I'm ok with this. I'd prefer one at 36 but this is better than nothing. Also it will be easier for enforcement as most everyone knows 28" is the magic number. Change it to 36" and in sure a lot if 28" fish would be taken by accident.

Well that's my ten cents.

Wait so you are saying is that in what state we can only keep 1 fish that messures exactly 28"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup Skip no 28 1/8" fish! :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup Skip no 28 1/8" fish! :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What state? And thats bull#^&#^&#^&#^& bunch of cry babies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait so you are saying is that in what state we can only keep 1 fish that messures exactly 28"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well .. An altered state if you like
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1@28 (or greater). Including rec and party boats. Individual states could vote for something like 1@32, but conservational equivalent to a 25% in harvest. Is that correct?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Coast wide Skip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

27 and 7/8's must be released .... makes sense

"conservation equivalency"
That could be the stickler as it enables things to be tweaked by each state I think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"conservation equivalency"
That could be the stickler as it enables things to be tweaked by each state I think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But limited to 1@?, as a minimum? If a state chooses to be more conservative they can vote the 1@32 or something, but 1 fish per day. This is excellent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Works for me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe i am miss understanding the original post......

Is its 28" or greater or 28" only.

I have no problem with 1 per day as long as it is a slot or a greater than.

We all know i only catch shorts anyways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One per day at 28 or bigger! Knucklehead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

About damn time the recs took the hit too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One per day at 28 or bigger! Knucklehead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well thats diff and it wasnt said, my luck i would be the only cracker to get arrested for a 28 1/8" fish as my PB
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservational equivalency just means that whatever measure States introduce have to have technical committee sign-off that their alternative to 1@28 produces the same 25% reduction in harvest totals that the 1@28 overarching motion was introduced to create.

Hence the gray area it introduces
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is good...to clarify, this is a 1 year rule or is it 3 years or indefinitely? I had to get off the call before the vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm curious if there was any reduction in commercial Harvest limits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe it was 25% for the comms as well eben, and the book went out yesterday

I believe it was 25% for the comms as well eben, and the book went out yesterday

I think you right Paul, 25% total harvest including comm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PERSONALLY i LIKE 1 @ 28 .IT GIVES THE GUY THAT BUYS FROZEN POGIES @ THE BAITSHOP & FISHES FROM SHORE A FAIR CHANCE OF CATCHING SUPPER . @ 36" THE AVERAGE SHORE FISHERMAN WOULD HAVE A 90% ON NOT GETTING A LEGAL FISH .DISREGUARD THE PLUGGERS /MEAT FISHERMAN , ETC :bounce:

"conservation equivalency"
That could be the stickler as it enables things to be tweaked by each state I think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm concerned about this as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

step in the right direction. 1@ exactly 28" would a been a better choice though :tooth:

Micro slot ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like $3.00 a gallon gasoline it could always be better, but you won't hear me bitching about it.

Great news. Its more than i thought they would do honestly. I listened online for a many hours today... It could have gone either way.
Definitely a great step towards preserving bass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am happy with it. I would have preferred 32 or 36 but this is a big step in the right direction. When does this become effective, Jan 1 2015?

Definitely a good step in the right direction.

Now if there was only stricter punishments for poachers.
Somehow the existing fines and penalties just don't seem to do the trick.

Definitely a good step in the right direction.

Now if there was only stricter punishments for poachers.
Somehow the existing fines and penalties just don't seem to do the trick.

Agreed, until the fines make it not worth getting caught people will continue to do it. Loss of gear, boats, vehicles, fines that hurt and jail time may do the trick.

A lot of motions were passed today...In my opinion the most important two were...

1) They passed a motion cutting Amendment 6 coastwise commercial quotas by 25%

2) They passed the motion for coastwise recreational catch selecting Option B1 (1@ 28") and setting the conservation equivalency at 25%

Yes, just as is currently allowed, states can submit an alternative measure that meets Technical Committee approval based on a minimum 25% reduction in landings. I am already hearing that RI will consider a conservation equivalency for the for hire fleet...based purely on what I see in the existing analysis Instead of 1 @ 28" (the document credits this as a 31% reduction) A state could choose 2 fish over 33" (the document credits this a 29% reduction).

Bottom line is we will all have to be vigilant in our individual states and participate when local measures are developed

Bottom line is we WON the 1 year reduction, we won a reduction of at least 25% across the board. THIS WAS ALARGE WIN

BIG KUDOS to all that shoed up today including: Craig from Van Stall, Toby from The Fisherman, Jimmy Fee from On The Water, Willy Young and crew from the NY Alliance, Steve Medeiros & crew from RISAA, the guys from MD, the crew from ME that brought and distributed the Save Our Stripers hats, the guy from the 1@ 32 FB page who brought the signs and the crew from MSBA...TOGETHER WE DID IT

They Listened...Yes They DID

Maybe i am miss understanding the original post......

Is its 28" or greater or 28" only.

I have no problem with 1 per day as long as it is a slot or a greater than.

We all know i only catch shorts anyways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Skippy, what the hell are you smokin?????

This is GREAT. I also would have preferred 1 @ 32" but Clammer (Mike) makes a good point about the shore guys who just want a dinner fish.

The 25% reduction for the comms also works for me as long as the Fkers in Maryland and Delaware go along with the whole program.

So, maybe there is a little light at the end of the tunnel. I'll not get excited until I start seeing documented evidence of a turn around as we did starting around 1998...2000.

yup this is ok but the popular vote was 32. That was what was voted from just about every meeting i went to.

Definitely a good step in the right direction.

Now if there was only stricter punishments for poachers.
Somehow the existing fines and penalties just don't seem to do the trick.

Isn't that appealing to a whole different set of lawmakers? :read:

Skippy, what the hell are you smokin?????

Nothing thats how little faith i have in stupid laws and the people that make them and the people that want them......


I went with they did something stupid as always..... example the seat belt law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm curious if there was any reduction in commercial Harvest limits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe it was 25% for the comms as well eben, and the book went out yesterday

I thought there was an issue that the comms. didn't come close to hitting the quota in the base line period so while their quota got reduced 25%, they can actually land like 6% more fish. Hope that makes sense.

Conservational equivalency just means that whatever measure States introduce have to have technical committee sign-off that their alternative to 1@28 produces the same 25% reduction in harvest totals that the 1@28 overarching motion was introduced to create.

Hence the gray area it introduces
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree - yesterday was the first step in the battle. This gray area is something that may very well be the next battle in various states. You can bet the for-hire industry is trying to figure out a conservation equivalency to enable a two fish bag. It could be an increase in size or a shorter season. Keep an eye out for this work around and be ready to battle again.

About damn time the recs took the hit too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Recs have been pushing for a hit for a while. The Mass recs pushed Mass DW to not increase from 1 to 2 fish and the 25% increase in comm quotas back in 2006.

A lot of motions were passed today...In my opinion the most important two were...

1) They passed a motion cutting Amendment 6 coastwise commercial quotas by 25%

2) They passed the motion for coastwise recreational catch selecting Option B1 (1@ 28") and setting the conservation equivalency at 25%

Yes, just as is currently allowed, states can submit an alternative measure that meets Technical Committee approval based on a minimum 25% reduction in landings. I am already hearing that RI will consider a conservation equivalency for the for hire fleet...based purely on what I see in the existing analysis Instead of 1 @ 28" (the document credits this as a 31% reduction) A state could choose 2 fish over 33" (the document credits this a 29% reduction).

Bottom line is we will all have to be vigilant in our individual states and participate when local measures are developed

Bottom line is we WON the 1 year reduction, we won a reduction of at least 25% across the board. THIS WAS ALARGE WIN

BIG KUDOS to all that shoed up today including: Craig from Van Stall, Toby from The Fisherman, Jimmy Fee from On The Water, Willy Young and crew from the NY Alliance, Steve Medeiros & crew from RISAA, the guys from MD, the crew from ME that brought and distributed the Save Our Stripers hats, the guy from the 1@ 32 FB page who brought the signs and the crew from MSBA...TOGETHER WE DID IT

They Listened...Yes They DID

Good writeup - a step forward but not done.

I thought there was an issue that the comms. didn't come close to hitting the quota in the base line period so while their quota got reduced 25%, they can actually land like 6% more fish. Hope that makes sense.

Yes - that is concerning

I agree - yesterday was the first step in the battle. This gray area is something that may very well be the next battle in various states. You can bet the for-hire industry is trying to figure out a conservation equivalency to enable a two fish bag. It could be an increase in size or a shorter season. Keep an eye out for this work around and be ready to battle again.

Yep

I am very happy with the result. I agree with the shore bound fish @ 28 as most fisherman go out to bring something home and those guys keep the bait and tackle shops happy, there is lots of smiling kids faces etc and in many cases that was all of us when we started. I tried for a "keeper" for 2 years and was so pumped as was my family the day I finally brought home a 31 inch fish.
For me the win was changing it in year one with 25%, as there is no time to wait. A 3 year phase in seemed like it wasn't enough. Great job by everyone who wrote in and attended. I wasn't able to make it yesterday, but made it to Viking Lounge a few months ago and said my thoughts/asked my questions. It seems at least to me this was a pretty good process. In the end we all question politics, but the outcome seems generally alligned with the representation by the public and what appears to be well verified science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree with DZ, it's a grey area for sure.

Since this meeting comes 2 months before 2015 (when the regs go into effect) I'd be surprised to see any public comment on C.E., although they could enact the 1 fish at 28 or greater and float into a C.E. decision say for April or May 2015 and hold a public comment period.

1@28 for the entire east coast. Rod and reel ONLY. No if's and's or butt's.

Conservational Equivalency..this may not be such a good thing afterall. I guess we'll see what the individual states vote in.
One mind boggling possible recommendation the ASFMC made at the meetings was that 2@33" would be a 29% reduction (Option B5) so a state could still vote in 2@whatever # to meet the cons. equiv factor predicted by the ASFMC. We'll see which states are quick to adopt these. I'm lost at that "science" thinks killing 2@33 instead of 2@28 is a "reduction". Somehow to me this doesn't look so good.

I agree - yesterday was the first step in the battle. This gray area is something that may very well be the next battle in various states. You can bet the for-hire industry is trying to figure out a conservation equivalency to enable a two fish bag. It could be an increase in size or a shorter season. Keep an eye out for this work around and be ready to battle again.

What's wrong with that? As long as its a 25% reduction, why should we care exactly how it is achieved?

I agree with DZ, it's a grey area for sure.

Since this meeting comes 2 months before 2015 (when the regs go into effect) I'd be surprised to see any public comment on C.E., although they could enact the 1 fish at 28 or greater and float into a C.E. decision say for April or May 2015 and hold a public comment period.

As I understand it, conservation equivalancy was part of the approved motion. If that's the case, there would be no public hearing for equivalent regulations, all that is needed is the approval of the technical committee.

What's wrong with that? As long as its a 25% reduction, why should we care exactly how it is achieved?

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

I couldn't agree more
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I understand it, conservation equivalancy was part of the approved motion. If that's the case, there would be no public hearing for equivalent regulations, all that is needed is the approval of the technical committee.

Mike - I'm not sure if it anything like this would need to come from the RI Striped Bass Advisory Committee and then to the RIMFC?

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

That's why a slot with a relatively small bass coupled with a trophy bass over 45", for example, would provide much better protection of the breeding stock.

There is no comparison between a one fish bag, and a two fish bag.

The goal of the addendum was to protect the current SSB and the 2011 yoy.

A one fish bag answers that call, but a CE measure such as two @ 33" or larger doesn't help the SSB component, despite the "on paper it works" train of thought.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 1 fish at 28" or greater was quickly changed to include or any limit that meets the 25% reduction. This opens it up to many other options. As Patrick said now we have to watch the states. NH will be meeting to decide on the new limit on Nov 6. See below

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department will hold a public hearing on proposed marine rules on November 6, 2014, at 7 p.m. at the Urban Forestry Center, 45 Elwyn Road in Portsmouth, N.H. The hearing is an opportunity to provide public comment on proposed changes to recreational bag and/or size limits for striped bass. These changes are being proposed to comply with measures in Addendum IV to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.

Written comments on the new rules may be submitted by November 13, 2014. E-mail to comments@wildlife.nh.gov (please put "Comment on Marine Rules" in subject line); fax to (603) 271-1438; or mail to Executive Director, N.H. Fish and Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301.

From the original Add. IV, below are just some of the options a state may select.


1 at > 28” >31% reduction
1 at > 30” > 31% reduction
1 at >32” > 31% reduction
1 at 28-40” slot > 31% reduction
2 at >33” > 29% reduction
2 at 28-34” slot > 28% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-34” slot 1 fish 36” min >28% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-36” slot 1 fish 38” min >26% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-37” slot 1 fish 40” min >26% reduction

Sorry if this was already answered but on the Rec side, how do they know what the reduction % impact is here when they don't even know what the rec harvest actually is? How can you say the reduction will be X % when you don't even know what that X % is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

Spot on - all the charter boats slamming big fish at the SW corner will happily abide by a 2 @ 33 = business as usual

Might need a new battlecry - "Hold the bag at one" or something similar. It will be a mess if different states go two fish bag. It will only take one state... then all the other bordering states will cry unfair advantage, especially in the for hire component. Happend with tautog. Time to hold the line. Fight for this fish is not done.

Any state or group, and especially the for-hire industry, trying to get two fish now will be as welcome as a monster fart at a church funeral. :nailem:

The for hire industry is certainly going to push for 2 fish and if they get 2@33" or some equivalent it really won't have much of an impact on the numbers of fish the for hire sector is taking. What it will do is make it that much harder for the average recreational guy to get a keeper. There are many people out there today who spend good money on bait and gear and who struggle with finding any keeper sized fish with limits at 28". What will end up happening if 2@33" is adopted is that the for hire sector will go on more or less unaffected by the cuts while the average recreational guy takes the brunt of the cuts. Doesn't sound fair to me when we are talking about a public resource.

Mike - I'm not sure if it anything like this would need to come from the RI Striped Bass Advisory Committee and then to the RIMFC?

Ah! Sorry I thought you were talking about public hearing by the ASMFC. Yes, the normal procedure would be for the RIMFC to take it up at one of their monthly meetings, where they would accept comments from the public.

There is no comparison between a one fish bag, and a two fish bag.

The goal of the addendum was to protect the current SSB and the 2011 yoy.

A one fish bag answers that call, but a CE measure such as two @ 33" or larger doesn't help the SSB component, despite the "on paper it works" train of thought.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A 2 fish at 33 inches will completely protect the 2011 year class, at least for a few years. A 1 at 28 inches will not protect the 2011 year class after next year.

The for hire industry is certainly going to push for 2 fish and if they get 2@33" or some equivalent it really won't have much of an impact on the numbers of fish the for hire sector is taking. What it will do is make it that much harder for the average recreational guy to get a keeper. There are many people out there today who spend good money on bait and gear and who struggle with finding any keeper sized fish with limits at 28". What will end up happening if 2@33" is adopted is that the for hire sector will go on more or less unaffected by the cuts while the average recreational guy takes the brunt of the cuts. Doesn't sound fair to me when we are talking about a public resource.

There is nothing to prevent the for hire industry from having different rules than the general puublic. NY has done it for years with striped bass and RI already does it for scup and tog.

Spot on - all the charter boats slamming big fish at the SW corner will happily abide by a 2 @ 33 = business as usual

And what's wrong with that? It will accomplish the conservation objective even if it won't satisfy your jealously.

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

Obscene is in the eye of the beholder. :) Most of the guy fishing on those charters only do so once a year, so effectively they would be fishing under a two fish a year limit, or don't you think the average charter fisherman should have to the same rights as a shore or private boat fisherman?

Wow Mike, T think you've set a record for the most rants on a single thread ever. do you never have any posetive point towards conservation in any way or is all just about how many you can kill to make a buck. Boy do your rants get anoying after a while.

Either way I'm still making Chowda out of them bastages!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obscene is in the eye of the beholder. :) Most of the guy fishing on those charters only do so once a year, so effectively they would be fishing under a two fish a year limit, or don't you think the average charter fisherman should have to the same rights as a shore or private boat fisherman?

With all due respect it really doesn't much matter that guys charter only once a year. The charters themselves are on the water daily with the next batch of "once a year" sportsmen.

The 1 fish at 28" or greater was quickly changed to include or any limit that meets the 25% reduction. This opens it up to many other options. As Patrick said now we have to watch the states. NH will be meeting to decide on the new limit on Nov 6. See below

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department will hold a public hearing on proposed marine rules on November 6, 2014, at 7 p.m. at the Urban Forestry Center, 45 Elwyn Road in Portsmouth, N.H. The hearing is an opportunity to provide public comment on proposed changes to recreational bag and/or size limits for striped bass. These changes are being proposed to comply with measures in Addendum IV to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.

Written comments on the new rules may be submitted by November 13, 2014. E-mail to comments@wildlife.nh.gov (please put "Comment on Marine Rules" in subject line); fax to (603) 271-1438; or mail to Executive Director, N.H. Fish and Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301.

From the original Add. IV, below are just some of the options a state may select.


1 at > 28” >31% reduction
1 at > 30” > 31% reduction
1 at >32” > 31% reduction
1 at 28-40” slot > 31% reduction
2 at >33” > 29% reduction
2 at 28-34” slot > 28% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-34” slot 1 fish 36” min >28% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-36” slot 1 fish 38” min >26% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-37” slot 1 fish 40” min >26% reduction


Great post - this has the potential to be a state by state clusterf*ck.

I understand the statistics in how it's justified, but for practical matters, "Conservational Equivalent" = F'ing mess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Either way I'm still making Chowda out of them bastages!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And I'm still eatin it!!!!'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow Mike, T think you've set a record for the most rants on a single thread ever. do you never have any posetive point towards conservation in any way or is all just about how many you can kill to make a buck. Boy do your rants get anoying after a while.

right- I'm not sure what the motivation is to keep coming onto this site (and others) to continually antagonize people over their beliefs on strier fishing..... I'm not sure where ou're coming from at all!! It used to be a reasonable, well-contemplated discussion with you, but lately you seem to get some strange satisfaction by jabbing at folks who want to see the fishery conserved (rather than exploited)

With all due respect it really doesn't much matter that guys charter only once a year. The charters themselves are on the water daily with the next batch of "once a year" sportsmen.

And that is exactly the point. Great post #^&#^&#^&#^&. You beat me too it.
Mike is just trying to protect his lively-hood at the expense of the future striper fishery.

right- I'm not sure what the motivation is to keep coming onto this site (and others) to continually antagonize people over their beliefs on strier fishing..... I'm not sure where ou're coming from at all!! It used to be a reasonable, well-contemplated discussion with you, but lately you seem to get some strange satisfaction by jabbing at folks who want to see the fishery conserved (rather than exploited)

I'm all in favor of conservation, in fact, as I pointed out a number of times the plan put forward by the ASMFC only has a slightly better than 50-50 chance of achieving the objective. I would have much preferred a 1 @ 32 limit which would have a much better chance of preventing overfishing. What I don't get is the hypocrisy of people cheering for the new limits while seeking to deny the same limits to other folks.

And that is exactly the point. Great post #^&#^&#^&#^&. You beat me too it.
Mike is just trying to protect his lively-hood at the expense of the future striper fishery.

FYI I have never chartered for striped bass, its not my specialty, and I haven't chartered at all for the past three years while I was taking care of my wife. Ypu guys just don't seem to get two basic points:

1- striped bass spawning success is totally dependent on the weather, something we have no control over. What the ASMFC is trying to do is keep the SSB high enough so that when we do get favorable weather conditions we will get an extremely large year class of fish, like the 2011 year class.

2- The best hope for a strong spawn is from the 2011 year class, and that year class will only be protected for about a year with these new rules.

With all due respect it really doesn't much matter that guys charter only once a year. The charters themselves are on the water daily with the next batch of "once a year" sportsmen.

The charterboats are like buses that only take the fishermen to the fishing grounds. Maybe we should restrict private boats to only fishing once a week? How about prohibiting fishing from the beach every other weekend?

Wow Mike, T think you've set a record for the most rants on a single thread ever. do you never have any posetive point towards conservation in any way or is all just about how many you can kill to make a buck. Boy do your rants get anoying after a while.

Its also annoying to me how so many guys can ignore the basic life history of the fish we are trying to protect. Look back at my posts and you'll find I wanted new rules that were stricter than what was adopted.

For the record, I have never made one thin dime from striped bass.

FYI I have never chartered for striped bass, its not my specialty, and I haven't chartered at all for the past three years while I was taking care of my wife. Ypu guys just don't seem to get two basic points:

1- striped bass spawning success is totally dependent on the weather, something we have no control over. What the ASMFC is trying to do is keep the SSB high enough so that when we do get favorable weather conditions we will get an extremely large year class of fish, like the 2011 year class.

2- The best hope for a strong spawn is from the 2011 year class, and that year class will only be protected for about a year with these new rules.

OK, then I apologize. I did not know you didn't charter for Stripers.

I will agree with some reservations with Point #1.

Point #2 become somewhat academic as if we don't protect SOMETHING then we will be left with NOTHING. I understand that 1 @ 28 only protects, in theory, one year class but Mike, you have to start somewhere.

I don't believe that the new rules will do anything to stop the wanton slaughter of 40s and 50s that took place at the SW Ledge and The Block in general, this past Summer. Perhaps the 25% decrease in the comm quote will do something to mitigate this problem but, and I have been preaching this for years now, the only way the Striper problem gets solved permanently is with Game Fish Status.

That being said, I firmly believe that I will not see this in my lifetime.

Per Mike's point on 2011 year protection, maybe this needs to be like the fluke regs. Each year the legal length goes up to continue protection of that year population for spawning until things get back to where they need to be. Just a thought....not likely to happen me thinks.

Obscene is in the eye of the beholder. :) Most of the guy fishing on those charters only do so once a year, so effectively they would be fishing under a two fish a year limit, or don't you think the average charter fisherman should have to the same rights as a shore or private boat fisherman?
There is nothing that says they can only fish on a charter. They can fish from shore or private boat. Whether it is a charter or the banks of the canal, it is obscene and the regulations need to reduce it. I don't care if the guys do so once a year. The boats go out twice a day and hit the same schools of big fish over and over until they are depleted, then move on to the next one.
http://www.virginiabeachstriperfishing.com/reports/photo/s_1262296743006%20-%20Copy.JPG

I'll guarantee that most of the fish in that picture ended up in a dumpster. Either soon after the picture or a year later tossed in the trash with freezer burn.
I've been on both sides of the fence on this issue for a long time. But taking into account the greed of the few that effect the pleasure of the many, I agree with Paul. Make it a gamefish and the problem is solved. Though not in my lifetime either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sad thought isn't it MAKAI. We've spent yrs working to preserve what a few want to wipe out to pay for a cruise or a new boat or motor.

Allowing charter boats to continue to kill two fish per customer is disgusting. Every recreational fisherman should be on equal footing.

You shouldn't be able to buy extra fish above your limit by hiring someone who has lobbied his ASMFC reps to allow you to kill more fish than the rest of us so he might profit.

PERIOD.

Amen!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Numbskull summed it up... I totally agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Allowing charter boats to continue to kill two fish per customer is disgusting. Every recreational fisherman should be on equal footing.

You shouldn't be able to buy extra fish above your limit by hiring someone who has lobbied his ASMFC reps to allow you to kill more fish than the rest of us so he might profit.

PERIOD.

Very well said!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes- this battle will go on in each and every state in the next few weeks, as individual states start to set their own specific regs/conservation equivalents..

we ALL need to keep putting the pressure on our states' commissioners so that they continue to understand that the public wants this fishery conserved and restored

I was so excited the evening 1@28" passed.... For about a 4 hours, until i realized the massive barn door the asmfc left open called "conservational equivalency".

I guess thats the way they were able to convince states to vote for 1 fish to make it look like they made a major change, while allowing states to option to continue the status quo under the guise of 25 percent reduction.
Or am i missing something still?
I guess i dont view 2 dead fish at 33" a reduction, regardless of which targeted year class it claims to protect... I thought protecting the entire bass population was the point, but it looks like they left the loophole for charters to keep slamming 2 big fish per person.
If im wrong, will someone smarter than me help me understand this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I listened to most of the call, from what I heard (and I could have heard wrong). Most of the New England States were for 1 @ 28", the motion for "equivelancy" was pushed by the Chesapeake Bay states and some other Southern States. In the end the motion passed (not all in favor) to include the equivalency part. Again, I could have heard wrong as I had this on in the background while I was working so someone might have more insights.

Also, to bring up my previous post, how can we say 25% reduction for rec when we don't even know what is being harvested by rec (its all a guess because there is no rec reporting system). Comm is straight forward...can anyone provide insights to this and how we can say reduction is 25% for rec on a number that we have no clue what it is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was so excited the evening 1@28" passed.... For about a 4 hours, until i realized the massive barn door the asmfc left open called "conservational equivalency".

I guess thats the way they were able to convince states to vote for 1 fish to make it look like they made a major change, while allowing states to option to continue the status quo under the guise of 25 percent reduction.
Or am i missing something still?
I guess i dont view 2 dead fish at 33" a reduction, regardless of which targeted year class it claims to protect... I thought protecting the entire bass population was the point, but it looks like they left the loophole for charters to keep slamming 2 big fish per person.
If im wrong, will someone smarter than me help me understand this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, exactly my sentiments.

Look at this alleged option: "2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-34” slot 1 fish 36” min >28% reduction". Pfft what a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing joke.

I think 1@36 was a great idea, but in the end settled on 1 @ 28 being a good comprise for the general population to get a fish to take home. I was not aware of this comprimise, and still have a hard time making sense of it. Is it certain that a mature female bass breeds every year? Assuming that's how the math works, with allowing a few extra season s of growth we get a few extra years of spawning. My gut tells me they would in perfect conditions but we all know that's not the truth.
My question is: what can we do to be as effective as we were during the ramp up to the hearing? We should all be clear on next steps and make an effort to do what it takes within each of our states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry if this was already answered but on the Rec side, how do they know what the reduction % impact is here when they don't even know what the rec harvest actually is? How can you say the reduction will be X % when you don't even know what that X % is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are dead right, as in too many dead bass. They don't know how many legals are taken, how many shorts are taken by shore guys, can't even guess on the poachers and don't enforce against the locals doing the geographical cheating, as in the EEZ, other restricted areas,the guys with tags only using tags when enforcement is dockside, abuse of bonus tags in NJ, etc. It goes on...the science may be the best we have but it's extremely flawed. And to give the for hires or anyone else wiggle room is just ridiculous, and everyone knows it.

My question is: what can we do to be as effective as we were during the ramp up to the hearing? We should all be clear on next steps and make an effort to do what it takes within each of our states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Find out the contacts in the state you live in, start contacting them all asap.It looks like the first meeting in MA to discuss the changes will be on November 6th in Wellesley. Another meeting scheduled for December 4th. I am trying to find out when public comments will be accepted.

10:30 AM is a no go for me with work. Ill look for an email address and send something this evening. Andy if you go, please make our voice heard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I emailed Paul Diodati, Chair of the board requesting info. I'll let you know the response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, it's obviously overdue by a few years (isn't everything always like that?); shoulda dropped the number in 2011. Won't affect me very much; haven't caught more than one keeper on a trip in 10 years, as I'm a daytime kayak and shore guy. Do think the commercial guys should keep two, but they need to raise the limit; not sure if 32 would be too low, as those guys routinely boat multiples over that. Maybe 34 or 36? Whatever, it won't happen anyway. Maybe just leave it at one; would keep 'em from taking home the bigger breeders anyway.

Do think the commercial guys should keep two, but they need to raise the limit; not sure if 32 would be too low, as those guys routinely boat multiples over that. Maybe 34 or 36? Whatever, it won't happen anyway. Maybe just leave it at one; would keep 'em from taking home the bigger breeders anyway.

The limits we have been talking about on this thread do not apply to commercial fishermen. They are managed by a quota, which will also be cut, but they can keep as many fish as they like, and have tags for, when the season is open.

Clarification: I was referring to the charter guys, which of course
are actually different from the straight commercial fishermen. There ought to be some way that charter guys could keep two; I mean, as
someone pointed out, a lot of folks only charter once a year, while a lot of the regular guys are catching keepers every week, so they're actually taking home many less fish. Or maybe they could just keep it as is, and allow one for the captain and mate, giving a de facto about two keepers per charter hire.

NH had their public meeting last night and the plan is to go at one fish 28" or greater. NH has been talking with Maine and Mass hoping that all three states will agree to have the same size limits.

When questioned they do not plan to have any difference for the charter guys. They will also be limited to one at 28".

Well that's somewhat encouraging. Hopefully at least Rhody, CT, and NY go along with the program as well. Wishful thinking?

NH had their public meeting last night and the plan is to go at one fish 28" or greater. NH has been talking with Maine and Mass hoping that all three states will agree to have the same size limits.

When questioned they do not plan to have any difference for the charter guys. They will also be limited to one at 28".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clarification: I was referring to the charter guys, which of course
are actually different from the straight commercial fishermen. There ought to be some way that charter guys could keep two; I mean, as
someone pointed out, a lot of folks only charter once a year, while a lot of the regular guys are catching keepers every week, so they're actually taking home many less fish. Or maybe they could just keep it as is, and allow one for the captain and mate, giving a de facto about two keepers per charter hire.

how often you fish or whether or not you pay someone to take you fishing should not exempt you from the regulations that everyone else is following in my opinion, how often you fish is up to you.....why is it assumed that the clients won't be satisfied with enjoying the "fishing" part of fishing and need at least two fish for everyone on board plus something for the people on board who aren't fishing to be content with their fishing trip? they must be livid if they don't get something to keep:)....I guess I just have a different perspective...I don't have any issue with anglers keeping fish but no one has explained to me yet why 1 fish(bass) per day is not enough for a person to take home, bass are not scup or bsb, fluke(and they can take some of these home too btw)...they're much larger generally, particularly for the boat folks...can shore folks keep two if they hire a guide?...and one(or two) for the guide even if he isn't fishing....it gets very convoluted and creates animosity( or probably fans the flames of already existing animosity)when you start making these exceptions

Bravo for new hampshire... I hope other states follow suit, although i fear and predict that the further south you go, the worse it will be for bass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

, although i fear and predict that the further south you go, the worse it will be for bass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You got that right. Maryland, DE and the Carolinas don't care about anything but the MONEY

From listening to the meeting I would bet that from NJ South they will go with something like, 2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-34” slot 1 fish 36” min which was one of the options in the original Add. Which would have limited change on the numbers killed by the charters.

how often you fish or whether or not you pay someone to take you fishing should not exempt you from the regulations that everyone else is following in my opinion, how often you fish is up to you.....why is it assumed that the clients won't be satisfied with enjoying the "fishing" part of fishing and need at least two fish for everyone on board plus something for the people on board who aren't fishing to be content with their fishing trip? they must be livid if they don't get something to keep....I guess I just have a different perspective...I don't have any issue with anglers keeping fish but no one has explained to me yet why 1 fish(bass) per day is not enough for a person to take home, bass are not scup or bsb, fluke(and they can take some of these home too btw)...they're much larger generally, particularly for the boat folks...can shore folks keep two if they hire a guide?...and one(or two) for the guide even if he isn't fishing....it gets very convoluted and creates animosity( or probably fans the flames of already existing animosity)when you start making these exceptions

When I used to charter a while ago (don't now that I kayak) that was often the only time I got to get any keepers that year. When you're plunking down 2-$300 per person to fish for a day, you hope to get something decent to take home. I'm not saying people won't charter any more for one fish a day, but you do have to think about it.

if the fishery continues to decline, how many guys are gonna take charters then?

Hypothetical Scenario: If states such as NH, ME, RI, CT and NY stick together and stay with 1 fish at 28 inches can other states attempt to "borrow" from those states when working to obtain this conservation equivalency? I recall that 1 at 28" was greater than a 25% reduction. Could other states, for example North Carolina make a case that they can set their regulations at 3 fish at 28 inches given the fact other states are exceeding the 25% reduction and they are just taking that unused quota for themselves? This would only apply to recreational given the fact commercial quota transfer was shot down. If other states are exceeding the 25% reduction, can this conservation clause allow other states to take it?
Hopefully this is unlikely, but anything is possible when money is involved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hypothetical Scenario: If states such as NH, ME, RI, CT and NY stick together and stay with 1 fish at 28 inches can other states attempt to "borrow" from those states when working to obtain this conservation equivalency? I recall that 1 at 28" was greater than a 25% reduction. Could other states, for example North Carolina make a case that they can set their regulations at 3 fish at 28 inches given the fact other states are exceeding the 25% reduction and they are just taking that unused quota for themselves? This would only apply to recreational given the fact commercial quota transfer was shot down. If other states are exceeding the 25% reduction, can this conservation clause allow other states to take it?
Hopefully this is unlikely, but anything is possible when money is involved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a very real possibility - years ago many in RI wanted to keep 1@36 but our managers told us any extra conservative measures we took could be applied to other states AND our own commercial fishery - the R&R pinhookers in Rhody were salivating at the chance.

Hypothetical Scenario: If states such as NH, ME, RI, CT and NY stick together and stay with 1 fish at 28 inches can other states attempt to "borrow" from those states when working to obtain this conservation equivalency? I recall that 1 at 28" was greater than a 25% reduction. Could other states, for example North Carolina make a case that they can set their regulations at 3 fish at 28 inches given the fact other states are exceeding the 25% reduction and they are just taking that unused quota for themselves? This would only apply to recreational given the fact commercial quota transfer was shot down. If other states are exceeding the 25% reduction, can this conservation clause allow other states to take it?
Hopefully this is unlikely, but anything is possible when money is involved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. As adopted conservational equivalency is determined on a state by state basis. And FYI the guys in NC don't catch any Chesapeak bay fish, the fish they catch are from the Albermarle/Roanoke stock.

This is a very real possibility - years ago many in RI wanted to keep 1@36 but our managers told us any extra conservative measures we took could be applied to other states AND our own commercial fishery - the R&R pinhookers in Rhody were salivating at the chance.

The pinhookers in Rhody could have benefited but other states cannot. Conservational equivalence is determined on a state by state basis.

The pinhookers in Rhody could have benefited but other states cannot. Conservational equivalence is determined on a state by state basis.

I distinctly remember our DEM Rep on ASMFC (Dave Borden?) saying anything extra we (recreational) did could be transferred to other states. I know I and RISAA were unaware and very surprised of that. Maybe Dave was mistaken?

I would not be surprised if we see the New England states pass 2 @ 33" for Charters...I'm not saying I'm in favor of it...just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ofcourse! that was the only way they got the states to agree to 1 @ 28".

"conservational equivalence" was the loop hole that would allow the ASMFC look they did their job by reducing kill to 1 fish, while allowing charters to kill 2 larger fish and still call it a reduction.

2 dead fish is more than one dead fish in my book, regardless of size.