Drew C.

Asmfc meeting 4/30

Rate this topic

73 posts in this topic

watched along on FB via Ross Squire's updates.  seems like some good may have come out of the meeting, but I don't want to misquote anything.... stay tuned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I removed a couple posts - please do not send folks to other sites when they ask a question here - we don’t promote any FB pages or groups here. Thanks.

 

TimS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, MakoMike said:

I listened to the whole thing.

Can you share some of the highlights with us? :idea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First just a little background. I wrote to many members of the board whom I know personally and told them exactly what I thought. I was very pleased when some of the spoke up for the measures that i was pushing for. 

 

Overall, I though they were entirely too focused on reducing F in 2020, to the target. The substitute proposal, which became the main proposal and was ultimately approved, was aimed at getting the board aimed to get the focus on what was required of them by amendment VI. But they quickly got lost in the details of getting the required F reductions and never really addressed rebuilding the stock.

 

One thing that I was really surprised at, was that the staff did not know how long the rebuild would take at the target F.  They'll be better prepared next time. 

 

Overall, they moved in the right direction, but like all things movement is ponderous at best. There will be a lot of bobbing and weaving before the next meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My option of the meeting was it was nothing but disgraceful. They knew last meeting what was coming and some members suggested they have additional meetings prior to this one but didn’t. Now they have just kicked the can down to the August meeting looking for a plan with only a 50% chance of making a 17% reduction. With talk of not looking to reduce the commercial harvest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides sending a letter to NMFS to oppose opening the Block Island/Montauk EEZ Transit Zone to fishing, here's the basis of what the Technical Committee has been assigned to address.  They want to discuss the TC's proposals at the Summer Meeting with public comments this coming fall.  They're shooting for 2020 implementation, but as MM stated above, there will be much bobbing and weaving in the meantime.

 

There was also talk about immediately beginning a new Amendment immediately following this addendum's adoption...

 

1556650784095-png.5094

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 mins ago, MichaelT said:

My option of the meeting was it was nothing but disgraceful. They knew last meeting what was coming and some members suggested they have additional meetings prior to this one but didn’t. Now they have just kicked the can down to the August meeting looking for a plan with only a 50% chance of making a 17% reduction. With talk of not looking to reduce the commercial harvest. 

this is standard behavior for these guys....   (push things off to when the attention may be a little less intense)   plus theres always lip service to special interests who have their hands up a reps back and make requests/suggestions that are catered to a small group.  It serves to muddy up the process and divert any meaningful discussions to another time or place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 mins ago, MichaelT said:

My option of the meeting was it was nothing but disgraceful. They knew last meeting what was coming and some members suggested they have additional meetings prior to this one but didn’t. Now they have just kicked the can down to the August meeting looking for a plan with only a 50% chance of making a 17% reduction. With talk of not looking to reduce the commercial harvest. 

Yes, everyone knew what was coming and for some reason only asked the tech committee one question. Did you expect them to work without pay to have subsequent meetings to more refine the question like the one they had today? AFAIK the 17% reduction methodology and how long it takes to rebuild the biomass is still on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, MakoMike said:

Yes, everyone knew what was coming and for some reason only asked the tech committee one question. Did you expect them to work without pay to have subsequent meetings to more refine the question like the one they had today? AFAIK the 17% reduction methodology and how long it takes to rebuild the biomass is still on the table.

Tired of excuses for ASMFC!  I worked many days during my career without pay when there were important issues, plus the budget was resolved months ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.