Beiträge von Patudo
-
-
I think I can speak for all of us when I ask could we see the photo you mentioned, please?
-
If I'm chartering: I don't believe it is fair to fish for anything less than five days. The more days you can spend on the water the better. The more difficult your target the more time you should give yourself. I have broken this rule myself on plenty of occasions but the shorter your charter is the more luck becomes a factor.
I haven't come across many places I would not like to come back to. I like visiting new fishing areas but I also like fishing the same places year after year. Every year you come back with a little more insight and knowledge.
If I'm fishing: Everything depends on my assessment of whether the area is likely to produce and if so in what sort of time frame. If the area looks right I may spend my whole day there and if I see nothing, come right back the next day.
-
Dave, that time share idea you mention is, dare I say it, a very 'SCBI' plan. I hope I haven't given any offence because none was intended; but you may guess at why. But then, it must be admitted that the grass-is-greener syndrome affects almost all anglers, and not too many have a really good idea how much it costs to operate a boat of the size of a 46 to 50 foot sportfisher. I had the opportunity to work on a 43 Hatteras and the costs involved in running that thing were phenomenal. The great majority of boats of the 46 foot class and up do not depend on charter income for anything more than a fraction of the cost of keeping them running. I've never come across any that are or were owned in that kind of time-share partnership and my admittedly limited experience of boating leads me to believe that a partnership of this kind can be a very good way to make deadly enemies out of best friends. Also, very often all it takes is for one person to shirk his share of the expenses - and in a boat that is undergoing a heavy charter schedule this question will arise very frequently as very few things test every part of a boat and its gear like hard fishing - and very often the boat doesn't go fishing for want of one part or another. As in so many cases I wonder that if the boat in question had been less demanding financially - like, say, a 35 or 33 Bertram - it might possibly now be necessary to dial a +351 to contact Ted!
Tom Bettle was discussing the idea of some kind of time share or mothership arrangement in the other forum - I don't know what came of it. It'll be interesting to see what happens if it does get off the ground. Personally I think the operational and logistics problems of operating such an outfit in Cape Verde are going to be very formidable. But we'll see.
Pargo, your arrangement sounds great. If it has to be a partnership the fewer the decision-makers there need to be, the better.It is true the saying that a ship is not a democracy. Inboard diesels may raise fish better. But there is no substitute for being in the right place at the right time, and if the cost of an inboard diesel boat is just too expensive you're going to get more enjoyment using a boat that won't break you financially.
I don't think self-driving to a tuna or billfish in European waters is that difficult from the actual fishing point of view. It's a much more difficult proposition to be able to afford the time and money required to achieve success.
Best regards
patudo
-
Good points by Gamefish. I agree the classic sportfisher design is the standard by which other designs need to be judged against. Good ones have a combination of fishability, weather protection and speed that is hard to beat, although these qualities come with a significant price tag. I'd disagree that there is no substitute for one though, however, because in some locations (a number of which have already been mentioned in this thread) other designs can compete on a very equal footing and in some cases have the advantage.
Once again the costs aspect must be emphasized - the bigger and more complex the vessel the greater the costs associated with it and these can, if not controlled, totally sour the enjoyment of fishing from your own vessel. Two of my favourite boat-related sayings are that "the definition of a boat is a hole in the water into which a man pours money" and "the words B.O.A.T mean 'Bring On Another Thousand!'." If you feel forced to put your vessel in charter and you end up feeling like a taxi driver; you have to take a long hard look and check whether the pleasure of owning and operating your own vessel is truly worth it. It is true that the enjoyment of running your own vessel is something that can't easily be achieved from chartering, but that enjoyment comes at a price. There is always a price. It really is important to have a realistic look at what sort of budget you have to operate on and to do some detailed research into how much different styles of vessel cost to operate.
I have no problem fishing with a single engine in most situations providing (a) it is well maintained and (b) there are people you can call upon for help on the radio but the further offshore you go the more reassuring you will find having twin engines. Catamaran designs however will require twin engines. The ski-boats require two engines because they are running high surf when launching and recovering but fortunately this isn't a situation that most of us will have to face.
A VHF radio is not an option. It's essential. There is no excuse for not having one.
The Carolina skiffs have a very flat bottom. To fish offshore a vee hull is necessary. There are plenty of good ones in the US and you'll find lots of opinions on the US boating forums. Personally I'm not a big fan of the cuddy type boats in smaller hull sizes as the space up forward all too often ends up cramped, smelly and uncomfortable. There is a point where a hull gets large enough to offer real interior space, but that point isn't reached until the vessel gets into at least the 25-foot class. For the sportfishing I can imagine myself doing, a center console with a large T-top for shade and clears for a certain amount of weather protection would be my choice for a vessel in the 21 to 25 foot class, but I would not be fishing any fishery where running long distances in rough conditions was required - too uncomfortable in a smaller boat and too expensive in a bigger one.
One design I quite like the look of, and would like to see some thought applied to modifying it for fishing, is the Botnia targa. I like the idea of the enclosed center console station which is weather-proof and offers a hard top for mounting electronics aerials, outriggers, etc. while the boat layout still offers the walk-around capability of a standard center console. I would like easier access out the back of the house into the cockpit, but I'm sure that could easily be arranged. Although it must be noted that the dimensions of even the smallest model are quite large - 25 foot LOA and 8'9" beam. So the concept needs a certain size to start to work.
best regards
patudo
-
This is a very interesting subject.
Trailering
Pros: You are less limited to one fishing location. You have your boat locked up safely on its trailer, out of the water, where it cannot sink. You can take care of it yourself instead of relying on someone else to keep an eye on it, clean it up, do routine engine maintenance and other duties, etc. No marina fees.
Cons: The vessel is limited in size and weight depending on local regulations and the power of your towing vehicle. You need to tow it to wherever you are going to fish and suffer the inconvenience of travelling by road with a boat in tow instead of just getting there and hopping on board - if you live in Germany this can be some considerable distance if your plans are to fish for tuna and billfish. You need to think about launch sites and slipways. Your boat and trailer will take up a considerable amount of space at home.
Slipping/berthing
Pros: Less trouble involved in travelling. Vessel can be larger since trailering is unnecessary.
Cons: You are more limited to one general location as travelling long distances by boat is time-consuming and expensive. Marina fees and associated costs can be very steep. The larger and more complex the vessel the greater the cost of running it will be. Normally the part of owning a fishing boat that really hurts most people is not the initial purchase price but the yearly cost of owning one. The pleasure of owning a boat can be greatly diminished if its operating costs are too steep. No matter how you are going to keep your boat, or what size or type vessel you are thinking of purchasing, you need to think very seriously about how much you can afford to set aside to keep and use your boat each year.
These are pretty tough issues and every fisherman's situation is different. Personally as I live in the UK it is impractical to trailer a boat anywhere there are gamefish, and I cannot get along with the idea of owning a boat that I need to get on a plane in order to fish. Once you own a boat it's like you are tied to it; you feel that you must get as much use out of it as possible to justify the cost of owning it. If I was lucky enough to live anywhere where there were gamefish, yes; and if I finally found somewhere felt I would be happy to tied down to as a fishing location maybe. But until that day, no. No, I haven't found the right woman either...
The choice of vessel depends a lot on the fishery. I am most familiar with monohulls but the south african ski boats Pargo mentions have an excellent safety record and are used in some very tough situations. Definitely worth some research. The main disadvantage of a catamaran is that they have less interior storage space.
Locations: the closest to you that has tuna and billfish is Croatia. Captain Olaf has some good reports covering that area. It seems to be a pretty good bluefin tuna fishery with the possibility of swordfish and spearfish. Most importantly the weather looks nice and the sea conditions not too fierce.
best regards
patudo
ps. Pargo - good luck and I hope we soon read of you testing your new torture-chair
on some very big billfish 
Big-Game Partner
