S-B Amendment 6 Management Plan Hearings

[JLH]

I was at the CT meeting last night and even though turnout was a lot lower than I expected the recreational fishermen that were there were almost unanimously for taking the 25% cut in year one and most were in favor of one fish at 32”. The charter boats of course didn’t want to take a cut to one fish and claimed it would put them out of business. I had to just shake my head at some of these guys especially one of the very vocal charter guys at the meeting that said that his striped bass catch numbers were down 90% this year in the sound and then a few minutes later he stated that he was against any taking kind of substantial cuts in the bag limit.

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.

[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

[JLH]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Thank you for the follow up



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

It was not clear if they would be fixing the mistake. I got the impression that they felt like they were too far along in the process to make any revisions. In my written comments I urged them to correct the error and would suggest that anyone else submitting comments or going to upcoming meetings does the same.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by JLH

It was not clear if they would be fixing the mistake. I got the impression that they felt like they were too far along in the process to make any revisions. In my written comments I urged them to correct the error and would suggest that anyone else submitting comments or going to upcoming meetings does the same.

Thanks!

[PaulS]

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.

You got it right. The comms didn't hit their quota so a 25 percent reduction from the quota equates to a 13 percent incr. from the actual harvest.

This was no mistake (and it won't be fixed) bc it states the 13 percent increase in the doc. Some of the other options would have left the comms with a larger incr as the 25 percent was the largest reduction. The rec and comm sections format were written differently and I think it was done intentionally to muddy the issue. I wish I read the doc ahead of time.

I think they could have taken a 25 percent reduction off of both sectors harvest but the comms would have complained they took a larger hit.

I gotta read the thing again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[bobber]

I think there should be a "loopholes" thread next..... no mentin of cleaning up the heinous waste that goes on in the NC net fishery (gee- I wonder why they didn't catch their quota last year?). also-charter guys need to stop taking home limits for the captain, mate, mate's girlfriend on every trip.... especailly when they do 2 trips a day. and then the " 25%reduction really means a 13% increase" needs to go too