1 @ 28" has been passed.

[Ian]

Conservational equivalency just means that whatever measure States introduce have to have technical committee sign-off that their alternative to 1@28 produces the same 25% reduction in harvest totals that the 1@28 overarching motion was introduced to create.

Hence the gray area it introduces
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

Originally Posted by Ian

Conservational equivalency just means that whatever measure States introduce have to have technical committee sign-off that their alternative to 1@28 produces the same 25% reduction in harvest totals that the 1@28 overarching motion was introduced to create.

Hence the gray area it introduces
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree - yesterday was the first step in the battle. This gray area is something that may very well be the next battle in various states. You can bet the for-hire industry is trying to figure out a conservation equivalency to enable a two fish bag. It could be an increase in size or a shorter season. Keep an eye out for this work around and be ready to battle again.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by tysdad115

About damn time the recs took the hit too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Recs have been pushing for a hit for a while. The Mass recs pushed Mass DW to not increase from 1 to 2 fish and the 25% increase in comm quotas back in 2006.

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

A lot of motions were passed today...In my opinion the most important two were...

1) They passed a motion cutting Amendment 6 coastwise commercial quotas by 25%

2) They passed the motion for coastwise recreational catch selecting Option B1 (1@ 28") and setting the conservation equivalency at 25%

Yes, just as is currently allowed, states can submit an alternative measure that meets Technical Committee approval based on a minimum 25% reduction in landings. I am already hearing that RI will consider a conservation equivalency for the for hire fleet...based purely on what I see in the existing analysis Instead of 1 @ 28" (the document credits this as a 31% reduction) A state could choose 2 fish over 33" (the document credits this a 29% reduction).

Bottom line is we will all have to be vigilant in our individual states and participate when local measures are developed

Bottom line is we WON the 1 year reduction, we won a reduction of at least 25% across the board. THIS WAS ALARGE WIN

BIG KUDOS to all that shoed up today including: Craig from Van Stall, Toby from The Fisherman, Jimmy Fee from On The Water, Willy Young and crew from the NY Alliance, Steve Medeiros & crew from RISAA, the guys from MD, the crew from ME that brought and distributed the Save Our Stripers hats, the guy from the 1@ 32 FB page who brought the signs and the crew from MSBA...TOGETHER WE DID IT

They Listened...Yes They DID

Good writeup - a step forward but not done.

Originally Posted by PaulS

I thought there was an issue that the comms. didn't come close to hitting the quota in the base line period so while their quota got reduced 25%, they can actually land like 6% more fish. Hope that makes sense.

Yes - that is concerning

Originally Posted by DZ

I agree - yesterday was the first step in the battle. This gray area is something that may very well be the next battle in various states. You can bet the for-hire industry is trying to figure out a conservation equivalency to enable a two fish bag. It could be an increase in size or a shorter season. Keep an eye out for this work around and be ready to battle again.

Yep

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by DZ

I agree - yesterday was the first step in the battle. This gray area is something that may very well be the next battle in various states. You can bet the for-hire industry is trying to figure out a conservation equivalency to enable a two fish bag. It could be an increase in size or a shorter season. Keep an eye out for this work around and be ready to battle again.

What's wrong with that? As long as its a 25% reduction, why should we care exactly how it is achieved?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

What's wrong with that? As long as its a 25% reduction, why should we care exactly how it is achieved?

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

I couldn't agree more
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Dick Durand]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

That's why a slot with a relatively small bass coupled with a trophy bass over 45", for example, would provide much better protection of the breeding stock.

[paradoxjim]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

Spot on - all the charter boats slamming big fish at the SW corner will happily abide by a 2 @ 33 = business as usual

[DZ]

Might need a new battlecry - "Hold the bag at one" or something similar. It will be a mess if different states go two fish bag. It will only take one state... then all the other bordering states will cry unfair advantage, especially in the for hire component. Happend with tautog. Time to hold the line. Fight for this fish is not done.

[Ed B]

Any state or group, and especially the for-hire industry, trying to get two fish now will be as welcome as a monster fart at a church funeral.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by paradoxjim

Spot on - all the charter boats slamming big fish at the SW corner will happily abide by a 2 @ 33 = business as usual

And what's wrong with that? It will accomplish the conservation objective even if it won't satisfy your jealously.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Whats wrong with that is that the large breeders really should be protected. 2 @33" will do nothing toward dealing with the obscene charter slaughters up and down the coast. In most cases, 2 @33 is what most of them are bringing to the dock now.

Obscene is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the guy fishing on those charters only do so once a year, so effectively they would be fishing under a two fish a year limit, or don't you think the average charter fisherman should have to the same rights as a shore or private boat fisherman?

[Dick Durand]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Obscene is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the guy fishing on those charters only do so once a year, so effectively they would be fishing under a two fish a year limit, or don't you think the average charter fisherman should have to the same rights as a shore or private boat fisherman?

With all due respect it really doesn't much matter that guys charter only once a year. The charters themselves are on the water daily with the next batch of "once a year" sportsmen.

[piemma]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^& Durand

With all due respect it really doesn't much matter that guys charter only once a year. The charters themselves are on the water daily with the next batch of "once a year" sportsmen.

And that is exactly the point. Great post #^&#^&#^&#^&. You beat me too it.
Mike is just trying to protect his lively-hood at the expense of the future striper fishery.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^& Durand

With all due respect it really doesn't much matter that guys charter only once a year. The charters themselves are on the water daily with the next batch of "once a year" sportsmen.

The charterboats are like buses that only take the fishermen to the fishing grounds. Maybe we should restrict private boats to only fishing once a week? How about prohibiting fishing from the beach every other weekend?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Obscene is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the guy fishing on those charters only do so once a year, so effectively they would be fishing under a two fish a year limit, or don't you think the average charter fisherman should have to the same rights as a shore or private boat fisherman?

There is nothing that says they can only fish on a charter. They can fish from shore or private boat. Whether it is a charter or the banks of the canal, it is obscene and the regulations need to reduce it. I don't care if the guys do so once a year. The boats go out twice a day and hit the same schools of big fish over and over until they are depleted, then move on to the next one.