36" limit, no slot, one fish per day [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: 36" limit, no slot, one fish per day


MainEYak1
07-21-2006, 11:17 PM
36", no slot, one fish and the entire east coast should get on the band wagon. The situation is so messed up. And we need more enforcement. Truth is we get away without paying for the fish. If the salt water fisherman put just $15 towards a coastal striper permit, it would allow for an extra couple of guys an each shoreline to help stop the bridge rats from ripping everything they catch all night long. :eek:

juro
07-21-2006, 11:28 PM
I vote in favor.

Coastal alignment is totally out the window today.

Expect the crybabies to chime in with militant objections to a measly $15 license any time now... but for what we get out of the fishery, and as long as it's not put to some slush fund but 100% to the fishery and enforcement I am definitely in favor.

I talk to a lot of people visiting the area who can't believe there is no license for what this fishery has to offer. Opens my eyes a little to hear them.

MainEYak1
07-21-2006, 11:43 PM
I should say sorry now before I get tracked down and shot regarding the bridge rats comment. :razz: I know there are as many who would support protecting the fishery that throw a chuck of herring as fly. Maybe not....:rolleyes: My brother still tells me that I've lost my way and that I should get back to my roots. ( Young shore snorkeler with fork or triple-banded spear gun in hand stabbing or shooting flounder, striper or anything else that I could take by the bag full) :lildevl:

juro
07-22-2006, 12:01 AM
Of course before this gets into the usual rats nest, I have no context for what a bridge rat is. I thought you might be referring to those people I see poaching fish all the time.

Last weekend I had three guys out and watched a mother have his young son catch a schoolie, toss it into a cooler then bring it back to their parked boat. The whole family approved.

They came back soon thereafter for more. We are talking folks that look like the Cleavers on Leave it to Beaver, and not Eddie Haskell either. "Go on Beave, take another cast".

I've seen them frequently doing fillet and release on the beaches of the cape, guys who look like the Gorton's of Gloucester fisherman poaching away.

And that's not to mention the crap going on at Plum Island every day.

If $15 / head puts a visible enforcement force onto the beaches then I am all for it.

.02

bonefishmon
07-22-2006, 07:39 AM
I'll second that but as you said, the money must go into enforcement. Day and night shift patrols and not to fund some long overdue road paving projects no where near a boat ramp. It's a tough call. So many fisherman and so few conservation officers.

What good are rules after paying a fee to fish if the rules are constantly broken.

Each license should be accompanied by an easy to read, one page code of ethics. Break the rules........lose your tackle........pay a hefty fine to get it back.........pure and simple. Make it $20.00 so the state can also hand out a tape measure along with the license as a reminder not to take undersize fish.

A training program available to all salt water anglers on the proper way to approach the Cleaver families without getting a broken nose could also help. I've called to report poachers but they are usually long gone before an official arrives.

Phil

MainEYak1
07-22-2006, 10:37 AM
Yes, that's an issue. I have seen one NH F&G enforcement officer at Rye, NH in early May and that was it. Not one sighting since then anywhere along the coast doing fishery protection. Of course, we have more marine police then we can count on the Piscataqua doing patrols for safety. This is good. They seem busy pulling over speeders and looking for safety violations. But then you have the Shipyard patrols, which do nothing. They float around all day to make sure you dont get too close to the shipyard. Ever since Sept 11 and have done nothing but burn gas and $.

Warren
07-22-2006, 03:41 PM
I have a problem with a fee for a couple of reasons. One salt water fishing has & should always be free.

My number two & biggest concern is already been addressed. The money would never make it into the paycheck of enforcement officers. It would go into the general fund & be used for anything but fish cops.

If I see a guy or family for that matter poaching I tell them they are breaking the law. And I am gonna call the cops. The heck with them. If I have to abide so do you. We could have kept several 27 1/2 inchers the otherday, swore up & down they were 28. But no... we carefully unhooked them & set them free. I was hoping to get a keeper or two for the grill that day. Oh well.

Commercial fishing for stripers should be banned everywhere. They should be classified as a game fish period.
The problem is poor general attitudes & greed. Whether it be fishing, driving on the highways or business. Horray for me & F you buddy get outta my way

Sad really sad

rogerstg
07-22-2006, 06:12 PM
Of course before this gets into the usual rats nest, I have no context for what a bridge rat is. I thought you might be referring to those people I see poaching fish all the time.

Last weekend I had three guys out and watched a mother have his young son catch a schoolie, toss it into a cooler then bring it back to their parked boat. The whole family approved.

They came back soon thereafter for more. We are talking folks that look like the Cleavers on Leave it to Beaver, and not Eddie Haskell either. "Go on Beave, take another cast".

I've seen them frequently doing fillet and release on the beaches of the cape, guys who look like the Gorton's of Gloucester fisherman poaching away.

And that's not to mention the crap going on at Plum Island every day.

If $15 / head puts a visible enforcement force onto the beaches then I am all for it.

.02


What did law enforcement say when you called to report it?

Greg Pavlov
07-23-2006, 02:54 AM
.... If $15 / head puts a visible enforcement force onto the beaches then I am all for it.It could, but probably wouldn't.

There are literally thousands of us who believe in the need for limits and many of us
who would rarely if ever intentionally kill a fish even if it is of legal size. So there are
more than enough of us to cover the waterfront, so to speak. So perhaps a better
strategy might be to work with the enforcement people that *are* available to set
up and widely publicize hotline numbers to call when we see someone poaching. I
think that that could be much more effective than trying to raise, and hold on to,
money for surrogates.

rogerstg
07-23-2006, 10:15 AM
So perhaps a better strategy might be to work with the enforcement people that *are* available to set
up and widely publicize hotline numbers to call when we see someone poaching.

Of course that is the answer. The problem is that people would rather complain than actually get involved, or rather donate $$ to government waste and pat themselves on the back as if they did something positive when in fact they did the opposite.

FWIW, I've noticed enforcement telephone numbers in the abstracts that are given out at tackle shops. Given that the number is a google away from all board users, there is no excuse not to call every time someone is breaking the law. That alone would go a long way toward curbing abuses.

On the subject of paying for law enforcement: Unfortunately, too many of my fellow fisherman haven't a clue as to how government works and have bought into the notion that we need to fund enforcement ourselves. And since that is impossible to accomplished in reality, accepting that fallacy gives the politicians a pass while pro license sheeple cloud the issue with wishful thinking and resort to calling dissenters crybabies.

Law enforcement is a government role that needs to be funded with taxes. For example, in my town there is a residential street that lately has an issue with speeders. The residents complained to the town administrator. The town stepped up enforcement, paid for street signs and seems to have satisfactorily addressed the issue. Imagine how long the town administrator would stay in office if she told the street's residents that they need to come up with additional $$ annually to address the problem. Residents would not accept it. Unfortunately too many of my fishing brethren tuck their tails between their legs and slink away.
What about traffic enforcement on state roads? Should we have an extra license fee to fund those? - of course not. Fishing laws should be no different.

How to really make a difference:
1. Phone calls to enforcement when poaching is observed, as Greg mentioned.
2. If the response is unsatisfactory, send letters to their boss and continue up the ladder of responsibility. When you get a response like: sorry we don't have enough money, do not accept that.
3. Be involved at hearings and other pubic forums.
4. Send money to PACs and lobby groups that support your goals.

Until people that have a stake in the resource make themselves heard by elected representatives, we will get what we deserve.

juro
07-23-2006, 08:04 PM
Roger -

I have called before on blatant filleting on a beach at night. No one ever came.

I have had many conversations with enforcement on this topic, even on the level of citing regular occurrences where I thought they could capture the perpetrators with ease. They did not attend to the situation in fact I'd bet I could find it going on within three tries by showing up at night. I really don't think they work night shifts. One possible reason is lack of $$. But let's find out.

Let me do some research on the economics of EPO vs. budgeting, I don't like to talk trash. There are a lot of viceral assumptions being made here and I think a dose of facts would help center the discussion one way, or the other.

Do you pay for freshwater licenses or licenses to fish other places as a non-resident?