Jump to content

Intel on Last Night's ME/NH Striper Addendum 1 to Amendment 7 MTG??

Rate this topic


Roccus7

Recommended Posts

Couldn't make it, but I had sent in a letter.  Was anyone there/listening in?  Got a summary report??

Edited by Roccus7

Shall I go to heaven or a-fishing? - H. D. Thoreau

 

Veni.  Vidi.  Cepi. - with apologies to Gaius Julius Caesar

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that this had been rejected once before, AND to date, none of the meetings had anything but strong support for Option 1, ASMFC will sign their own death certificate if they go with any other option.  

Shall I go to heaven or a-fishing? - H. D. Thoreau

 

Veni.  Vidi.  Cepi. - with apologies to Gaius Julius Caesar

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something like 21 people were in attendance between both states. I have no clue if that’s few or many for this type of thing, but I feel like I’ve seen more people on certain beaches on any given evening in June. Maybe other state meetings had better attendance. 
 

I was stoked on everyone’s support for option A and I like to think that’ll be the way things go, but man, a part of me wouldn’t be surprised if I’m wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ftyer said:

I think something like 21 people were in attendance between both states. I have no clue if that’s few or many for this type of thing, but I feel like I’ve seen more people on certain beaches on any given evening in June. Maybe other state meetings had better attendance. 
 

I was stoked on everyone’s support for option A and I like to think that’ll be the way things go, but man, a part of me wouldn’t be surprised if I’m wrong. 

Never underestimate the ineptitude or corruption of the people at the asmfc. 

ASMFC - Destroying public resources and fisheries one stock at a time since 1942.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 10:28 PM, Ftyer said:

I think something like 21 people were in attendance between both states. I have no clue if that’s few or many for this type of thing, but I feel like I’ve seen more people on certain beaches on any given evening in June. Maybe other state meetings had better attendance. 
 

I was stoked on everyone’s support for option A and I like to think that’ll be the way things go, but man, a part of me wouldn’t be surprised if I’m wrong. 

 

On 1/11/2023 at 0:40 PM, Fergal said:

Never underestimate the ineptitude or corruption of the people at the asmfc. 

New York had about 25, give or take a few.

 

I'm having a tough time handicapping this one.  There are enough states with nothing to gain that I can see it going the right way, but my fear is that some  state managers will feel guilty leaving Delaware with an "unfair" allocation, and will provide sympathy votes.  If I was to guess right now, I'd say that ME and NH are likely to vote against, MA, NJ, and PA might be leaning against, MD and VA may be leaning for, DE will vote for, and RI, CT, DC, PRFC, and NC are tossups.  NMFS and USF&W will probably abstain.  NY could null, as it currently has no legislative appointee.  If it gets such appointee ahead of the meeting and such appointee or a proxy is at the meeting, it will probably vote against.

 

I'd normally agree with @Roccus7 that the ASMFC could be risking its future by approving the transfers, but given the current Congress, the Commission is probably safe for the next couple of years.

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was 21 people at the Maine/NH meeting but they said there was an additional 32 attending the meeting online according to one of the representatives.

 

i think they will approve one of the transfer options at the Jan 31 meeting. At the Maine/NH meeting the ASMFC rep said several times that the transfer would only result in a very small increase in the total kill. Got the impression this would be there justification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MichaelT said:

There was 21 people at the Maine/NH meeting but they said there was an additional 32 attending the meeting online according to one of the representatives.

 

i think they will approve one of the transfer options at the Jan 31 meeting. At the Maine/NH meeting the ASMFC rep said several times that the transfer would only result in a very small increase in the total kill. Got the impression this would be there justification. 

If they pick an option, I think it will be E, which requires the Management Board to set conditions for transfers on an annual basis, does not permit transfers when the stock is overfishedm, and permits the Board to prohibit transfers in any year, even if they would otherwise be allowed.

 

That will allow them to say that they won't allow transfers if it looks like it will interfere with rebuilding.

 

If the ASMFC rep was Emilie Franke, she's probably referring to the fact that transfers would be somewhere in the range of 300,000 pounds per year or a little more, if the other states maintain their current policies (most would come from North Carolina; New Jersey potentially could transfer large amounts, but not so long as their "bonus fish" program reallocates the NJ commercial fish to the recreataional sector).  That does seem a small amount given that the recreational sector could end up increasing its kill by 750,000-1,000,000 fish--not pounds, but fish, which perhaps average 10 or so pounds apiece--this year. 

 

Nonetheless, it won't be good for the bass, nor would it help the recovery.

 

 

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The ASMFC decided to postpone the vote and delay taking action on Addendum I, claiming that more technical analysis was needed. 
 

Out of the 2000 comments received, only 3 were in favor of allowing commercial transfers. All other comments supported Option A.
 

If that doesn’t show you they are laser focused on allowing commercial transfers, I don’t know what does.

 

So it sounds like they will be drumming up more data so they can allow commercial transfers in the face of public opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kicking the can down the road IS Rule #1 in the ASMFC playbook...  

 

In a note to me, the sagacious @CWitek's hypothesis agrees with yours @Pickerel92 in that they didn't have the stones to vote against the overwhelming public opinion against the transfer. He feels they  are waiting for complete 2022 catch data to either show the transfers would have little or no overall impact, and that increased rec landings are the biggest problem so there should be little concern about keeping the total commercial quota, just reallocated.

Edited by Roccus7

Shall I go to heaven or a-fishing? - H. D. Thoreau

 

Veni.  Vidi.  Cepi. - with apologies to Gaius Julius Caesar

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 mins ago, Pickerel92 said:

The ASMFC decided to postpone the vote and delay taking action on Addendum I, claiming that more technical analysis was needed. 
 

Out of the 2000 comments received, only 3 were in favor of allowing commercial transfers. All other comments supported Option A.
 

If that doesn’t show you they are laser focused on allowing commercial transfers, I don’t know what does.

 

So it sounds like they will be drumming up more data so they can allow commercial transfers in the face of public opposition.

If there was a clear majority who wanted to allow transfers, the vote probably would have happened, and transfers would have been approved.

 

Instead, I think what we were looking at was a situation where a few states--notably Delaware and Rhode Island--wanted transfers, a few jurisdications--it looked like Massachusetts, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and, notably, North Carolina--were opposed, and there were a lot of fence-sitters (although I think that some of the apparent fence-sitters might have supported status quo in a straight-up vote).  I also believe that a big reason for some of the fence-sitting was aversion to vote contrary to the public commment.

 

Delaware moved to adopt Option D, which would have allowed transfers under such conditions as the Management Board might set each year.  It was seconded, surprisingly, by Maine's Governor's Appointee, who referenced the benefits that transfers of other species has wrought--which was probably a direct reference to Maine's receipt of substantial amounts of menhaden quota needed by its lobster industry.

 

Once that motion was put on the table, two other Management Board members, Dr. Jason McNamee, the Rhode Island fishery manager, and Dennis Abbott, the legislative proxy from New Hampshire, asked to speak.  Dr. McNamee was given the floor first, and proposed a substitute motion that tasked the Technical Committee to determine how 1) catching the entire ocean quota, and 2) catching  the entire ocean quota, less New Jersey's amount (which has been reallocated to the recreational fishery) would impact the projected 2029 recovery.  The TC will report back at the May meeting.

 

Until then, we remain at the status quo, with transfers not allowed.

 

Dr. McNamee's motion was a brilliant bit of parlimentary maneuvering.  The fact that he made it tells me that the pro-transfer side was not certain that it had the votes, and was afraid that it would lose in a straight-up vote (the fact that Delaware opted for the restricted transfers of Option D, rather than the unrestricted transfers of Option B, also suggest a belief that Option B was dead in the water, and some sort of compromise was needed).  However, it is very difficult to vote against a proposal to seek additional data, and merely vote down the transfers when your colleagues are suggesting that additional data might provide greater insight into the issue.  It looks like you are trying to hide the truth, and get the vote over and done with before the truth can be put on the table.  Thus, the motion to postpone was more difficult to vote against.

 

Having said that, I also believe that if Mr Abbott had gotten the floor before Dr. McNamee, he would have moved to adopt Option A, and the motion to postpone might not  have succeeded with that definitive motion on the floor.

 

I believe the intent of the motion to postpone was to demonstrate that the commercial transfers would have negligible impact on the recovery--transferring the entire North Carolina quota would only increase overall landings by 0.5% or less--meaning that the concerns expressed in most of the comments don't have a factual base, while also making the point that the real threat to the recovery is the 10,000,000 or more pounds of increased recreational landings (such landings for the first 10 months of 2022 exceeded 2021 landings for the same period by about 1,000,000 fish, without considering what might have been landed in November and December, given the hot Wave 6 fishery in the New York Bight, and if one assumes that the average recreationally landed fish weighs 10 pounds, the  10 million pound mark could be easily broken).  Compared to the recreational increase, a 300,000 pound commercial increase is, the argument will likely go, trivial, and not worth worrying about.

 

However, the principle that no increase, of any amount, should be permitted when the stock is overfished and in the earliest stages of recovery remains valid.

 

This debate is far from over, and the outcome of the May meeting remains in doubt.  The disparity between any possible commercial increase and the real recreational increase will make the argument more difficult, but a willingness to constrain both fisheries to F<0.17 remains the best way to prevail.

"I have always believed that outdoor writers who come out against fish and wildlife conservation are in the wrong business. To me, it makes as much sense golf writers coming out against grass.."  --  Ted Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2023 at 9:14 AM, Pickerel92 said:

The ASMFC decided to postpone the vote and delay taking action on Addendum I, claiming that more technical analysis was needed. 
 

Out of the 2000 comments received, only 3 were in favor of allowing commercial transfers. All other comments supported Option A.
 

If that doesn’t show you they are laser focused on allowing commercial transfers, I don’t know what does.

 

So it sounds like they will be drumming up more data so they can allow commercial transfers in the face of public opposition.

Yup there will probably be back doors, and Maine may be one of the deciding factors…. They will stoop to whatever level to try and get menhaden quota transfers… typical ASMFC business…. Shady and unlogical

GOD made my Mold different from the rest, Then he broke that mold so I know I'm Blessed.
Link to comment
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


×
×
  • Create New...