing passengers what the size & bag limits are for the species they catch.They should tell the passenger the fish is short or they've caught their limit which is their responsibility but can't force the passenger to return the fish. If they bag, bucket, fillet or help the customer with illegal fish then they take on responsibility by association. As far as captains and crew members catching and promoting the possession of short or over bag limit fish the captain & boat should be heavily fined again & again till they learn to obey the rules. Party/Charter boats are not happy with the rules & neither am I but we must deal with the cards we are dealt.
This post edited by steamboat1 10:05 PM 05/31/2008
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Pretty much what everyone here has said, Steamboat. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the crew of a party boat to get into a potentially confrontational situation over a fishery reg violation ( that should be reserved for a situation in which the physical saftey of passengers and/or crew is at stake).
Not to come off as a wiseguy, but police officers are not responsible for fishery regs either, Environmental Conservation Officers are.
Not to come off as a wiseguy, but police officers are not responsible for fishery regs either, Environmental Conservation Officers are.
re: keeping shorts
Gov'mnt regs concerning fishing in N.Y. have become so overbearing and out of touch with reality that they don't deserve being observed. Ignoring outrageous laws is as American as apple pie and Americans have been practicing it for almost 240 years.
I fish on my own boat and I will keep whatever I feel like keeping.Don't get me wrong; I'm not keeping 14 inch fluke. But I'm not throwing back 19 inch fluke. If I need to take 10 fluke home, then I am. If I don't need them ,I won't.
After spending 60 bucks on fuel, 30 bucks on food,soda and beer don't tell me I can't take home fillets from a couple of 3 pound, 20 inch fish. Screw yourself Big Brother. Catch me if you can!!!
Gov'mnt regs concerning fishing in N.Y. have become so overbearing and out of touch with reality that they don't deserve being observed. Ignoring outrageous laws is as American as apple pie and Americans have been practicing it for almost 240 years.
I fish on my own boat and I will keep whatever I feel like keeping.Don't get me wrong; I'm not keeping 14 inch fluke. But I'm not throwing back 19 inch fluke. If I need to take 10 fluke home, then I am. If I don't need them ,I won't.
After spending 60 bucks on fuel, 30 bucks on food,soda and beer don't tell me I can't take home fillets from a couple of 3 pound, 20 inch fish. Screw yourself Big Brother. Catch me if you can!!!
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
tjmit wrote:
Gov'mnt regs concerning fishing in N.Y. have become so overbearing and out of touch with reality that they don't deserve being observed. Ignoring outrageous laws is as American as apple pie and Americans have been practicing it for almost 240 years. I fish on my own boat and I will keep whatever I feel like keeping.Don't get me wrong; I'm not keeping 14 inch fluke. But I'm not throwing back 19 inch fluke. If I need to take 10 fluke home, then I am. If I don't need them ,I won't. After spending 60 bucks on fuel, 30 bucks on food,soda and beer don't tell me I can't take home fillets from a couple of 3 pound, 20 inch fish. Screw yourself Big Brother. Catch me if you can!!!
I, for, one, can't argue with the spirit of that. For anyone whose blood pressure is rising just by reading this, note that he specifically said "outrageous laws" ( as in the fluke regs), not laws in general.
I give you credit for posting this, and being totally honest
![]()
. Because something tells me that many more people feel the same way as you, yet are reluctant to say so publically.
Gov'mnt regs concerning fishing in N.Y. have become so overbearing and out of touch with reality that they don't deserve being observed. Ignoring outrageous laws is as American as apple pie and Americans have been practicing it for almost 240 years. I fish on my own boat and I will keep whatever I feel like keeping.Don't get me wrong; I'm not keeping 14 inch fluke. But I'm not throwing back 19 inch fluke. If I need to take 10 fluke home, then I am. If I don't need them ,I won't. After spending 60 bucks on fuel, 30 bucks on food,soda and beer don't tell me I can't take home fillets from a couple of 3 pound, 20 inch fish. Screw yourself Big Brother. Catch me if you can!!!
I, for, one, can't argue with the spirit of that. For anyone whose blood pressure is rising just by reading this, note that he specifically said "outrageous laws" ( as in the fluke regs), not laws in general.
I give you credit for posting this, and being totally honest
Joined
·
41,287 Posts
If you are that hard up for fish, go buy them in a market. They are a lot cheaper to buy then to catch.
If you want to be a fisherman, then abide by the rules.
If you want to be a fisherman, then abide by the rules.
Joined
·
160 Posts
crabman1130 wrote:
If you are that hard up for fish, go buy them in a market. They are a lot cheaper to buy then to catch.
If you want to be a fisherman, then abide by the rules.
I agree with Crabby. Fish by the rules or go to the market.
Attitudes like TJMIT's only give the environmental pukes more ammunition to shut down the fishery.
Rec anglers need to come together with the PBs and Comms to get the best size and bag limits set for all. One voice would be a whole lot better than the current process. But I think this was covered in several other threads over the winter.
This post edited by SeaSickMike 09:18 AM 06/01/2008
If you are that hard up for fish, go buy them in a market. They are a lot cheaper to buy then to catch.
If you want to be a fisherman, then abide by the rules.
I agree with Crabby. Fish by the rules or go to the market.
Attitudes like TJMIT's only give the environmental pukes more ammunition to shut down the fishery.
Rec anglers need to come together with the PBs and Comms to get the best size and bag limits set for all. One voice would be a whole lot better than the current process. But I think this was covered in several other threads over the winter.
This post edited by SeaSickMike 09:18 AM 06/01/2008
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Here we go again!
I really don't understand why some people think that because some of us have a problem with SPECIFIC regs that are completely unwarranted (fluke), that means we are "hard up" for fish. If he were "hard up" for fluke, he wouldn't have said that he would not keep a fluke that is extremely short, like 14" ( yet that size was fine for God knows how long
). As far as fluke go, there is a principle at stake, and it has nothing to do with fillets.
If you guys want to have a fishing industry around to support your pastime, stop blindly accepting whatever unelected bureaucrats shove down our throats.
I really don't understand why some people think that because some of us have a problem with SPECIFIC regs that are completely unwarranted (fluke), that means we are "hard up" for fish. If he were "hard up" for fluke, he wouldn't have said that he would not keep a fluke that is extremely short, like 14" ( yet that size was fine for God knows how long
). As far as fluke go, there is a principle at stake, and it has nothing to do with fillets.If you guys want to have a fishing industry around to support your pastime, stop blindly accepting whatever unelected bureaucrats shove down our throats.
Joined
·
41,287 Posts
JC30967 wrote:
I really don't understand why some people think that because some of us have a problem with SPECIFIC regs that are completely unwarranted (fluke), that means we are "hard up" for fish. If he were "hard up" for fluke, he wouldn't have said that he would not keep a fluke that is extremely short, like 14" ( yet that size was fine for God knows how long). As far as fluke go, there is a principle at stake, and it has nothing to do with fillets.
If you guys want to have a fishing industry around to support your pastime, stop blindly accepting whatever unelected bureaucrats shove down our throats.
That was not said to anyone in particular. I saw that the author returned his fish. He shouldn't feel bad for not going along with those that want to break the law.
They are setting us up for more regulations by their actions. It gives the Gov a reason for a fishing license. If they have something to take away from you then you can't fish period. Do you think they will stand by a do nothing if everyone is disregarding the laws they set?
I really don't understand why some people think that because some of us have a problem with SPECIFIC regs that are completely unwarranted (fluke), that means we are "hard up" for fish. If he were "hard up" for fluke, he wouldn't have said that he would not keep a fluke that is extremely short, like 14" ( yet that size was fine for God knows how long
). As far as fluke go, there is a principle at stake, and it has nothing to do with fillets. If you guys want to have a fishing industry around to support your pastime, stop blindly accepting whatever unelected bureaucrats shove down our throats.
That was not said to anyone in particular. I saw that the author returned his fish. He shouldn't feel bad for not going along with those that want to break the law.
They are setting us up for more regulations by their actions. It gives the Gov a reason for a fishing license. If they have something to take away from you then you can't fish period. Do you think they will stand by a do nothing if everyone is disregarding the laws they set?
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Well, first they need proof that "everyone" is disregarding the regs, and I doubt a discussion on a website is the evidence they need. I agree, no one should feel pressured into keeping an undersize fish if they don't want to. But, if someone keeps a 20", or even a 19" ( as if a fluke that size is small!) fluke, they shouldn't be portrayed as some rapist of the sea.
Here's the thing, though. We have been accepting the regs for so long, and what does it get us? A 20 1/2" size , and a 3 1/2 month long season. Ever think that the managers really don't have our, and the fishery's, best interest in mind? Ever consider that mabey their true goal is to eliminate all fishing, regardless if every single rec and commercial fisherman follows the regs to the letter? Any agency that claims we "overfished" fluke last year, with a 19 1/2" size, 4 fish bag, and an abruptly shortened season, IMHO has some alternate agenda.
Here's the thing, though. We have been accepting the regs for so long, and what does it get us? A 20 1/2" size , and a 3 1/2 month long season. Ever think that the managers really don't have our, and the fishery's, best interest in mind? Ever consider that mabey their true goal is to eliminate all fishing, regardless if every single rec and commercial fisherman follows the regs to the letter? Any agency that claims we "overfished" fluke last year, with a 19 1/2" size, 4 fish bag, and an abruptly shortened season, IMHO has some alternate agenda.
Joined
·
4,127 Posts
If you guys think it's worth the risk of a fine (or worse) have a ball.
There are only a few fluke boats out of SHB. The boat in question shouldn't be hard to find for you or the DEC.
There are only a few fluke boats out of SHB. The boat in question shouldn't be hard to find for you or the DEC.
Joined
·
947 Posts
And this is where the "no bashing rule" I think is wrong. If a member goes on a boat and the crew is cutting shorts, I think he should be able to post just the facts and let the other memebers decide on their own to patronize that boat. The entire idea of websites is the sharing of valuable information.
We can post everything good but, as soon as someone has a bad experience, the gag rule comes into play
We can post everything good but, as soon as someone has a bad experience, the gag rule comes into play
1 - 20 of 162 Posts
