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

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

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.

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.

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?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.