S-B Amendment 6 Management Plan Hearings

[JohnR]

Draft Public Comments: http://striped-bass.com/ASMFC/Stripe...licComment.pdf

Full Schedule PDF http://striped-bass.com/ASMFC/Stripe...icHearings.pdf

Schedule:

Rhode Island Division of Fish & Wildlife
September 17, 2014 at 6 PM
University of Rhode Island, Corless Auditorium
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Contact: Nicole Lengyel at 401.423.1940

NH
New Hampshire Fish and Game
August 27, 2014; 7 PM
Urban Forestry Center
45 Elwyn Road
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Contact: Doug Grout at 603.868.1095

ME
Maine Department of Marine Resources
September 4, 2014; 6-9 PM
Orion Performing Arts Center
MSAD#75, Mt. Ararat
Middle School
66 Republic Avenue
Topsham, Maine
Contact: Terry Stockwell at 207.624.6553

CT
Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection
August 26, 2014; 7 PM
Marine Headquarters, Boating Education Center
333 Ferry Road
Old Lyme Connecticut
Contact David Simpson at 860.434.6043

NY
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
September 16, 2014; 7 PM
Stony Brook University Wang Center, Room 201
Stony Brook, New York
Contact: Carol Hoffman at 631.444.0476

September 23, 2014; 7 PM
NYSDEC Region 3 Office
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, New York
Contact: Kathy Hattala at 845.256.3071

NJ
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
September 4, 2014; 7-9 PM
Galloway Twp. Branch of the Atlantic Co. Library
306 East Jimmie Leeds Road
Galloway, New Jersey
Contact: Russ Allen at 609.748.2020
* Will immediately follow the NJ Marine Fisheries
Council meeting

September 15, 2014; 7-9 PM
Toms River Town Hall
L. M. Hirshblond Room
33 Washington Street
Toms River, New Jersey
Contact: Russ Allen at 609.748.2020

September 9, 2014; 7-9 PM
Ridgefield Park Elks Lodge #1506
Corner of Spruce Avenue and Cedar Street
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
Contact: Russ Allen at 609.748.2020

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

September 2, 2014; 10 AM
Nantucket Community Room
4 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts
Contact:
Jared Silva
at 617.626.1534

September 2, 2014; 6 PM
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Admiral’s Hall, 101 Academy Drive
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
Contact:
Jared Silva
at 617.626.1534
* MA DMF will also be seeking
public comment on Spiny
Dogfish Draft Addendum V at this hearing


September 3, 2014; 6 PM
MA DMF Annisquam River Station
30 Emerson Avenue
Gloucester, Massachusetts
Contact:
Jared Silva
at 617.626.1534
* MA DMF will also be seeking
public comment on Spiny
Dogfish Draft Addendum V at this hearing

September 4, 2014; 6 PM
Viking Club
410 Quincy Avenue (Route 53)
Braintree, Massachusetts
Contact:
Jared Silva
at 617.626.1534

[Jackbass]

9 options for management action outside of the Chesapeake and 6 with in the Chesapeake area. It's like they want fishermen divided. God forbid they make it stupid simple.

The problem with this stuff is if you ask 100 guys what their opinion is you will receive 90 different answers. Most of it based on half truths and innuendo that they heard from some other pudding head.

They will wind up indoctrinating some action based on what they feel like doing. I promise it won't be the most conservative choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

9 options for management action outside of the Chesapeake and 6 with in the Chesapeake area. It's like they want fishermen divided. God forbid they make it stupid simple.

They are different fisheries, the male (smaller) fish never leave the Chesapeake bay so there are many more smaller fish available.

[bobber]

the point here is that if you want to see a change in the regs, you need to go to these meetings (and not just wait to hear what happens afterwards)..... no excuses, no BS- just go

[JohnR]

I am hearing CT meeting was less than a smashing success ??

[Linesider82]

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.

[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.

[striperswiper75]

Did the same "math error" appear in options C and D? I need to go find my handouts from last night and do some calculations
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[bobber]

I thought everybody was pretty well behaved, although the Rock 'n Roll charters guy was a little loud at times. It was also kinda funny how he went on to say his bass numbers were down 90%, and then straight out asked the plan co-ordinator "wheres the fish?!?" . I wish they took more genral cooments about how the North Carolina fishery must be reformed, and that captains/mates on charter boats shouldn't be able to keep fish for their fares too.

I'm still not sure that many of the people in attendance understood exactly what was being asked/discussed....

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by bobber

I thought everybody was pretty well behaved, although the Rock 'n Roll charters guy was a little loud at times. It was also kinda funny how he went on to say his bass numbers were down 90%, and then straight out asked the plan co-ordinator "wheres the fish?!?" . I wish they took more genral cooments about how the North Carolina fishery must be reformed, and that captains/mates on charter boats shouldn't be able to keep fish for their fares too.

I'm still not sure that many of the people in attendance understood exactly what was being asked/discussed....

What they do in NC has zero effect on what we catch up here/ They are fishing a different stock of striped bass (Albermarle/Roanoke) that are managed separately from the Chesapeake/Hudson stocks.

[big jay]

If you do not attend a meeting and make your comments directly to the commission, you should forfeit all rights to complain about fisheries management on line.

And the "I used to go, they don't care"/ "they only listen to the commercials" / "they don't listen anyways" / "blah,blah,blah" are just a bunch of excuses.

If you really care about your fishery, get off your arse and be heard....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by big jay

If you do not attend a meeting and make your comments directly to the commission, you should forfeit all rights to complain about fisheries management on line.

And the "I used to go, they don't care"/ "they only listen to the commercials" / "they don't listen anyways" / "blah,blah,blah" are just a bunch of excuses.

If you really care about your fishery, get off your arse and be heard....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

X2, and if you can't attend in person for some reason (we all JB's e work and family), you (and all your friends and family) can write letters, emails and phone calls.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[hardcore from shore]

I intend to attend 9/4 6PM meeting at Viking Club in Braintree. Will still be in TX when 9/2 Buzzards Bay meeting in my new neighborhood happens. Plan on doing my research between now and then on amendments but my fishing time research indicates the safe thing for the stocks is a reduction.
Bill

[Linesider82]

If you attend a meeting, read and reread addendum IV. Each section of the addendum has choices outlined. If you do not understand a particular choice make a note and bring your question to the meeting. The presenter explains what each outlined choice means, and accepts questions to further explain what the selections mean. Then when you feel you understand what the change selections mean, you should speak on the record for the choices you made and a reason why if applicable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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

[tysdad115]

If you can't attend a meeting the Mail and Email contact info is :
Mail: Mike Waine, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator Email: mwaine@asmfc.org
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Subject: Draft Addendum IV)
1050 North Highland Street Suite 200A-N Phone: (703) 842-0740
Arlington, VA 22201 Fax: (703) 842-0741

[JohnR]

So, any reports from last night?

[tysdad115]

I was there. Not a huge turnout at all. It seemed to be more rec guys than commercial but honestly I was surprised how few people spoke up for the different options.

[spinncognito]

I will be there for tonights meeting in Gloucester. I know at least a few of my friends will be there as well. Anyone else going?

[Slick Moedee]

Yup. I'll be in Gloucester as well.

[MAKAI]

My irascible self will be at the Viking club on Thursday.
Hope the bar will be open !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JamesJet]

I am going to try and make it tomorrow night pending I can get out from work early. If I arrive late is it a problem based on others experience?

[spinncognito]

Originally Posted by JamesJet

I am going to try and make it tomorrow night pending I can get out from work early. If I arrive late is it a problem based on others experience?

Guys were walking in late last night, no problem as they go over everything several times.

I thought the meeting was well attended last night, a full room of probably 50 people consisting of a good mix of commercial, rec and charter boat captains. There was defineately a concensus in the room to take the strictest approach to managing the fishery, on both sides. In fact, if there were even more stringent solutions on the table I believe they would have been supported as well.

Option B (25% quota reduction in one year) and Sub-option B3 (one fish at 32" recreationally) were the options that just about everyone agreed to. Regarding Quota transfers, most in the room were against that possibility with only a couple guys in favor of it.

There was a bit of hesitancy about the issues at hand by a few guys who were curious to see what the next YOY data reveals next month.

I thought the meeting was well run and there was no real outrageous comments. However, I got the sense that most of us up here feel that when these meeting stretch down to the southern states, there will be little to no call for drastic changes/cuts. This was certainly echoed by the director Paul Diodati (sp)

I will say what everyone is saying here- get to a meeting and make your voice heard. It is extremely important.

[bobber]

thanks for the update- I've been wondering what the sentiment is at the other meetings.

lets keep turning out the vote people!

[striperswiper75]

The commercial folks aren't worried because every decrease for the recreational side equates to an increase to the commercial side. It makes no sense for them to complain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[lamigsb1]

I figured the comms would turn out more considering there is a question to reduce comm quota 25% to match the rec reduction
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device