NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok first off I am not a hippy or tree hugger. I do alot of fishing and keep a decent amount of what I catch.
It bothers me though when I look at the regulations for species besides striped bass and fluke.
Why do we have such high bag limits for other species. We are setting ourselves up to have the same problems with bluefish, sea bass, and porgy than we have with fluke and striped bass.
Tell me does one person need to keep 25 porgy or 25 sea bass, how about 10 per person. When will you eat 15 bluefish. If you go out on a charter or partyboat dont say that you need to take home enough fish to last you for a while. If you are fishing to have dinner it is cheaper to go to the fish market. Partyboat fisherman are there for the sport of fishing not to eat. It is going to be a large problem in the future with bag limits like these lets smarten up now so we dont end up with a moratorium on all fish in NY. Monkfish have no bag limit and I hardly see them around anymore. Pollock has no bag limit either.
Why does'nt the state try to fix the problem before it becomes a PROBLEM!!
I am open to any and all opinions on this topic, so lets hear what you all think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,460 Posts
do you really think a person is going to pay a 50 or 60 dollar fare to keep 10 porgies, or go on an offshore seabass trip in the winter and pay at least 150 dollars and keep 10 seabass?

And your monkfish reference makes absolutely no sense since almost every recreational angler does not specifically target monkfish. they are a bycatch in the recreational fishery.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
Monkfish have no bag limit because recreational fishermen don't catch them. You won't see anyone filling a bag limit of pollack in NY, either.

As for people going on for-hire trips for recreation and not fish to eat, you are seriously mistaken. That is the main premise that the for-hire industry was built upon, and it will be one of the toughest problems to surmount in the near future. I personally have tried several years of catch-and-release fluke fishing, when it was WILD, catching 80 to 200 big fish a day, and NEVER put more than fifteen people on my boat. That's just the way it is. Yes, many people enjoy just catching fish, but you can't make a living taking them out. The striper fishery is a good example. They were everywhere, and boats were catching them well. However, no boat, not one, carried any amount of passengers until the for-hire industry in NY got the two fish bag limit. Why? Because you could keep one more fish if you went out on a for-hire boat instread of yours or your friends, that is the only reason why. There are still many boat owners who go out on for-hire vessels because they can keep that extra fish, not just the extra trophy fish, and when the private community gets to keep two at 28", then there will be a few less clients in the for-hire industry. Not complaining, not a problem, but that is what will happen.

Same w/ blues. The industry tanked when they went from no bag to a ten fish bag. Now, at fifteen, some people will make the trip and bring home food for the family and friends, justifying the expense. It's hard to comprehend, but many blue-collar guys cannot justify spending the better part of a day's pay for sport. It goes over much better w/ the wife if you bring some value into the equation. If a person doesn't want fifteen, they can throw them back. But why penalize those who do, especially when the fishery can sustain it?

I do agree w/ you in some respect, but more along the lines of regulating unregulated, up-and-coming or where'd-they-go species, like bergalls, snappers, sea robins, etc.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
"I do agree w/ you in some respect, but more along the lines of regulating unregulated, up-and-coming or where'd-they-go species, like bergalls, snappers, sea robins, etc."

Just to make a point you defend keeping 15 blues but classify snappers as a where'd they-go species. Well if there are less blues there is obviously going to be less snappers.
I find it hard to believe and also dont know anybody who owns their own boat and would go out on a for hire boat, simply to keep 2 stripers instead of one(maybe I'm wrong but I dont see that happening).
For arguments sake maybe your right, maybe some people wont go fishing and pay those fares to keep ten porgys, but you and I both know that the sea bass and scup population cannot support a 25 fish creel limit.

You say Monkfish are a bycatch and not targeted by anglers? Monkfish are known as "poor mans lobster" for their great table fare and are not targeted only because there numbers are so low you could fish for a week straight and not catch one.
Remember when blowfish used to be all over the south shore, not anymore, they were not specifically targeted by recreational anglers either, but when caught they were kept.


"do you really think a person is going to pay a 50 or 60 dollar fare to keep 10 porgies, or go on an offshore seabass trip in the winter and pay at least 150 dollars and keep 10 seabass?"

So because they wont pay to go for 10 fish we should just keep it the way it is even though the populations cant sustain their numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
This ought to surprise some of you.

CaptPaul wrote:

Same w/ blues. The industry tanked when they went from no bag to a ten fish bag. Now, at fifteen, some people will make the trip and bring home food for the family and friends, justifying the expense. It's hard to comprehend, but many blue-collar guys cannot justify spending the better part of a day's pay for sport. It goes over much better w/ the wife if you bring some value into the equation. If a person doesn't want fifteen, they can throw them back. But why penalize those who do, especially when the fishery can sustain it?

Paul

I think that 15 blues are more than enough for one person. Even 1 ****tail blue can easily feed two for 1 dinner. PS. I did have a problem with 10 blue fish limit because I like to use snappers as live bait. Now, with 15 it's a bit more tolerable. Most days I can burn 10 snappers in a full day. But there are the days when I am not in the zone and I lose 10 before ending my day of fishing. 15 should be perfect.

I think the limits have more to do with the size of a fish and quantity available. Think about how many tasty little 12" seabass it takes just to get a mouthful. Porgies (if that's your thing) at 10.5 + bones doesn't give up much. You can brag that you are the world's best fisherman, but in reality most seabass are about 16" with several just keepers at 12". Either way, it's not much of a filet. On the plus side, it is not hard to find porgies that are way larger than the minimum size, can't really say the same for seabass.

You can't forget that some fish have much higher reproductive rates. These are the fish that are usually smaller and lower in the food chain. Sea bass and porgys are good examples. So typically these fish don't live to get very large due to predation.

LooneyTunes
Dave
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
Outrageous,

Slow down. I didn't classify snappers as hurting. I would say that I find it foolish to put a bag limit on a species before you try a size limit.

You may find it hard to beleive that boat owners don't go on for-hire trips for the extra fish, but beleive it.

You may know that the sea bass and scup populations cannot support a 25 man bag, but I don't know that. I guess I read too many reports, and have been in the industry too long.

I say monkfish are accidental catch, not even by-catch. they are know as poor man's lobster through a marketing plan by commercial fishermen, not by recreational fishermen who caught so many years ago that they got together in a bar and developed that name. The fact is that many people now fish in areas where monkfish are abundant, but the rod and reel method does not enmesh at all w/ the behavior of the fish- You just won't catch them. Even if there were a problem w/ their numbers, it would only need to be regulated further commercially, because the recreational fishery simply won't catch significant numbers of a fish that waits for the bait to actually swim into it's mouth.

To make a remark that recreational anglers never targeted blowfish really dumps your argument. But yes, they do need to be regulated, both recreationally and commercially.

Do you really think that managers are keeping the bags at unsustainable levels for sea bass and scup, but are playing by the rules on fluke and stripers? Also, scup and sea bass are regulated on a regional level, which is a much more stable method. And just so you might feel better, rec anglers landed a reported seven million pounds of fluke, four million pounds of scup, and two million pounds of sea bass last year. So the bigger bags don't necessarily mean bigger landings.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,460 Posts
you won't catch a monkfish because they dont aggresively feed. you have no idea what you are talking about. talk to any commercial fisherman who monks, and theyll tell you the population is doing just fine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
Dave,

You are close on the fish size/limit thing. The fisheries are actually managed by the pound, not the piece, so even though only half the amount of scup are allocated to be landed ,by poundage, there are many more keeper scup per pound than fluke. Coupled w/ the fact that scup and sea bass trips make up a much smaller percentage of total fishing trips than fluke, you get a bigger bag limit. Beleive me, the managers do not ever consider what will make a good meal when they devise bag limits.

Bigger fish have greater spawns- they simply spill more eggs. However, all of the species' spawn are subject to their greatest predation in year 0, and w/ the bigger species producing the greatest number of spawn, they afford a level of protection to the smaller species' spawn. Most of our recreational species see similarly low predation rates after they make their first year.

Also, I appreciate that you have no problem finding keeper sized scup, and your average sea bass is 16". However, when you get up to the larger scale of the region, there is great difficulty finding keeper-sized fish in many areas.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Good Points Paul

CaptPaul wrote:
Dave,

You are close on the fish size/limit thing. The fisheries are actually managed by the pound, not the piece, so even though only half the amount of scup are allocated to be landed ,by poundage, there are many more keeper scup per pound than fluke. Coupled w/ the fact that scup and sea bass trips make up a much smaller percentage of total fishing trips than fluke, you get a bigger bag limit. Beleive me, the managers do not ever consider what will make a good meal when they devise bag limits.

Bigger fish have greater spawns- they simply spill more eggs. However, all of the species' spawn are subject to their greatest predation in year 0, and w/ the bigger species producing the greatest number of spawn, they afford a level of protection to the smaller species' spawn. Most of our recreational species see similarly low predation rates after they make their first year.

Also, I appreciate that you have no problem finding keeper sized scup, and your average sea bass is 16". However, when you get up to the larger scale of the region, there is great difficulty finding keeper-sized fish in many areas.

Paul

Nice info regarding managing fish by pound.


We are kind of spoiled in the Moriches area when it comes to porgies and seabass. The reef or some rubble piles at the right tide using the right method produces nice seabass. Porgies, If you learn to read tides, currents, etc you can score nicely at Moriches (not dinner plate scup but a lot bigger than the 10.5 minimum). BUT to further prove you comment about regional, You are 100% correct. If I go to Montauk I can limit out on dinner plate size porgies in a matter of a half day. I can rarely limit out on porgies of good size in a full day of fishing around Moriches.

Looneytunes
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
It is refreshing to see we have another expert here to let us know that Scup and seabass can not withstand a 25 fish creel limit. It is ASSumptions like that, fuel the fire that has the entire Party/charter boat fleet from Cape May to Hyannis, on the brink of going out of buisness (thousands of jobs) with the Regulations that are about to be dumped on us this year. Where do people get there info before they start posting things on the internet.
And for the FACT that boat owners don't frequent charter boats, WRONG again, I and quite a few of my coleages are chartered not only by boat owners but also by fellow charter/ party boat owners, who travel 4 to 6 hours to fish with us.

This post edited by BountyHunter 11:42 PM 01/16/2008
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
74,095 Posts
Just a couple of comments. First of all its not just bag limits that have an effect, ther eis also size limits and seasons. Season can have a big effect on the number of fish landed.

Secondly, none of the fish mentioned are managed by NY state, or any other state for that matter. They are either managed by the ASMFC in state waters of one of the councils in Federal waters.

Expect the limits on sea bass and scup to get more restrictive this year. The MAMFMC has set TACs that will rewuire cutbacks in both the recreational and commercial landings.

The latest stock assessment for monkfish shows that we have a healthy population and we are fishing at a sustainable level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Wouldn't you know it?

reelfisher wrote:
Dave just an FYI... While the bluefish creel limit is 15 fish only 10 of them can be less than 12 inches so you wil ahve to find a way to make those 10 last you all day;)

Thanks for the info.

Well, I will have to make due with 10 snappers for bait. No big adjustment. Would have been nice, though. On the other side of the coin, I guess it goes towards conservation of the resource. I think that is a good thing.

LooneyTunes
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
BountyHunter wrote:
It is refreshing to see we have another expert here to let us know that Scup and seabass can not withstand a 25 fish creel limit. It is ASSumptions like that, fuel the fire that has the entire Party/charter boat fleet from Cape May to Hyannis, on the brink of going out of buisness (thousands of jobs) with the Regulations that are about to be dumped on us this year. Where do people get there info before they start posting things on the internet.
And for the FACT that boat owners don't frequent charter boats, WRONG again, I and quite a few of my coleages are chartered not only by boat owners but also by fellow charter/ party boat owners, who travel 4 to 6 hours to fish with us.


I never claimed to be an expert or to be stating fact. What I have stated is opinion based on about 20 years experience (I know you prob have 40yrs) fishing the south shore. An opinion based on experience is much different then an ASSumption. I originally said I wanted to hear other points of view in this matter and I have and take them all into consideration. I was unaware of the feeding habits of the monkfish and now I know, so thanks.
Jones Inlet I feel was horrible this year for all species except dogfish. I did very well in Moriches and Raritan bay however. So maybe it is a regional issue.

This post edited by MakoMike 06:42 AM 01/18/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
JUST AN FYI ON THE BIG 3.

This is from SWS...

"NMFS proposes big cuts for 2008, If all goes to plan the NMFS will make some big changes to the total allowable landing limits for three species in 2008. In November NMFS proposed the following limits:
15.77 million pounds of summer flounder an 8 percent drop from last year.
4.22 million pounds of black sea bass a 16 percent drop from last year.
7.34 million pounds of scup a 39 percent drop from last year."

I wonder what the bag limit will be for scup if they want to do a 39% decrease? Sounds like a 15 bag limit to me.

Paul what other species do you feel it should be applied to?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
948 Posts
I don't believe there is a biological problem w/ the stocks of scup, sea bass, fluke, bluefish or striped bass. Just because the government figures say there is doesn't make it true. Unfortunately most folks do not get enough sea time to be able to decide for themselves, so they believe what they are told. There is no substitute for seeing for yourself.

The government is concerned with staying out of court not with doing what is best for fish or fishermen.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
74,095 Posts
We had a big debate about any restrictions on using "food fish" for bait last year. Its still on the board and its over 10 pages long IIRC, so you can go read it. AFAIK the NY DEC has not changed the rules since we had that discussion.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top