2010 Fluke Reg ??????

[Life's A Beach]

non-preferred coastwide measures of a 19.5 inch TL minimum size, 2 fish possession limit and coastwide season from May 1 to September 30, 2010 and a precautionary default measure of 21.5 inch TL minimum size, 2 fish possession limit and coastwide season from May 1 to September 30, 2010.

It is further moved that technical proposals submitted by the states under the ASMFC process should provide an explanation of past management history as identified by
the summer flounder Monitoring Committee meeting summary dated November 18, 2009.Council: Munden/Himchak (14/3/1)Board: Munden/Fote (7/1/1/0)Motion carries

This meeting started at 8:30 with testimony by the board and public input as well. It seemed to this listener that the minds of the council was made up before hand as heard by off mike statements early on. The meeting is being held in Wilmington, Delaware. The issues will be felt by all as a result of this vote and should not be taken lightly. We as recreational fishermen need to get involved and make our points be heard over special interests such as PEW.



Just got this info in an email.

[Reelron]

Did you get the second email? Is it for real or not?

[The Sinker Man]

I just got the same one as LAB.

[fin_s_guy]

Me too!!! M.F.'rs

Who needs to get fitted? :mad:



Fin~S
:cool:

[Leif]

Me too!!! M.F.'rs

Who needs to get fitted? :mad:



Fin~S
:cool:

I'll take an extra large.

Leif

[MartyS]

I got the email also, but it wasn't from an official source, so it may be speculation...I really hope so.

[Reelron]

Yes, second email, from same source said, "These seem to be just the recommendations for Summer Flounder. Waiting for clarification on this."

[Leif]

Yes, second email, from same source said, "These seem to be just the recommendations for Summer Flounder. Waiting for clarification on this."
From CaptTB previous post regarding this meeting.......

At this meeting they take the landings for the current year vs. the quotas that have already been set for next year and then give a range of options for the regulations. As for Fluke, they will also vote on whether to go with state by state or coastwide regulations. If the vote is for coastwide the regs will be set right then and there. If state by state is chosen, then states will submit regulation options to the ASMFC Technical Committee for approval based on the numbers that come out of the December meeting, and at the February ASMFC meeting states will find out what options were approved for the 2010 fishing year. After that, states will then decide what option will be "the option" for our regs for Fluke. In NJ that would happen at the March NJMFC meeting in Galloway Township.

The question is can we confirm this.......

non-preferred coastwide measures of a 19.5 inch TL minimum size, 2 fish possession limit and coastwide season from May 1 to September 30, 2010 and a precautionary default measure of 21.5 inch TL minimum size, 2 fish possession limit and coastwide season from May 1 to September 30, 2010.

Leif

[Life's A Beach]

The Last Email Announcement you received in regards to the Summer Flounder Regulations for 2010 was premature. We are still waiting on more details and information.

[1captainron]

State by State 14 to 3 was the vote....we still are going to give up a few more days of fishing though. Most likely Memorial day weekend, another kick in the Ass regardless of this vote. Could have been much worse, but that still doesn't make me feel any better...Capt. Ron

[CaptTB]

CaptainRon said it. Whatever e-mail you guys got was only part of the motion. Whomever sent it missed the very first sentences in the motion about conservation equivalency (state by state)

The council must always, if going for state by state, still give a non-preferred coastwide option and a default precautionary measure, whoich are the other two things listed.

However, the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of state by state. Now we wait to hear what NMFS approves. Let us not forget that the RA stated on the record she was in favor of coastwide and was one of the three votes against consv. equiv.

[1captainron]

Tony,
I don't get it.. a 14 to 3 vote and yet NMFS can still change it!!!! What the hell is the sense in the vote in the first place!!!
More BS to worry about.

[howarda780]

NMFS is not in Gloucester, its 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[CaptTB]

Tony,
I don't get it.. a 14 to 3 vote and yet NMFS can still change it!!!! What the hell is the sense in the vote in the first place!!!
More BS to worry about.
The council only makes a recommendation to NMFS, it does not have any authority to do anything more than that.

The original intent was to have a group of "experts" from various parts of the fishery (commercial, recreational, scientific, administrative) sit down and use their collective knowledge and expertise to give quality advice to the organization charged with managing the fisheries (in this case, NMFS) By having people from all corners of the fishery putting their heads together you would have the best advice possible and the service could then make its decision based on what it could comfortably feel would be the best available information.

We all know now how that system has been totally subverted.

[1captainron]

Yes, originally everyone on the council was involved in FISHING or Science, some form of a vested interest, commercial fishing, rec fishing ....
They have now all been replaced by enviro's, and the head enviro is running the show...........WERE SCREWED!!! ANARCHY 2010.....

[shrimpman steve]

i'll take two patches! aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr me hardies!

[Foul Hook]

The original intent was to have a group of "experts" from various parts of the fishery (commercial, recreational, scientific, administrative)So Captain am I correct to assume that this means that "we" as the rec group have to out lobby the commercial group (who has deep pockets), fight the "flawed" data group (with the ssfff) and out litigate the admin group to get a favorable outcome for the common angler?If this council is in charge of giving advice to the NMFS then where do we apply the pressure, at the council level or the NMFS level. And in your opinion where are we really getting screwed?, at which level.

[CaptTB]

So Captain am I correct to assume that this means that "we" as the rec group have to out lobby the commercial group (who has deep pockets), fight the "flawed" data group (with the ssfff) and out litigate the admin group to get a favorable outcome for the common angler?If this council is in charge of giving advice to the NMFS then where do we apply the pressure, at the council level or the NMFS level. And in your opinion where are we really getting screwed?, at which level.

You missed the environmental group. THEY are the ones with deep pockets. While we will always have fights over allocation and such with the commercial sector, they are the least of our problems in this arena and have pockets much shallower than you think.

The council level is where we fight for regulations, it is the place where we can get things on the public record and lay the groundwork for future actions.

NMFS can only be challenged (once they have made a decision) in court. You can certainly have the council vote to change something, but that is no guarantee that NMFS will do it (but NMFS will more often than not do what the councils recommended because the councils don't often stray from whatever NMFS wants anyway)

The battles are fought in Washington DC over the laws that govern fisheries management, they are fought at the council level for fair representation and sound management advice and they are fought in the federal register with comments on NMFS proposed rules and they are fought in court when NMFS takes actions like the closure of Sea Bass based on preliminary and flawed data and they are fought at the council level and assessment meeting level and elsewhere dealing with the scientific issue and they are fought in the media against the Pew Spew machine for public opinion and they are fought at all the other levels I just mentioned against PEW and the like.

These are all the places that groups like the RFA, United Boatmen and SSFFF are present in some shape or form (not every group is in every place every time)
We are getting our asses kicked in each of those arenas and there is little support from both industry and individuals when you look at the size of industry and the amount of individuals that exist. There is some awesome support from those who get involved, some through donations some through volunteerism and some through both. The problem is that all the recreational groups in the US combined have a membership at a level that is a fraction of a percent of the actual number of anglers that exist, and the same is true for industry.

Does that answer your question or did I simply confuse things even more?

[Foul Hook]

A little bit of both Capt. Your knowledge of the issues and how the system works is certainly impressive. For me it seems that the task at hand, just to have a fair system, is daunting! :(

[CaptTB]

A little bit of both Capt.

That's not bad for me!:D Usually I end up just confusing people the first time around since this crap is so complicated!

Just walked in the door from another fun 13hr day of drydock, I'm tired.

I promise I will spend more time getting into the nitty gritty of this weeks meeting and other issues after the weekend, assuming I get the boat back in the water on Saturday. Right now I'm in south Jersey every day and have no access to a computer and am beat by the time I get home.

Talk to you guys later.

[penn50w]

State by State 14 to 3 was the vote....we still are going to give up a few more days of fishing though. Most likely Memorial day weekend, another kick in the Ass regardless of this vote. Could have been much worse, but that still doesn't make me feel any better...Capt. Ron


Could have been worse? Losing 4 more fish to you is only a little worse off? That's a loss of 67% in my book. How many more days and fish are we going to lose? I told you last year that this was going to happen and you said I was being to negative - not in those words! When are you guys going to wake up. They have a mind set and no matter what you do, you lose. Do away with the Pew, maybe you stand a chance. Penn

[CaptTB]

Could have been worse? Losing 4 more fish to you is only a little worse off? That's a loss of 67% in my book. How many more days and fish are we going to lose? I told you last year that this was going to happen and you said I was being to negative - not in those words! When are you guys going to wake up. They have a mind set and no matter what you do, you lose. Do away with the Pew, maybe you stand a chance. Penn

Wake up? Sorry, but you must be confused. We did not lose 4 more fish. The vote was 14 to 3 IN FAVOR of keeping state by state regs.

We told many people (you included) that SSFFF was working hard to get the quota back up, and to date the quota has gone up nearly 40% in 2 years.

That's the single biggest reason that our regs will likely be the same or tweaked by a few days (and possibly more days not less once the wave 5 numbers come in next week)

So while I agree with the mind set of which you speak, we in fact did not lose, and likely did not lose anything at all. Matter of fact, despite the BS claims we went 25% over the quota, because of the increase in quota based on the new scientific information the quota went up more than our supposed overage.

As I said, I think you are a little confused.

[penn50w]

Wake up? Sorry, but you must be confused. We did not lose 4 more fish. The vote was 14 to 3 IN FAVOR of keeping state by state regs.

We told many people (you included) that SSFFF was working hard to get the quota back up, and to date the quota has gone up nearly 40% in 2 years.

That's the single biggest reason that our regs will likely be the same or tweaked by a few days (and possibly more days not less once the wave 5 numbers come in next week)

So while I agree with the mind set of which you speak, we in fact did not lose, and likely did not lose anything at all. Matter of fact, despite the BS claims we went 25% over the quota, because of the increase in quota based on the new scientific information the quota went up more than our supposed overage.

As I said, I think you are a little confused.

My apologies, read something wrong. Penn