Since you asked, Roccus, here is my summary of what I saw and heard last night.
First, I don't know how many people were actually listening online, but the physical turnout at the DEC office was the smallest I have seen in the last several years. Maybe about 25 tops and, as expected the majority were from the for-hire industry.
Next, although I think I am reasonably intelligent and can read, a number of participants, including myself, did not really understand the nature of the questions posed in the "Scoping Document". I had a fully typewritten response that I intended to present live plus follow up with a formal letter. After I heard the real direction the fisheries managers and different positions of the angling community want to take, I had to rethink my opinions.
My initial impression was this amendment was to start gathering data from the "Recreational Sector" directly instead of using MRIP fudge factor estimates in conjunction with the VTR's submitted by for-hire folks. Again, it was my impression that others were also confused by some of the questions and terminology used in the "Scoping Document".
What it appears they actually want to do is find a mechanism to gather more data from the Recreational community to hopefully obtain a better data set to be combined with for-hire catch reports to decide upon size and bag limits. My overall concern here is how are you going to do that? You know what the results are likely to be if you punish people by taking away their ability to fish recreationally, in whatever form that manifests itself.
After a more thorough explanation of the proposed amendment and the questions posed by the for-hire participants, it became far more obvious that what is being asked for is a loosening of the regulations for the for-hire industry as compared to recreational allowances. We already have some form of this when it comes to current regulations for both Bluefish and Scup. I believe most in the for-hire segment do favor the ability to take a few more of the targeted species for their customers to maintain the health of their businesses.
As is pointed out many times over the years, the amount of money, time, uncertainty, and aggravation associated with running a fishing business far exceeds any recreational participation on an individual basis. Plus let's not forget for most of the for-hire folks this is their livelihood, not just a pastime. If anyone else's full time job was threatened in this way I suspect they too would be outraged.
Once again, looking at this from a business perspective, Commercial operations that use nets, longlines, pots, etc. already have different size limits and catch quotes different from the rest of us. I am not saying the Party Boat/Charter Boat operators need to have those levels of allowable catch, but it seems logical to me that they should be given some additional assistance. After all these businesses are also investing huge sums of money and time to earn a living in a respectable way. For many of these folks it is truly a matter of survival. Anyone in my age bracket, and probably many much younger, have seen the steady decline of the number of Party and Charter vessels left.
Of course, the overarching problem continues to be the way the "fisheries scientists" collect and analyze the data. We have all seen the obvious flaws in the methods they use and the terrible outcomes that result from that. I mean no disrespect to any recreational angler out there, but I have to say that the very best data, logically speaking, has to come from the folks who literally make their living doing it every day. That is not to say there aren't recreational anglers who are every bit as skilled as a for-hie person. But overall, the for-hire folks have to produce, or their businesses fail If the recreational fisherman doesn't catch a fish on a given day, they still had an enjoyable outdoor experience in most cases.
So ultimately, I think recreational and for-hire regulations do need to be devised based upon individual sets of data OR more effective method to blending the information form both sources. The problem is how do you get reliable data from the recreational community. On the for-hire side the agencies wield a big stick threatening to revoke our permits if we do not report in a timely and complete fashion. How can this be done on the recreational side?
I have at least one concern, and also a possible solution. If you are just going to take random samples of recreational anglers, you are certain to include data f\rom SOME anglers who are not as skilled as others. So maybe you interview the for-hie folks to suggest names of those who know wat they are doing to get the most accurate read. Next, as I said before, using punishments to obtain desired behaviors doesn't normally produce the desired results. How about offering an incentive to the skilled recreational angler that has an observer join them for the day. Why not have the fisheries management board arrange to pay for the fuel and bait costs for the day of the survey?
The last, and always frustrating part of all of this are the time frames involved. Even if everything were to go perfectly, the timeline laid out last night showed almost another 2 years before any of these changes could be implemented. That may very well be too late for some to survive.
Sorry for the long rant but this is a very complex subject, and my ideas are conflicted by the fact that I have participated in this sport for over 60 years from both the recreational and for-hire side of the fence.
OK, I have got my helmet on...let the salvos fly!!!
