stripedbassking

ASMFC meeting this week

Rate this topic

16 posts in this topic

You do need to register in advance.  Google ASMFC spring meeting and scroll down on the page to the registration link.  I am hoping someone comes out of left field and makes a motion to can Amendment 7 and and do a couple of addendums on Amendment 6 to restore the Spawning Stock biomass, restrict Conservation Equivalency, and reduce mortality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Catch This said:

You do need to register in advance.  Google ASMFC spring meeting and scroll down on the page to the registration link.  I am hoping someone comes out of left field and makes a motion to can Amendment 7 and and do a couple of addendums on Amendment 6 to restore the Spawning Stock biomass, restrict Conservation Equivalency, and reduce mortality.

They're too far down the road on amendment 7 to go back now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MakoMike said:

They're too far down the road on amendment 7 to go back now.

I keep flipping back and forth on that.  In my gut, I think that you may be right, but the ASMFC is going to have a hard time justifying any radical changes in the face of both the stakeholder comment and the AP recommendations.

 

What I'm hoping--and believe is possible, although not certain--is that we'll see Issue 2 (Biological Reference Points) and Issure 5 (Regional Management) removed from further consideration.  There's might be a decent chance that Issue 4 (Rebuilding Time) will be removed, too.

 

At that point, they can propose some minor changes to Issue 1 (Goals and Objectives), leave in Issue 3 (Management Triggers) to propose revisions to Trigger 5, which deals with recruitment, look at major changes in Issue 6 (Conservation Equivalency) to make it harder to game the system and abuse the equivalency process, have a largely theoretical discussion on Issue 7 (Recreational Release Mortality), have a discussion on Issue 8 (Recreational Accountability) which may touch on a number of topics, but focuses on accountability linked to conservation equivalency, and maybe looks at Issue 9 (Commercial Reallocation).

 

That would keep Amendment 7 alive, and might actuially improve the process a bit.

 

On the other hand, any real possibility of conservation equivalency reform would motivate some of the biggest proponents of a new Amendment--particularly New Jersey and Maryland--to vote against continuing, particularly if Issues 2 and 5 were taken off the table.

 

It's going to be an interesting meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, CWitek said:

I keep flipping back and forth on that.  In my gut, I think that you may be right, but the ASMFC is going to have a hard time justifying any radical changes in the face of both the stakeholder comment and the AP recommendations.

 

What I'm hoping--and believe is possible, although not certain--is that we'll see Issue 2 (Biological Reference Points) and Issure 5 (Regional Management) removed from further consideration.  There's might be a decent chance that Issue 4 (Rebuilding Time) will be removed, too.

 

At that point, they can propose some minor changes to Issue 1 (Goals and Objectives), leave in Issue 3 (Management Triggers) to propose revisions to Trigger 5, which deals with recruitment, look at major changes in Issue 6 (Conservation Equivalency) to make it harder to game the system and abuse the equivalency process, have a largely theoretical discussion on Issue 7 (Recreational Release Mortality), have a discussion on Issue 8 (Recreational Accountability) which may touch on a number of topics, but focuses on accountability linked to conservation equivalency, and maybe looks at Issue 9 (Commercial Reallocation).

 

That would keep Amendment 7 alive, and might actuially improve the process a bit.

 

On the other hand, any real possibility of conservation equivalency reform would motivate some of the biggest proponents of a new Amendment--particularly New Jersey and Maryland--to vote against continuing, particularly if Issues 2 and 5 were taken off the table.

 

It's going to be an interesting meeting.

It was an interesting AP meeting, I was surprised at how easily we reached a consensus. But the board has been known to completely ignore public and AP comments.

Share this post


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

It was an interesting AP meeting, I was surprised at how easily we reached a consensus. But the board has been known to completely ignore public and AP comments.

Have been known?

 

They’ve ignored public comment before and they’ve ignored their current management plan multiple times. 
 

‘Ignoring’ is what they do best!
 

 

Edited by Drew C.

Share this post


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

It was an interesting AP meeting, I was surprised at how easily we reached a consensus. But the board has been known to completely ignore public and AP comments.

I know--but I think that some of the state managers are beginning to grow concerned over anglers' discontent with the ASMFC, which was very apparent in just about every state hearing.  I suspect that ASMFC staff is getting uncomfortable with it, too.  At the New York hearing, Toni made a comment that was something like "We can't tell you why the commissioners do things": that seemed to convey a lot more frustration than Toni probably intended.

 

I suspect that the New England managers are going to be sensitive to that.  I hope that New York will be, and expect Pennsylvania, DC, and maybe North Carolina and Virginia to be somewhat sensitive to it, too.  And with a new administration in Washington, the NMFS and USF&W reps are likely to be more conservation-oriented; Max Appelman has been representing NMFS on the bass board since he left his ASMFC post, and he's been asking the right sort of questions and sending a pretty good message.

 

The question is whether New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, along with the PRFC, are going to be able to convince the other jurisdications to keep the bad ideas in the draft Amendment 7 for further discussion.  The Board has often been very collegial about such things in the past, but I'm getting the sense that Maryland, at least, may have overplayed its hand, and so lost some sympathy on the Board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 mins ago, CWitek said:

I know--but I think that some of the state managers are beginning to grow concerned over anglers' discontent with the ASMFC, which was very apparent in just about every state hearing.  I suspect that ASMFC staff is getting uncomfortable with it, too.  At the New York hearing, Toni made a comment that was something like "We can't tell you why the commissioners do things": that seemed to convey a lot more frustration than Toni probably intended.

 

I suspect that the New England managers are going to be sensitive to that.  I hope that New York will be, and expect Pennsylvania, DC, and maybe North Carolina and Virginia to be somewhat sensitive to it, too.  And with a new administration in Washington, the NMFS and USF&W reps are likely to be more conservation-oriented; Max Appelman has been representing NMFS on the bass board since he left his ASMFC post, and he's been asking the right sort of questions and sending a pretty good message.

 

The question is whether New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, along with the PRFC, are going to be able to convince the other jurisdications to keep the bad ideas in the draft Amendment 7 for further discussion.  The Board has often been very collegial about such things in the past, but I'm getting the sense that Maryland, at least, may have overplayed its hand, and so lost some sympathy on the Board.

Yeah, I sensed Toni’s frustration when I asked some very pointed questions at the meeting.  Dave Borden who chairs the board is a really no-nonsense kind of guy and is from RI. While he has to tread lightly , he won’t be bullied around by any state delegation. At a minimum I expect the revised biological triggers to be dropped and I expect a lot of discussion about how to protect the 2015 year class, which isn’t even part of the proposals.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I sensed Toni’s frustration when I asked some very pointed questions at the meeting.  Dave Borden who chairs the board is a really no-nonsense kind of guy and is from RI. While he has to tread lightly , he won’t be bullied around by any state delegation. At a minimum I expect the revised biological triggers to be dropped and I expect a lot of discussion about how to protect the 2015 year class, which isn’t even part of the proposals.

Borden has always been one of the better ASMFC commissioners.

 

And yes, protecting the 2015 year class would be a good thing, although I can't see any measures to do that put in place until 2022.

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.