[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Linesider82

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.

Thank you for the follow up

Originally Posted by JLH

An important point from last night’s meeting is that there is what was explained as a “mistake” in the proposed cuts to the commercial sector. The proposed cuts on the commercial side are based off of quota numbers that were never met instead of actual harvest data from 2013. As the amendment stands now the “cuts” on the commercial side would result in a 13% increase in landings over the 2013 harvest assuming the commercial sector reached the new quotas.

John - so to be clear: they admit this is a mistake and they will clear it up for a 25% reduction from the 2013 landings? Not 25% from the quota?

Thanks,

John