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?



Fin~S

[Leif]

Originally Posted by fin_s_guy

Me too!!! M.F.'rs

Who needs to get fitted?



Fin~S

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.

[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.