1 @ 28" has been passed.

[niko]

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by niko

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

I think you right Paul, 25% total harvest including comm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Clammer]

PERSONALLY i LIKE 1 @ 28 .IT GIVES THE GUY THAT BUYS FROZEN POGIES @ THE BAITSHOP & FISHES FROM SHORE A FAIR CHANCE OF CATCHING SUPPER . @ 36" THE AVERAGE SHORE FISHERMAN WOULD HAVE A 90% ON NOT GETTING A LEGAL FISH .DISREGUARD THE PLUGGERS /MEAT FISHERMAN , ETC

[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.

[zimmy]

step in the right direction. 1@ exactly 28" would a been a better choice though

[Nebe]

Micro slot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[BatesBCheatin]

Like $3.00 a gallon gasoline it could always be better, but you won't hear me bitching about it.

[ivanputski]

Great news. Its more than i thought they would do honestly. I listened online for a many hours today... It could have gone either way.
Definitely a great step towards preserving bass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rob Rockcrawler]

I am happy with it. I would have preferred 32 or 36 but this is a big step in the right direction. When does this become effective, Jan 1 2015?

[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.

[Rob Rockcrawler]

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.

Agreed, until the fines make it not worth getting caught people will continue to do it. Loss of gear, boats, vehicles, fines that hurt and jail time may do the trick.

[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?

[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

[stripermaineiac]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[big jay]

Originally Posted by 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

Great post - this has the potential to be a state by state clusterf*ck.

I understand the statistics in how it's justified, but for practical matters, "Conservational Equivalent" = F'ing mess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[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

[JoeG@Breezy]

Originally Posted by 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

You are dead right, as in too many dead bass. They don't know how many legals are taken, how many shorts are taken by shore guys, can't even guess on the poachers and don't enforce against the locals doing the geographical cheating, as in the EEZ, other restricted areas,the guys with tags only using tags when enforcement is dockside, abuse of bonus tags in NJ, etc. It goes on...the science may be the best we have but it's extremely flawed. And to give the for hires or anyone else wiggle room is just ridiculous, and everyone knows it.

[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 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.

[stripermaineiac]

Wow Mike, T think you've set a record for the most rants on a single thread ever. do you never have any posetive point towards conservation in any way or is all just about how many you can kill to make a buck. Boy do your rants get anoying after a while.