Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
I am hearing CT meeting was less than a smashing success ??
|
Hi John, in numbers of people who attended, yes that is an accurate statement. However, in a general statement from the crowd that was in my opinion evenly split between for-hire charter captains and recreational boat and shore anglers, a nearly unanimous decision for selection of section 2.5.1. option B: 2013 Benchmark Stock Assessment F reference points. For the proposed recreational coastal management in section 3.0, option B was selected which is 25% reduction in one year, which has a probability of having F be at or below the target in one year. Along with sub-option B3 of one fish at 32" bag/possession limit. Generally CT selected the most conservative options available in addendum IV, and asked for a larger reduction if possible.
Of note in section 2.5.1. option B as opposed to status quo, utilizes a higher commercial quota (total coastwide take) as the initial base number. This means that even with a 25% reduction the commercial take will actually increase from current values by 13% (if all states hit the maximum yield). In section 3.1, those in attendance selected option A status quo for no commercial quota transfers between states.
That being said, the meeting did address all of the sections of Addendum IV however it was apparent that CT's opinion on what occurs in areas like Chesapeake Bay & the Roanoke / Albermarle areas was dismissed as having no stake in said areas.
The public hearing meeting comprises one half of the public comment period as written letters / emails will be accepted until September 30th of this year. Also, the proposed outcome of CT's stake will take into account the hearing and letters and combine that sentiment with that of Connecticut's council member's stance. Connecticut is only one of the 14 places with input meetings in the mix, so if real change is going to happen, people need to get to the meetings and send in your written concerns for the fishery.