1 @ 28" has been passed.

[piemma]

Originally Posted by iamskippy

Maybe i am miss understanding the original post......

Is its 28" or greater or 28" only.

I have no problem with 1 per day as long as it is a slot or a greater than.

We all know i only catch shorts anyways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Skippy, what the hell are you smokin?????

[piemma]

This is GREAT. I also would have preferred 1 @ 32" but Clammer (Mike) makes a good point about the shore guys who just want a dinner fish.

The 25% reduction for the comms also works for me as long as the Fkers in Maryland and Delaware go along with the whole program.

So, maybe there is a little light at the end of the tunnel. I'll not get excited until I start seeing documented evidence of a turn around as we did starting around 1998...2000.

[stripermaineiac]

yup this is ok but the popular vote was 32. That was what was voted from just about every meeting i went to.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

Definitely a good step in the right direction.

Now if there was only stricter punishments for poachers.
Somehow the existing fines and penalties just don't seem to do the trick.

Isn't that appealing to a whole different set of lawmakers?

[iamskippy]

Originally Posted by piemma

Skippy, what the hell are you smokin?????

Nothing thats how little faith i have in stupid laws and the people that make them and the people that want them......


I went with they did something stupid as always..... example the seat belt law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm curious if there was any reduction in commercial Harvest limits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by niko

I believe it was 25% for the comms as well eben, and the book went out yesterday

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.

[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

[JamesJet]

I am very happy with the result. I agree with the shore bound fish @ 28 as most fisherman go out to bring something home and those guys keep the bait and tackle shops happy, there is lots of smiling kids faces etc and in many cases that was all of us when we started. I tried for a "keeper" for 2 years and was so pumped as was my family the day I finally brought home a 31 inch fish.
For me the win was changing it in year one with 25%, as there is no time to wait. A 3 year phase in seemed like it wasn't enough. Great job by everyone who wrote in and attended. I wasn't able to make it yesterday, but made it to Viking Lounge a few months ago and said my thoughts/asked my questions. It seems at least to me this was a pretty good process. In the end we all question politics, but the outcome seems generally alligned with the representation by the public and what appears to be well verified science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Linesider82]

I agree with DZ, it's a grey area for sure.

Since this meeting comes 2 months before 2015 (when the regs go into effect) I'd be surprised to see any public comment on C.E., although they could enact the 1 fish at 28 or greater and float into a C.E. decision say for April or May 2015 and hold a public comment period.

[BobT]

1@28 for the entire east coast. Rod and reel ONLY. No if's and's or butt's.

[tysdad115]

Conservational Equivalency..this may not be such a good thing afterall. I guess we'll see what the individual states vote in.
One mind boggling possible recommendation the ASFMC made at the meetings was that 2@33" would be a 29% reduction (Option B5) so a state could still vote in 2@whatever # to meet the cons. equiv factor predicted by the ASFMC. We'll see which states are quick to adopt these. I'm lost at that "science" thinks killing 2@33 instead of 2@28 is a "reduction". Somehow to me this doesn't look so good.

[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?

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Linesider82

I agree with DZ, it's a grey area for sure.

Since this meeting comes 2 months before 2015 (when the regs go into effect) I'd be surprised to see any public comment on C.E., although they could enact the 1 fish at 28 or greater and float into a C.E. decision say for April or May 2015 and hold a public comment period.

As I understand it, conservation equivalancy was part of the approved motion. If that's the case, there would be no public hearing for equivalent regulations, all that is needed is the approval of the technical committee.

[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

[DZ]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

As I understand it, conservation equivalancy was part of the approved motion. If that's the case, there would be no public hearing for equivalent regulations, all that is needed is the approval of the technical committee.

Mike - I'm not sure if it anything like this would need to come from the RI Striped Bass Advisory Committee and then to the RIMFC?

[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.

[Linesider82]

There is no comparison between a one fish bag, and a two fish bag.

The goal of the addendum was to protect the current SSB and the 2011 yoy.

A one fish bag answers that call, but a CE measure such as two @ 33" or larger doesn't help the SSB component, despite the "on paper it works" train of thought.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MikeToole]

The 1 fish at 28" or greater was quickly changed to include or any limit that meets the 25% reduction. This opens it up to many other options. As Patrick said now we have to watch the states. NH will be meeting to decide on the new limit on Nov 6. See below

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department will hold a public hearing on proposed marine rules on November 6, 2014, at 7 p.m. at the Urban Forestry Center, 45 Elwyn Road in Portsmouth, N.H. The hearing is an opportunity to provide public comment on proposed changes to recreational bag and/or size limits for striped bass. These changes are being proposed to comply with measures in Addendum IV to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.

Written comments on the new rules may be submitted by November 13, 2014. E-mail to comments@wildlife.nh.gov (please put "Comment on Marine Rules" in subject line); fax to (603) 271-1438; or mail to Executive Director, N.H. Fish and Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301.

From the original Add. IV, below are just some of the options a state may select.


1 at > 28” >31% reduction
1 at > 30” > 31% reduction
1 at >32” > 31% reduction
1 at 28-40” slot > 31% reduction
2 at >33” > 29% reduction
2 at 28-34” slot > 28% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-34” slot 1 fish 36” min >28% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-36” slot 1 fish 38” min >26% reduction
2 at (1 slot, 1 trophy) 1 fish 28-37” slot 1 fish 40” min >26% reduction

[Piscator]

Sorry if this was already answered but on the Rec side, how do they know what the reduction % impact is here when they don't even know what the rec harvest actually is? How can you say the reduction will be X % when you don't even know what that X % is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[JLH]

The for hire industry is certainly going to push for 2 fish and if they get 2@33" or some equivalent it really won't have much of an impact on the numbers of fish the for hire sector is taking. What it will do is make it that much harder for the average recreational guy to get a keeper. There are many people out there today who spend good money on bait and gear and who struggle with finding any keeper sized fish with limits at 28". What will end up happening if 2@33" is adopted is that the for hire sector will go on more or less unaffected by the cuts while the average recreational guy takes the brunt of the cuts. Doesn't sound fair to me when we are talking about a public resource.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by DZ

Mike - I'm not sure if it anything like this would need to come from the RI Striped Bass Advisory Committee and then to the RIMFC?

Ah! Sorry I thought you were talking about public hearing by the ASMFC. Yes, the normal procedure would be for the RIMFC to take it up at one of their monthly meetings, where they would accept comments from the public.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Linesider82

There is no comparison between a one fish bag, and a two fish bag.

The goal of the addendum was to protect the current SSB and the 2011 yoy.

A one fish bag answers that call, but a CE measure such as two @ 33" or larger doesn't help the SSB component, despite the "on paper it works" train of thought.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A 2 fish at 33 inches will completely protect the 2011 year class, at least for a few years. A 1 at 28 inches will not protect the 2011 year class after next year.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by JLH

The for hire industry is certainly going to push for 2 fish and if they get 2@33" or some equivalent it really won't have much of an impact on the numbers of fish the for hire sector is taking. What it will do is make it that much harder for the average recreational guy to get a keeper. There are many people out there today who spend good money on bait and gear and who struggle with finding any keeper sized fish with limits at 28". What will end up happening if 2@33" is adopted is that the for hire sector will go on more or less unaffected by the cuts while the average recreational guy takes the brunt of the cuts. Doesn't sound fair to me when we are talking about a public resource.

There is nothing to prevent the for hire industry from having different rules than the general puublic. NY has done it for years with striped bass and RI already does it for scup and tog.

[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?