1 @ 28" has been passed.

[DZ]

Originally Posted by striperswiper75

Hypothetical Scenario: If states such as NH, ME, RI, CT and NY stick together and stay with 1 fish at 28 inches can other states attempt to "borrow" from those states when working to obtain this conservation equivalency? I recall that 1 at 28" was greater than a 25% reduction. Could other states, for example North Carolina make a case that they can set their regulations at 3 fish at 28 inches given the fact other states are exceeding the 25% reduction and they are just taking that unused quota for themselves? This would only apply to recreational given the fact commercial quota transfer was shot down. If other states are exceeding the 25% reduction, can this conservation clause allow other states to take it?
Hopefully this is unlikely, but anything is possible when money is involved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a very real possibility - years ago many in RI wanted to keep 1@36 but our managers told us any extra conservative measures we took could be applied to other states AND our own commercial fishery - the R&R pinhookers in Rhody were salivating at the chance.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by DZ

This is a very real possibility - years ago many in RI wanted to keep 1@36 but our managers told us any extra conservative measures we took could be applied to other states AND our own commercial fishery - the R&R pinhookers in Rhody were salivating at the chance.

The pinhookers in Rhody could have benefited but other states cannot. Conservational equivalence is determined on a state by state basis.

[DZ]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The pinhookers in Rhody could have benefited but other states cannot. Conservational equivalence is determined on a state by state basis.

I distinctly remember our DEM Rep on ASMFC (Dave Borden?) saying anything extra we (recreational) did could be transferred to other states. I know I and RISAA were unaware and very surprised of that. Maybe Dave was mistaken?

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by striperswiper75

Hypothetical Scenario: If states such as NH, ME, RI, CT and NY stick together and stay with 1 fish at 28 inches can other states attempt to "borrow" from those states when working to obtain this conservation equivalency? I recall that 1 at 28" was greater than a 25% reduction. Could other states, for example North Carolina make a case that they can set their regulations at 3 fish at 28 inches given the fact other states are exceeding the 25% reduction and they are just taking that unused quota for themselves? This would only apply to recreational given the fact commercial quota transfer was shot down. If other states are exceeding the 25% reduction, can this conservation clause allow other states to take it?
Hopefully this is unlikely, but anything is possible when money is involved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. As adopted conservational equivalency is determined on a state by state basis. And FYI the guys in NC don't catch any Chesapeak bay fish, the fish they catch are from the Albermarle/Roanoke stock.

[Piscator]

I would not be surprised if we see the New England states pass 2 @ 33" for Charters...I'm not saying I'm in favor of it...just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ivanputski]

Ofcourse! that was the only way they got the states to agree to 1 @ 28".

"conservational equivalence" was the loop hole that would allow the ASMFC look they did their job by reducing kill to 1 fish, while allowing charters to kill 2 larger fish and still call it a reduction.

2 dead fish is more than one dead fish in my book, regardless of size.