CWitek

ASMFC vote on striped bass rebuilding goes the right way

Rate this topic

57 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Roccus7 said:

Not quite, his thesis was that far fewer people than previous years which meant to him everyone's happy with how things are going.

 

Typical NJ logic...

I do not believe he can even spell "thesis."

 

Keep in mind what he says is coming from a guy that had trouble reading a simple trend graph.  The fact he has any part of this process is alarming to say the least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Turkeybacn said:

That's great to hear, Thanks for the update Charles.

 

Tom Fote is a scumbag

I wouldn’t go that far regarding Fote, complete and total moron is more fitting. Asshat works too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CWitek it seems clear that they want C&R effort controls. But how does that factor into the Rebuilding plan? My understanding is that the effort controls would be separate from the rebuilding plan, and are rather baked into the overall Amendment 7.

 

So, if that’s accurate, will the rebuilding plan further address C&R mortality? And how do you anticipate they will address the other sources of mortality? We know the effort controls won’t be enough. And it seems like changing the slot limit doesn’t do much tl

curb mortality, so what are we looking at? Closed harvest seasons? More comm quota reductions? Thanks.

Share this post


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

The management board will be able to fast-track the rebuilding plan, so assuming that the stock assessment update that comes out in October is as bad as expected, we will probably see the regulations become significantly more restrictive at some point during the first half of next season.  Just what they will be, we don't know yet.  Depends on how bad the assessment update is.

 

Also, the next topic will address recreational release mortality.  Depending on what they do, we could be looking at no harvest in spawning areas in January-April, a two-week no targeting closure in spawning areas, or a two-week no targeting closure in each state's businest part of the season.  Or none of the above.

Do you have any idea or assumption what they will be.  All Catch and release?  NO charter boats?  No fishing in raritan bay?

Share this post


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

The no-harvest and no-targeting closures were voted down, and will not be put in place.

Charles, is this reversible if the stock assessment warrants it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 mins ago, Goldy said:

Do you have any idea or assumption what they will be.  All Catch and release?  NO charter boats?  No fishing in raritan bay?

At best it would be a 2 week closure because not targeting/harvesting was already shot down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 mins ago, Pickerel92 said:

@CWitek it seems clear that they want C&R effort controls. But how does that factor into the Rebuilding plan? My understanding is that the effort controls would be separate from the rebuilding plan, and are rather baked into the overall Amendment 7.

 

So, if that’s accurate, will the rebuilding plan further address C&R mortality? And how do you anticipate they will address the other sources of mortality? We know the effort controls won’t be enough. And it seems like changing the slot limit doesn’t do much tl

curb mortality, so what are we looking at? Closed harvest seasons? More comm quota reductions? Thanks.

The final version of Amendment 7 contained no effort controls.  Both a coastwide no-targeting closure and a spawning area no-harvest closure were shot down by very large margins.

 

In do expect substantial closed seasons in the rebuilding plan, but given the Law Enforcement Committee's very clear adivce that no-targeting is completely unenforceable, I suspect that the closed seasons will not outlaw catch and release.  There will almost certainly be reductions to commercial quotas, and probably some sort of adjustment to the size limit, although what that adjustment will be, I can;t say at this point.

Share this post


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

At best it would be a 2 week closure because not targeting/harvesting was already shot down. 

Ok, that doesn't make much sense.   a 2 week closure.. That's a waste.  What about just catch and release

Share this post


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

Do you have any idea or assumption what they will be.  All Catch and release?  NO charter boats?  No fishing in raritan bay?

It's just about impossible to guess what the rebuilding measures will look like until we start getting some signs of what the stock assessment update finds; such signs might start emerging at the August Management Board meeting.

 

In theory, it's not impossible that the Technical Committee will decide that the current level of fishing mortality will achieve rebuilding by 2029, but I believe that the probabilitty of that is extremely low.

 

If I was to guess, I would say substantial closed seasons, cuts in the commercial quota, and probably some sort of adjustment to the size limit.  I think that the closures will permit catch and release, because the Law Enforcement Committee advised the Management Board that no-targeting closures are completely unenforceable.

 

We could also see all sorts of creative variations, including some things that the Management Board never discussed.  For example, regulations might stay the same, but states could be required to issue one or two or three striped bass tags to a fishinhg license, and once those tags are gone, the angler can't keep any fish for the rest of the year (I haven't heard of anyone proposing this, but it is how large redfish are managed in some Gulf states).  We could see bag limits for party/charter boats, with only catch and release for everyone else (again, no ine is suggesting this).  If things are bad enough, we could potentially see 100% recreational catch and release, with a small commercial quota or, if things are really bad, no commercial quota either, as was the case with Amendment 3 (althoughn the stock was much worse off then than it is today).

 

At this point, we can only wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 mins ago, East Coaster said:

Charles, is this reversible if the stock assessment warrants it?

Yes.

 

Yesterday's votes were all about Amendment 7.  A subsequent addendum, intended to rebuild the stock, could still adopt closed seasons which might take the form of no-harvest or no-target, although I think the latter is unlikely because the Law Enforcement Committee told the Management Board that they're impossible to enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 mins ago, fishless said:

At best it would be a 2 week closure because not targeting/harvesting was already shot down. 

That's not really the case.  An addendum amending Amendment 7 could adopt closures if the Management Board chose to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 mins ago, CWitek said:

That's not really the case.  An addendum amending Amendment 7 could adopt closures if the Management Board chose to do so.

An addendum could adopt closures, That's what I was suggesting as a best case scenario for those of us with conservation in mind.  Me personally, I wish it was already part of the Amendment 7.  Id' be okay with more than 2 to be honest. 

Edited by fishless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, fishless said:

An amendment could adopt closures, That's what I was suggesting as a best case scenario for those of us with conservation in mind.  Me personally, I wish it was already part of the Amendment 7.  Id' be okay with more than 2 to be honest. 

No, an addendum.

 

Amendments are comprehensive, large-scale changes to the management plan.  They don't happen often.  Amendment 6 was adopted in 2003.  Addendums are minor adjustments to an amendment.  They can be used for just about anything other than changing the goals and objectives of the plan.  Addendums take far less time to prepare and adopt, and are where management measures--size limits, bag limits, and seasons--are generally adopted.  

 

Thus, any new closures would appear in an addendum, not another amendment.  I expect them to appear in the rebuilding plan, which will likely be designated Addendum I to Amendmenbt 7,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CWitek said:

No, an addendum.

 

Amendments are comprehensive, large-scale changes to the management plan.  They don't happen often.  Amendment 6 was adopted in 2003.  Addendums are minor adjustments to an amendment.  They can be used for just about anything other than changing the goals and objectives of the plan.  Addendums take far less time to prepare and adopt, and are where management measures--size limits, bag limits, and seasons--are generally adopted.  

 

Thus, any new closures would appear in an addendum, not another amendment.  I expect them to appear in the rebuilding plan, which will likely be designated Addendum I to Amendmenbt 7,

Sorry, I meant to type addendum and had amendment on the brain. 

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.