What is wrong with NH Fish & Game?

[thefinlessbrown2]

i'm with you when you say we need more of a trophy fish program !! but it seem that f&g has issues with change .i don't see them throwing the towel in on an existing program for another .i think they veiw it as a loss of effort and money 

[wautuhguy]

Yea! Manage Bow for walleye.Ten dollar permit 2 fish limit. I'd buy one.

[swains]

I'm glad to hear some other people share my views. I'm not saying do away with the trout stocking and replace it with warmwater fish. I also like to fish for trout but you're chances of catching a true trophy in NH (over 10lbs) are literally nonexistent. Why not make some of the larger lakes trophy brown lakes? Not every large lake lake "must have " salmon, which by the way you can't even fish for through the ice. I'd like to see a good healthy balance between the two; trout and warmwater fish that have the potential to reach trophy size. Can you tell I prefer size of fish over quantity? I feel that it's posible to strike a balance and should be seriously considered. I'm pretty sure F&G does check this site. If more people agree and reply and make their feelings known, maybe, just maybe, they'll take notice and make some long overdue changes in how the money for stocking is allocated. I can only hope this becomes a reality!

[Fishback]

Does anyone know if the Saltwater Registry will be encorporated with the pro-rated Lifetime Hunting/Fishing licenses?

Getting one of those Lifetime licenses sounds sweeter and sweeter now that fees seem to be on the rise. I know that doesn't go towards certain tags like turkey, salmon, ect. ect., but I'm curious if the flat rate Saltwater fee would be included.

I don't plan on leaving NH for a while. I'm considering biting the bullet and purchasing one.

[Marshindian]

The lifetime will not cover the saltwater license. I asked. It is valid even if you move to another state, though.

[Fishback]

Thank you.

[Thumber]

Money is the key, without money all programs suffer including stocking. The cost of keeping a fish in the hatchery for 3 to 4 years must be astounding, with the cost of labor and overhead.  I think every angler wish he could latch onto a trophy fish at least one time.
New Hampshire has some great body's of water, many are fish very heavily due to housing on the shorelines,and transit fishing. In 2008 license sale were up 7% in the state which means more people are hitting the water putting more pressure on the fish population.

Maybe the State should target out of stator's with an aggressive marketing campaign to generate more revenue and use that money for a trophy fish program.

Many States that have great trophy fish programs have the population that carries the cost of for good fishing, like NY and Ma. where there sell millions of license compared to NH's which has a population that does not compare to them.

I hope that the F&G continues to be aggressive with there stocking and fund funding for these programs, we all have a bleak financial future ahead of us including the F&G.

[Fishback]

That is the source of some angst for people, regarding the Saltwater Fee. It's not like the Feds or the State have an Atlantic Cod or a Haddock farm that will replenish the fish that are taken.

All of the body's of water in NH are just that...in NH. NH F&G can regulate its own resources how they see fit. Dollar for dollar accoutability. There's no way to directly utilize the money from the Saltwater Registry in the same manner that our Freshwater/Hunting licenses revenue is put to use. The ocean is affected by every state and a plethora of countries.

I don't love the idea of having this fee. But, if it's coming...it's coming. If we're gonna pay, it may as well go to our State rather than the Feds. Hopefully our $15 is used to better our state; i.e. trophy trout pond, walley stocking, brood stocking salmon.... I'm trying to look at it as an inevitable Federal mandated program that will benefit our STATE.

This is my last post on this. I'm done. I've said my opinion in other threads. Regardless of how people feel about it....it's coming. If you chose not to pay it....that's your own business. Rhetoric will only go so far when the Coast Gaurd is boarding you doing their inspections and you don't have your license. Regardless of how people feel about it. Rules are rules. Follow them or deal with the consequences.

[Thumber]

You are right, its coming and we will pay for it. $15.00 is a fare fee and if you look at it this way, a pack of cigarettes cost over $5.00 now, a bottle of hard liquor is over $10.00, beer is up there. I give up buying 3 packs of smokes for a year of fishing is OK with me and it will better your life.

[natureboy79]

I love the salt so ill pay for it without whining.My question is,I know the state has the option to take it over before the fed gov't,but isn't the point to get better data from fisherman on your catches and the fishery.Where does it say they have to charge for a license? wouldn't a free permit with the obligation to report your catch be sufficient?

[Fishback]

Play nice.

[cSpike]

What?!  I used smiley faces.  I was only jokin' 

Knurren I'm gonna white wash you next time I see you, if there is any snow left and my broken hip doesn't fail me.

Onre the quoted point, he was implying that HE didn't mind paying the fee. Not that if someone were to decide to get a license from another state then they are wrong.

I also didn't see anyone pony up on my offer to match any contribution (by an individual) to the State F&G.

Principal young man, principal.

Spike

P.S. my dislike for this fee is not generated from the state level. It is generated in my belief that the rec. angler is not the problem. I have been fighting this for years and if it means I do not fish saltwater because of a registration or fee so be it. It's not like the fishing is unbelieveable or anything.

[Fishback]

d**n it. I always get sucked in when it comes to this issue! Ahh.

Spike. I have a question. I don't know if there is an answer for it. I think it may be relative...but perhaps there is a clear definition.

What is the definition of rec. fisherman?

I know there are large fleets of vessels out there harvesting millions of tons of haddock, pollock and cod. Those are obviously commercial vessels. Is Eastman's, Rocky's, Bunny Clark, ect. ect. considered commercial or recreational fishing.

I guess my point is...while those vessels pale in comparison to the capability of the fleet of trowlers, they do take a fair share of fish over the years. They bring out recreational fisherman as a business....

I know they're gonna be paying $100 a trip to accomodate this Registry fee. What are your thoughts on that?

[cSpike]

Pony up to match your contribution?  I'm 24 and you're how old?  Where were you at with your "contributions" at 24 years of age?  Probably no where close to where I am at.  Just something to think about before waving your flag.  You really don't have an arguement here because you don't know what you are talking about.  But you're willing to continue the arguement, that much I can count on from you.

He didn't explain it much different than we did in the other thread.  Not enough to warrant a temper tantrum full of misguided anger at me or Jiffy Man.  Keep in mind, we didn't support the federal license... how could we have, we didn't even know it existed until there were posts about it and it was a done deal.

As far as the savings account thing, Spike, it has nothing to do with whether or not I have money to go in the savings account.  In fact... I don't even know why you brought that up, I was talking about Fish and Game using interest and used the truck payment scenario as an example.  I don't think I have to remind you who just purchased a snowmobile this year.      Don't be frontin' lol

What are you talking about? You quote me and then don't make any comments as to what I posted?? My pony up comment is not directed at you alone. I know your situation.   (BTW me at 24 you don't know where I was do you, lol page from Jiffy). I wasn't waving a flag just putting it out there that anyone willing to make a contribution ( since it seems so important to some) that I'd match it. That is all.
Yeah your right I have no idea what I'm talking about.
As far as your savings account analogy and the F&G not meeting estimated funds due to lower interest rates.... How stupid should we all be to buy into that??? If you have $100 and you put iinto savings for say an insurance payment. Do you count on the interest to help you make that payment??? If you do you need a coarse on money management. Also I don't consider a savings account an investment.

I did buy a used sled this year with money I earned and I saved. Nobody handed it to me. I think I was able to save it by not spending it on fruitless $15 items.

I don't believe I am the one that continued any argument. I posted numbers that were ignored. If you guys want to make points and discuss issues come with some facts.
As far as flag waving, I'm not the guy referencing that I am in college on every other post.

Don't worry I remember when I was 24. I thought I knew everything too.

Spike

[cSpike]

d**n it. I always get sucked in when it comes to this issue! Ahh.

Spike. I have a question. I don't know if there is an answer for it. I think it may be relative...but perhaps there is a clear definition.

What is the definition of rec. fisherman?

I know there are large fleets of vessels out there harvesting millions of tons of haddock, pollock and cod. Those are obviously commercial vessels. Is Eastman's, Rocky's, Bunny Clark, ect. ect. considered commercial or recreational fishing.

I guess my point is...while those vessels pale in comparison to the capability of the fleet of trowlers, they do take a fair share of fish over the years. They bring out recreational fisherman as a business....

I know they're gonna be paying $100 a trip to accommodate this Registry fee. What are your thoughts on that?

a recreational fisherman does not sell his catch.
Average catch rate for a recreational angler is 7 fish per day. Now before the world goes and tells me how good they are and they catch waaay more than 7 fish in a day, the key word is AVERAGE. A recreational fishery has no impact on the ocean. Mother nature and the grounds we are able to fish put enough limits on us.
I have seen Ipswich bay literally cleared of a massive amount of bait in three days. I never would have believed it if I didn't see it myself.
 Ever target cod or haddock in July? Within 25 miles, maybe even 30?? Let me know how you do.
It is a sad state out there and a recreational license isn't going to fix or help anything. If you younin's want to keep giving up your liberty's without questioning why then go ahead. I'm trying to hold onto my rights without a fee associated with everyone of them.

Spike
What do I think about it....LOL.
I thought I have been pretty clear on that. TOTAL BS!

Spike

[cSpike]

Pony up to match your contribution?  I'm 24 and you're how old?  Where were you at with your "contributions" at 24 years of age?  Probably no where close to where I am at. 

Surely you can afford say.......$15 to donate. I'd match that. I wasn't asking you to match me................

Spike

[Fishback]

I have seen Ipswich bay literally cleared of a massive amount of bait in three days. I never would have believed it if I didn't see it myself.

Who went out and cleared the bait in Ipswich Bay?

[james]

probably a seiner.

james

[Fishback]

Commercial Herring operations James?

[james]

Commercial Herring operations James?

Fishback, I assume that's what CaptSpike was referring to.

[6wheels]

 This subject is certainly testy. A lot of folks I respect on this site, but the philosophy of "aww f&g are a good buncha guys - just give 'em the money and don't squawk" doesn't fly with me. Donald Trump once said that he couldn't pass by a penny on the ground without picking it up. When asked why, he said because now it belongs to me and not someone else. You're not paying for the fishing experience when you hand over $15, you're paying for whatever the Feds or F&g does to IMPROVE that experience. If that's not the case and anyone just wants to hand over money because fishing is fun - hey, why not send it to me? Promise I'll spend it on good stuff!

[Fishback]

Just trying to understand his points James.

I understand the frustration on his part. I wish this didn't have to happen. But the bottom line is regardless of if it's commercial or recreational...we are taking more fish out of the ocean than is going in.

I've been on fishing on the big pond for years now. I'm not new to it. I know how it works. You can't tell me that the thousands of vessels packed with fisherman doesn't effect the fishery. How bout the fellas with seasons passes who go every sail. I won't even throw in the marathons and the super marathons that most operations offer.  

Lets do some math...just for giggles. Using the season's pass holders only. NOT the 1 or 2 timers.

Lets say that 7 people on a sail has a seasons pass. Of the 244 days in a regular season (Estimated April--November). Bad weather and birthdays cut the sails down to 200 days on the water for them. Using Spikes figure of 7 keeper average.

Ok then.    7 people at 7 keepers a trip. That's 49 keepers. 49 keepers, 200 sails a year....That's 9,800 fish just from those 7 people alone. That's excluding the other people on the boat, marathons, super marathons and the other fleet of boats out there fishing.

Almost 10,000 fish. That was for 1 boat for 1 season for SEVEN PEOPLE (using averages). Most outfitters have multiple boats that sail everyday. And there are thousands of operations, both commercial AND recreational up and down the eastern seaboard.

Let's call a spade a spade. Proof is in the pudding. Go and talk to the old timers who are in the pictures in the wheelhouses holding up 90# codfish on a regular basis. Be it commercial OR recreational....those fish are a dying breed. Fishin' aint what it used to be. PERIOD.

As far as giving up my up my liberties....well..... Keeping a resource like alive isn't a liberty to me. It's an investment. I'm trying to ensure that my grandkids can b***h about something before it's gone. Right now its damage control from our mistakes in the past. Throwing money may not fix the problem but neither will denial that the problem exists either.

[Fishback]

Man o man. I'm starting to sound like Nancy Pelosi here! 

[cSpike]

So does this mean you're not fishing with me this weekend  LOL

Give me a call your always welcome. I hold no ill feeling to you or Jiffy. When I get a little personal it was in response to you getting personal. Half the time I don't know when your joking or not. The LOL isn't always believable.
 What is great is that we can all have different opinions on anything and so far it doesn't look like anyone got banned over it. .

Fishback there are published numbers on NMFS website as to the recreational impact on the fishery. Those are not my numbers. I was heavily into the fight years ago but have since warn down. The numbers are likely even less today since in my humble opinion the fishing has gotten much worse. If you read any fish reports you'll see what I'm talking about. If you fish the " big pond" then you should know what I am talking about. I am also sorry but in figuring an average you have to count everyone that goes fishing not just the high liners.
When you do find the information you will be surprised to learn the difference in metric tons landed between the two sectors.
I could go on and on but I'm really sick of pointing the obvious. Do a search on the decline of the fishery there is a lot of good reading. One such page I found highlighted the history of fishing and when the fishery actually started to decline due to the invention of the boat motor. Until then the fish were able to sustain themselves. Add modern fishing gear and individual boats became very effective at what they do. With no limits or restricted areas the fisheries took the hit. Even with all that going on it still took a while for the true impact to be felt. Permitting too many vessels added to the problem. Now we have restricted fishing zones, rolling closures and protected spawning habitat. Slowly the fishery is coming back. Big problem now is when one fishery gets shut down they lax the limits on another so the commercial fisherman can still make a living. Then that fishery goes down and so on.
Well I said I wasn't gonna go on and I'm stopping now. All I can say is there is a wealth of information out there. If commercial boats were all rod and reel I believe the fishery would be better off and we wouldn't have any problems. Seiners, gillnetter, longliners draggers with there improved fishing techniques is what is killed the fishery. Not the recreational fisherman that fishes April to November (if he's lucky).
Do you believe the recreational angler depleted the Bass fishery? That didn't come back because we went to a 35" limit. It came back due to shutting off the commercial harvest when the fish were spawning. Now we have a bait problem, so the bass are skinnier. It is a never ending circle. Until NMFS regulates the fishery as a whole and not just an individual sector there will always be problems.

Spike

[cSpike]

Fishback on your numbers I have to laugh. 7 fish per person on 200 trips, LOL. Those are some hard core numbers. I'd bet a years salary there isn't 7 people on a boat that limit out everyday of the season.
9800 fish is a drop in the bucket. Probably doesn't even come close to a single tows discards.

Spike

[NH Trout Fisherman]

All I will say is..........

That's rare for me

[Fishback]

I was pleased to see your post fella. That's the type of discussion that is healthy when talking about a subject like this.

I do agree that my numbers are a bit unrealistic. I was just using a calendar and the average of 7 keepers. I go out 10-15 times a year on average. Every time I go out, I see the same faces in the same places on the boat. Perhaps my assumption of them going every sail is a bit much. But I think that you understand what I'm trying to illustrate.

My last year over at UNH, I was involved in a research project for a Social Work class that I was enrolled in. We had to choose an issue out there that you're passionate about and want to further explore. My choice was the affects on the pelagic fish species due to commercial longlining. It was a doosey. It took me all semester to finish. When completed, it was in excess of 60 pages. In that time, I spent many hours in the library and online finding information for the basis of my project. Over that time, I came across the various aspects that you brought up; i.e. introduction of powermotors, moving from rod/reel to nets, radar, sonar, ect. ect. It soon became very clear to me that we are putting a whoopin on the ocean fisheries at a rate that if maintained, will soon make a CONSERVation effort into a PRESERVation effort.

My point is fella. While we probably will not come to an agreement on this issue, don't dismiss us young whippersnappers as hippies or unexperienced green horns. There are people out there who do have wealth of information to offer regardless of their age or experience. Have a worked on a trowler...NO. Have I had my own charter company....No again. But I do own my own business and I am an educated soul. We may not agree....I'm okay with that. I don't think we have to.

All I know, is when I'm getting close to the age of retirement, I hope that I have the capability of fullfilling a dream of mine. I want to start my own charter company. I'll do everything that I can to be constructive in finding a way to help the big poind. I love it. I should have put my effort into Marine Biology or Oceanic something or other while I was at UNH. Damn.

Good chat Spike.

[james]

Fishback, let me tell you a little story.

My family started Tuna fishing back in the fifty's, and my dad as well as i continued the tradition into the ninety's.

Back in the seventy's there were fish of all kinds every where, haddock, cod, tuna you name it you didn't have far to go to catch fish.

There were no limits no permits no licenses, you just went out fishing, kinda like  recreational fishing today only better.

but way back in the seventy's the feds realised that we were putting a huge strain on the fish stocks, and started with all kinds of licenses and permits and lots of fish studies, and all kinds of new rules that went way of the charts.

just for an example, there were very few if any commercial tuna fisherman forty years ago when there were lots of tuna to be had, but the feds said we were catching way to many, so they put length limits on tuna we could harpoon

let me tell ya its kinda hard to measure a tuna before you stick a harpoon in its back.

but everyone was cool with it all, because we believed in conservation.
and then the feds said we were still catching way to many so they started quotas.
and again we were cool with it.

But in the eighty's along came these huge purse seiners that could take hundreds of fish at a time, and we were allowed 1.
and as time went on, all the tuna stocks dwindled to nothing.
as well as the ground fish, under the feds watch.

But hey the feds know whats right, because they been doing studies for years.
and now they want your fifteen dollars too, because the fish stocks are in trouble.

So its not about supporting F&G or whats left of the fish stocks, its just some of us have been there and done that before.

james

[james]

Fishback on your numbers I have to laugh. 7 fish per person on 200 trips, LOL. Those are some hard core numbers. I'd bet a years salary there isn't 7 people on a boat that limit out everyday of the season.
9800 fish is a drop in the bucket. Probably doesn't even come close to a single tows discards.

Spike

Have you ever seen a dragger dump its net on the deck?
theres about 1,000 pounds of live fish and other assorted marine life.
their lucky if they yield a hundred pounds out of that.
the rest get thrown off with fish picks, pitch forks, shovels you name it.
right into the seagulls mouth.
Not to mention the habitat on the bottom they ruin by dragging.
and they do this hour after hour, day after day, With NMFS observers on board.
why don't they stop them ?
How is fifteen dollars going to mount to anything when they wont stop the obvious.

james

[6wheels]

If anyone wants to see a prime example of F&G mismanagement, take a ride over to Stoddard NH along route 123. Nine hundred acres of land (yes, 900!) that is under current use recreational status (available for use by sportsman for hunting, fishing, etc.) is posted no hunting or weapons allowed. The land owner, a Mr. Faulkner who lives in Rhode Island has decided to defraud the state of NH out of tens of thousands of dollars of tax revenue by illegally  posting this property. Why is this Fish and Games fault you ask? Because THEY provided Mr. Faulkner with the signs to post his property! Our Fish and Game Department logo is proudly emblazoned on signs that WE paid for with our licensing fees to post property AGAINST sportsman useage. I have brought this to F&G's attention several times, going to Concord twice and speaking with Ted Walski in the field and all have promised to look into it. The result? A brand new bunch of identical signs nailed to trees. When I brought it to the attention of Stoddard town officials, they told me that Mr Faulkner donated some property for a town ballfield and they don't want to upset him. Well, my question would be since Mr. Faulkner bribed the town of Stoddard into allowing tax fraud to continue, just how much of a bribe did it take to get Fish and Game on board?