Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
CWitek

ASMFC has released the latest draft of Amenbdment 7

Rate this topic

79 posts in this topic

On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 26, the ASMFC's Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will meet.

 

The focus of the meeting will be reviewing, perhaps revising, and probably releasing for public comment the latest draft of Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.

 

If you think that you might want to contact your state's ASMFC representatives, and provide them with comment on what ought to be kept in or taken out of the draft before it is released for comment and public hearings, you can look at the draft document here:  http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2022WinterMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoard_Jan2022.pdf

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CWitek said:

On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 26, the ASMFC's Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will meet.

 

The focus of the meeting will be reviewing, perhaps revising, and probably releasing for public comment the latest draft of Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.

 

If you think that you might want to contact your state's ASMFC representatives, and provide them with comment on what ought to be kept in or taken out of the draft before it is released for comment and public hearings, you can look at the draft document here:  http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2022WinterMeeting/AtlanticStripedBassBoard_Jan2022.pdf

 

 

 

Thanks for posting this.  I will take a look.

 

I'm curious, what are some of your suggestions on what they ought to leave in/out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jps1010 said:

Thanks for posting this.  I will take a look.

 

I'm curious, what are some of your suggestions on what they ought to leave in/out?

I don't like the changes to the management triggers that will allow 2 or 3 years delay after the stock is found to be overfished or subject to overfishing,.  While I appreciate that there is some uncertainty in the data, the concern seems very one-sided--the changes allow managers to make sure that the the trigger has actually been tripped--that the stock is really overfished or experiencing overfishing--and that the data showing that the threshold has been exceeded doesn't overstate the problem.  However, they never consider the other situation--that because of uncertainty, the because of uncertainty, the data may show that no action is needed when, in reality, the trigger has already been tripped.  I am less concerned about target-related triggers, although I support the status quo.  But weakening threshold-related triggers means that the crisis may have already occurred, and is allowed to get worse for another few years before action is taken.

 

Similarly, I oppose the proposals that would allow delay because management action had recently taken place, and they want to wait before doing something else.  

 

However, I support proposals to change the management triggers related to recruitment, to require the Management Board to adopt a lower fishing mortality rate if three years of recruitment falls below the benchmark based on recruitment 1992-present, instead of the entire time series, which includes the low recruitment that occurred during the collapse.

 

I support the option that requires a rebuilding plan, and prefer the one that adopts a low-recruitment assumption.

 

I want to see the use of conservation equivalency prohibited when the stock is overfished, experiencing overfishing, or rebuilding, and I want to see states who adopt conservation equivalency required to take a larger-than-coastwide reduction to allow for the greater uncertainty in state data.  I'd like to see the option which allows states to adopt a reduction equalt to the statewide reduction, rather than the reduction applicable to the entire coast, removed, as such option would reduce the effectiveness of the rebuilding plan, and seems to conflict with the ASMFC charter.

 

I don't want to see a mandatory closed season to limit recreational effort (although I would like to see the NY/NJ season begin a week or two into May in order to protect the pre-spawn Hudson females that stage in Raritan Bay and elsewhere in the New York Bight before moving upstream.,

 

I am agnostic about protecting the 2015, 2017, and 2018 year classes.  Technical Committee calculations seem to indicate that doing so will have little impact on rebuilding, and that what really matters---hopefuily to no one's surprise--is killing fewer fish.  Which takes us back to the need for a rebuilding plan.

 

Those are the ones that immediately come to mind.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

50 mins ago, CWitek said:

 

I don't want to see a mandatory closed season to limit recreational effort (although I would like to see the NY/NJ season begin a week or two into May in order to protect the pre-spawn Hudson females that stage in Raritan Bay and elsewhere in the New York Bight before moving upstream.,

 

I am agnostic about protecting the 2015, 2017, and 2018 year classes.  Technical Committee calculations seem to indicate that doing so will have little impact on rebuilding, and that what really matters---hopefuily to no one's surprise--is killing fewer fish.  Which takes us back to the need for a rebuilding plan.

 

Those are the ones that immediately come to mind.

 

 

I questioned Katie Drew on that tech committee “study.” And she admitted that it did not take into account several benefits that would occur. Principal among them the fact that bigger female spawners produce bigger eggs and fry which are better equipped to cope with unfavorable ecological conditions.

Edited by MakoMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CWitek said:

I don't like the changes to the management triggers that will allow 2 or 3 years delay after the stock is found to be overfished or subject to overfishing,.  While I appreciate that there is some uncertainty in the data, the concern seems very one-sided--the changes allow managers to make sure that the the trigger has actually been tripped--that the stock is really overfished or experiencing overfishing--and that the data showing that the threshold has been exceeded doesn't overstate the problem.  However, they never consider the other situation--that because of uncertainty, the because of uncertainty, the data may show that no action is needed when, in reality, the trigger has already been tripped.  I am less concerned about target-related triggers, although I support the status quo.  But weakening threshold-related triggers means that the crisis may have already occurred, and is allowed to get worse for another few years before action is taken.

 

Similarly, I oppose the proposals that would allow delay because management action had recently taken place, and they want to wait before doing something else.  

 

However, I support proposals to change the management triggers related to recruitment, to require the Management Board to adopt a lower fishing mortality rate if three years of recruitment falls below the benchmark based on recruitment 1992-present, instead of the entire time series, which includes the low recruitment that occurred during the collapse.

 

I support the option that requires a rebuilding plan, and prefer the one that adopts a low-recruitment assumption.

 

I want to see the use of conservation equivalency prohibited when the stock is overfished, experiencing overfishing, or rebuilding, and I want to see states who adopt conservation equivalency required to take a larger-than-coastwide reduction to allow for the greater uncertainty in state data.  I'd like to see the option which allows states to adopt a reduction equalt to the statewide reduction, rather than the reduction applicable to the entire coast, removed, as such option would reduce the effectiveness of the rebuilding plan, and seems to conflict with the ASMFC charter.

 

I don't want to see a mandatory closed season to limit recreational effort (although I would like to see the NY/NJ season begin a week or two into May in order to protect the pre-spawn Hudson females that stage in Raritan Bay and elsewhere in the New York Bight before moving upstream.,

 

I am agnostic about protecting the 2015, 2017, and 2018 year classes.  Technical Committee calculations seem to indicate that doing so will have little impact on rebuilding, and that what really matters---hopefuily to no one's surprise--is killing fewer fish.  Which takes us back to the need for a rebuilding plan.

 

Those are the ones that immediately come to mind.

 

 

Thanks for the detailed response.  In short, I want there to be more bass around which I believe your suggestions would help gets us there.  We have kicked the can down the road for far too long.  More needs to be done now.  I will be contacting my ASMFC rep.  I hope others do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the process of writing my Thursday blog, which will address the proposed management trigger options to be included in the draft Amendment 7.  As I continue to write, I realize that some of those options could create a situation where triggers are never tripped, and the Management Board never has to act to reduce fishing mortality.

 

There are some good things in the draft amendment, but some of what's there could create a Devil's playground.

 

Just figured that folks ought to know, and take a look for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may seem like a minor point I think it causes under counting of fish caught under the commercial regulation. On page 34 of the draft under tag timing it allows for commercially caught fish to be tagged at harvest or at point of sale. The rule should require tagging at harvest to ensure all fish caught under commercial regulations are counted against the commercial quota. Currently in Mass they tag at sale which then depends on honesty for counting fish that are not sold. Mass regulations allow for keeping fish for personal use and bartering. Then you have the two fish rod and reel shore license for cheap money that to me is a license to steal. Only a small percentage of Mass commercial license holders report catching fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MichaelT said:

While it may seem like a minor point I think it causes under counting of fish caught under the commercial regulation. On page 34 of the draft under tag timing it allows for commercially caught fish to be tagged at harvest or at point of sale. The rule should require tagging at harvest to ensure all fish caught under commercial regulations are counted against the commercial quota. Currently in Mass they tag at sale which then depends on honesty for counting fish that are not sold. Mass regulations allow for keeping fish for personal use and bartering. Then you have the two fish rod and reel shore license for cheap money that to me is a license to steal. Only a small percentage of Mass commercial license holders report catching fish.

Good point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MichaelT said:

.........  Only a small percentage of Mass commercial license holders report catching fish......

Wrong...you cannot renew your license annually if you do not report your catch (either electronically or via logbook); it states that explicitly on annual renewal forms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, makaha said:

Wrong...you cannot renew your license annually if you do not report your catch (either electronically or via logbook); it states that explicitly on annual renewal forms...

I did not say they weren’t sending in the reports. What I said was the reports show that only around 25% of striped bass tag holder report catching any bass. 
Problem is since fish aren’t tagged until sold we have to depend on honesty of the reporter to actually know what was caught. If it is required to tag when caught and the tags need to be accounted for it would lessen the chance of fish not being reported.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tag upon landing makes sense.  That's how it's done here in New York.

 

A number of years ago, Maryland had a big problem with untagged fish entering the stream of commerce because of its delayed tagging system.  Ultimately over $1mm in bass were illegally sold as a result of collusion between the fishermen and the folks responsible for tagging.  The good news was that there was a big federal prosecution, and some meaningful penalties.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MichaelT said:

I did not say they weren’t sending in the reports. What I said was the reports show that only around 25% of striped bass tag holder report catching any bass. 
Problem is since fish aren’t tagged until sold we have to depend on honesty of the reporter to actually know what was caught. If it is required to tag when caught and the tags need to be accounted for it would lessen the chance of fish not being reported.
 

The tags do have to be accounted for. But I do take your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MichaelT said:

I did not say they weren’t sending in the reports. What I said was the reports show that only around 25% of striped bass tag holder report catching any bass. 
Problem is since fish aren’t tagged until sold we have to depend on honesty of the reporter to actually know what was caught. If it is required to tag when caught and the tags need to be accounted for it would lessen the chance of fish not being reported.
 

I understood what you were saying; A lot of license holders just renew every year in case DMF institutes a control date going forward, they won't lose their right to sell bass. Because now you actually have to work to catch the fish instead of the Chatham jig fishery massacre of several years ago, a lot of guys don't bass fish anymore. Also, some rec guys just want the ability to kill more bass then 1 slot fish per day, i.e., they get a striped bass endorsement....tagging on capture is the way to go; no funny stuff happens that way (different gear types passing fish to rod and reelers, i.e., RI, MA, maybe NY)  if you're not actually fishing/ catching...you usually have the right to sell that tag to another fisherman (I believe NY operates this way).  But my point was, that sold fish MUST be reported; so commercial numbers are actual, instead of guestimates as in the Rec fishery. 

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.