1 @ 28" has been passed.
 

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

What state? And thats bull#^&#^&#^&#^& bunch of cry babies
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

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

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 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:

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

Hoping for 32", but...
 

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.

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