2007 fluke season

[MakoMike]

I have the Figures for the preliminary estimates of 2006 landings (waves 1-4 actual and 3 and 6 estimated and the reductions required in order to achieve the NMFS' approx. 12.9 million pound 2007 TAC (5.04 million pounds to recreational fishermen)

Based on these numbers, if we assume a year long season and if we were to go to castwide measures without conservational equivalancy, the coast wise limit would be one fish per angler a day over 19 inches! But the good news is, that once the figures are finalized we might be able to make that 1 fish per sngler per day over 18.5 inches!

On a state by state basis the states have to adjust their seasons, bag and size limits to achieve the following percentage reductions from their 2006 landings:

MA 43.3%
RI 63.9%
CT 36.7%
NY 62.7%
NJ 56.2%

Ct seems to be in the best shape, they only have to reduce landings by a little over 1/3, NY and RI have to reduce landings by almost 2/3! How are we gonna do that? Seems to me that the only way to accomplish those goals without tremendously increasing regulatory discards, and their associate mortality is going to be by dramatically shortening the season.

Comments?

[Nebe]

is this just a big giveaway to the comercial draggers, or are they going to be forced to reduce catch #'s and increase minimum sizes as well..

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Nebe

is this just a big giveaway to the comercial draggers, or are they going to be forced to reduce catch #'s and increase minimum sizes as well..

The figures I posted are for the recreational catch only. Overall the TAC is going down from about 26 million pounds in 2006 to about 13 million pounds in 2007, unless Congress changes the Magnesson Act of some other earth shaking event happens. The 2007 TAC is not set in stone yet. Whatever the TAC comes out to be the Commercials get 60% and the recreationals get 40%. So the commercial cut backs will be equal to or more severe than the recreational cut backs. Exactly how the commercial catch will be cut has not yet been determined, but mst probably be by keeping the same rules and reducing the landings. The commercial catch is very closely monitored and is shut down before they exceed their share of the TAC.

[Mr. Sandman]

"castwide measures without conservational equivalancy"

huh?

I could be wrong but weren't then shooting for a lofty target biomass by 2010 (or something). And isn't the rate at which they achieve this target somewhat arbitary? It appears they have gotten too agressive with thier timeline and are now "stuck" with this approach they all agreed to.

Are they still doing phone surveys to compute the rec catch? If so have they determined what the possible error with this method and what that means to the rec fishing industry.

IMO it is more important to protect the rec fishing industry then the comm sector. Not because I am a rec fishermen but because of the economic and social benfits gained by the masses as opposed to gain by a few and the impact on the fishery.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

"castwide measures without conservational equivalancy"

huh?

I could be wrong but weren't then shooting for a lofty target biomass by 2010 (or something). And isn't the rate at which they achieve this target somewhat arbitary? It appears they have gotten too agressive with thier timeline and are now "stuck" with this approach they all agreed to.

Are they still doing phone surveys to compute the rec catch? If so have they determined what the possible error with this method and what that means to the rec fishing industry.

IMO it is more important to protect the rec fishing industry then the comm sector. Not because I am a rec fishermen but because of the economic and social benfits gained by the masses as opposed to gain by a few and the impact on the fishery.

Conservational equivalancy allows the states flexibility to meet the desired TAC. IOW, if wqe were going to have one rules for everyone and a season open all year long, then the TAC would dictate a limit of one fish per person per day over 19 inches. Now if a State wants to shorten its season to the Months of July and August, the could adopt more liberal size and bag limits as long as they still catch the same amount of fish dictated by the TAC.

The size of the target biomass was set eight years ago and can't be changed now, the speed with which we get there is dictated by law, so unless they change the law there's no flexibility there.

As far ass MRFSS goes, its hasn't changed. I do't know what the confidence level is in the current numbers or what it will be in the final numbers. But that's all we have to work with.

The subject of commercial vs recreational split of the TAC is not open for discussion.

[ProfessorM]

Thanks for the info.