BASS BARN banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It's nice that we could help, but I would have loved longer on both ends...........What's everyone's thoughts on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,101 Posts
Thats O.K.
They would do it for us,Right? Or would they?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,464 Posts
:confused: Underdog, we did not "loan" summer flounder quota to anyone! The addendum that passed at the ASMFC only involved those states that had already set their quotas. NJ had not set ours yet. NJMFC set our season using the same reasoning that we have used for several years now. It is our intention not to have to increase restrictions in the following year due to overharvesting. It is the conservative approach. We did not want to increase the season this year only to have to have an even shorter season in 2007. Had the quota not been cut from 33 million to 23 million we probably would have had a longer season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
All things being considered,I think season and limits are fair.Longer seasons on each end would be great and I think are not too far from being set,within the next 5 years or so.6 16in fish from April 1st to Nov 15th would be nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I am aware of Sea bear's reasoning and have heard it. It makes sense, no doubt. Still would have liked a longer season, but according to the way things are done it would have put us at risk in 07. Seabear, you say "our" a couple times, like you are on the inside. Are you on one of the committees that has input or makes desicions? 8 fish at 16.5 is fine to me. Just don't want it cut or lose season. There's a lot o flatties in the big pond biting well till the end of October and we all know they can show up early inside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,464 Posts
Yes Underdog, I guess I am on the inside. I serve on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council as a recreational representative. I am also the chairman of the Council's Summer Flounder committee. I have been in the middle of the fluke issue for a while. When we first started with a season, I fought hard to have it start in April. I had a lot of opposition from the northern end of the state. As the quota got smaller our season got shorter. As the quota increased we were able to add to both ends of the season. I for one would love to have the season open year round. Hopefully we can work torwards this goal. I can forsee a question in the future where we will have to decide on a longer season or a smaller size limit as long as the biomass keeps increasing. As Capt.alc111 stated, it would definately be nice! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,090 Posts
And they won't go over quota again this year right?I would like a longer season,even if it's
just another week.I don't think we'll be bluefin fishin!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
It was my understandind that if we kept our quota the same this year we could have started in April. I don't know about the pond but I do know that in the back the big fish are there from April till late May/ early June. It doesn't matter if we kept the quota or not were going to get screwed in the end anyway. Look at tog, winter flounder, black bass restrictions are never eased up for the rec. fishermen they just get tighter and tighter. next they will be putting quotas on sea robins and skates. Even if they would havbe allowed the head boats to keep one flounder per fare at say 15 1/2" that would at least helped them. Take No Bones for example A guy on vacation rents a boat $70.00 throw in bait, ice , tackle, rod rental etc. Thats a hundred dollar day and then the guy can't take home one fish because all ten fish he caught were under 16 1/2". There is something wrong with this picture. Just my opnion. Ok fellas have at me.
mole
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Too bad we can't lengthen the season on both ends but have a bigger size minimum, ex 19", or smaller creel, ex. 5 fish, - for those additional weeks to keep the # of fish harvested down, but allowing us to target them. As much as striped bass are cool. My favorite fish is flounder, big flounder!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish, it's a fish!!!

There was alot of opposition for passing this Addendum, but it went thru anyway!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Originally posted by seabear:
The addendum that passed at the ASMFC only involved those states that had already set their quotas. NJ had not set ours yet.
Seabear,

If the technicality you?ve referenced above, does in fact end up preventing the use by other states of NJ?s unused quota, doesn?t the possibility exist for that "oversight" to be corrected by the passage of a modified motion at the next ASMFC summer flounder board meeting?

Kathy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
Seabar, are you saying that NJ "Chose" not to give our savings to the Northern States? It was my impression that NJ was one of the states willing to give their unused quota up? Or, is it just becasue our regs weren't set by the meeting, we "can't" give up our unused quota? From what I understand, if those states that had not yet set their quotas as of the date of the Addendum choose to remain status quo, (like NJ) their unused quota will be transferred to NY, RI & Conn on a voluntary basis? But, you can bet if a modified motion is required to force us to give up our unused quota, there will be one! Provided we do give up our unused quota, NJ is giving up a chance to lax it's regs for this season, and our cushion if we overfish this year. If we do, we'll have to rely on other states underfishing and willing to give us their unused quota to bail us out if we overfish rather than having that cushion of savings in the bank we earned by not using all our available quota the year before, and for taking the conservative approach in setting our regs at status quo this year because we "gave" our savings, not lent it to the northern states? Sounds like we're giving up alot to me! If I'm wrong, maybe someone can explain in laymens terms, how were not giving up anything?

[ 03-06-2006, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: CaptG ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Originally posted by CaptG:
If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish, it's a fish!!!

There was alot of opposition for passing this Addendum, but it went thru anyway!!
CaptG,

As far as I'm concerned your thoughts on this addendum, in this thread as well as in previous ones, have been right on the money.

The whole thing stinks IMO.

Kathy

CaptG - just read you latest post - no state is allowed to carry over to the next year any unused quota from the previous year. Just wanted to clear that up for you.

I've been against this addendum from the beginning. But I felt it was a done deal and thats why I never even bothered to write in my opinion to the ASMFC summer flounder board. How NJ could have voted for it's passage when the JCAA and all it's members were against it is quite revealing IMO.

[ 03-06-2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: observer ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
Kathy, but now we can give it to other states :confused: Yes, as it is, no state can carry over their 05 underage to 06 in terms of # of lbs. added to their quota for 06, but unused quota from the previous year does allow states the opportunity to lax their regs for the current year which is the case with NJ in this and past years. Per the addendum "Savings are defined as the number of fish not utilized by a state with the opportunity to liberalize its regulations" So, no state can carry over to the next year any unused quota from the previous year, but we can "now" give that unused quota or savings to other states rather than have it go into the conservative bucket which helps us attain our stock rebuilding goal by 2010. Doesn't make sense to me to jeopardize our rebuilding goals now when we never did so for states that overfished in the past, especially now with the attainment of the 2010 goal in question, taking the un-conservative approach now will just prolong the rebuilding of the stocks and the lax of our regs for the future! And yes, I knew it was a done deal too, but I sent my public comment anyway. And yes, the fact NJ voted for it when so many were against it sure makes you think those in the decision making process have to have their hand in the c$$kie jar whixh is certainly not in the best interest of the fish!

[ 03-06-2006, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: CaptG ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
CaptG,

Completely agree with you again. There is nothing wrong with NJ staying conservative with their fluke regs (i.e. not using all that is allowed by the FMP) - but as you said it should go back into the building of the stock, not for the use by other states - especially as you pointed it out with the 2010 deadline.

Here's another good reason against it - I went to a Mid-Atlantic fluke meeting back in September out on Long Island. Wanted to hear what the talking points would be for the next big overhaul of the summer flounder FMP (Amendment 14). Not surprising to me, a NC commercial MAFMC representative asked for recreational payback to be discussed on the agenda (yet again). We - meaning coastwide (and coastwide is all the NMFS cares about) - did not go over our fluke quota in 2005. But this addendum will put us all on a coastwide basis at fishing to the max of allowable regulations. It just ups the ante for a MRFSS overage in 2006 and could just add more fuel to the fire of recreational paybacks.

And whoever says that this will be good because in the future if NJ goes over it's yearly fluke quota and NY is under its yearly fluke quota that NY will not opt to lower their size limit or increase their bag limit and instead vote to give it to NJ - well tell me - where is the logic in that thinking?

To me what it came down to is who had the ear of the voting members of the ASMFC. And it certainly wasn't what it?s supposed to be - and that is the majority opinion of the public.

The problem NY may be having is obvious to me by the latest revelation of their weakfish numbers. They have too many intercepts being taken on the east end of LI and not enough on the west end. Out east is where the big fluke are caught - I know - I go there for them every year. Weakfish on the other hand were plentiful in the Raritan Bay, which would be the west end of LI. Yet MRFSS said what - around 165 weakfish total that NY caught to NJ's one million plus.

But does NY attack the real problem ? no - they instead take the easy way of going after NJ's quota. I agree with the JCAA's position - this has just set a bad precedent in the future for NJ - when NY comes after a permanent change to the state by state fluke quota shares.

Sorry for the rant!

[ 03-06-2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: observer ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,323 Posts
Oh, don't apologize, this was a blatant fish grab attempt by the northern states, particularly NY and it worked out for them at the expense of everyone else! I agree MRFSS is the real problem that should of been addressed and wasn't. Also, you are right, the precedence has now been set, and next they'll be going after is a bigger share of the quota permanently, and if they get that, no doubt some of it will be coming out of ours!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,875 Posts
Doesn't matter what we really catch. With their flawed data collection, they will spin their wheel and guess at what they think we caught, adjust it to fit their agenda and tell us what we get. Hard to think positive after so many years of seeing what really happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,464 Posts
:rolleyes: Looks like I got a few things to answer here. I'll start with Mole's post.

As I explained earlier the quota was cut from 29millionm (05') to 23 million (06') It was initially supposed to be 33 million in o6'. If the quota wasn't cut I would assume we would have had a least a longer season.

In answer to Observer's question, I don't see how this could happen. A motion would have to be made to do another addendum, this would then have to go to public hearing. I suppose this could happen, but it couldn't be voted on before August. They could do a special Board meeting, but these cost a lot of money.

Capt. G, NJ did vote in favor of the addendum. It is because our regs weren't set until 3/2 that will cause the 3 states not to get "credit" for our fish. We were never "giving up" fish. If the 3 states could get a credit for NJ staying status quo, that would not stop us from having a cushion of 10% for this year. It was MY personal feeling that NJ should set our regs for what's best for NJ. If the other states would benefit from that, I had no problem with that. Lastly, the comments we received were about 50-50 in favor of the addendum.

How NJ could have voted for it's passage when the JCAA and all it's members were against it is quite revealing IMO.
This is a very interesting comment! First of all when I read JCAA's position statement on this subject no where did it say that "all it's members were against it". As I stated earlier public comment ran about 50-50. NJ has an estimated 1,000,000 saltwater anglers. If you add up all of the members of the JCAA clubs and the other major groups I think you would be hard pressed to have a majority of the NJ's anglers.

Lastly, if you think that NY is trying to grab some of NJ's quota, I believe your right! :mad: At the December joint meeting with the ASMFC & the MAFMC Gordon Colvin stated that we needed to go to a coast wide quota system, which was just voted down. He then talked about the allocations of fluke were unfair to NY. I find it quite interesting that it was NY who wanted a "recreational payback" That would have gotten them an interesting season!

Hope I helped clear up some things
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Originally posted by seabear:
If the quota wasn't cut I would assume we would have had a least a longer season.
[/QB]
Correct me if wrong, but it is my understanding that NJ could have extended it?s season, regardless of the cut in TAL, but chose not to in order to be on the conservative side.

Originally posted by seabear:
Capt. G, NJ did vote in favor of the addendum. It is because our regs weren't set until 3/2 that will cause the 3 states not to get "credit" for our fish.
[/QB]
First let me say that I hope you are correct in that this ?oversight? will in fact preclude other states from getting ?credit? for our fish.

But the fact remains this final version of the addendum was NJ?s idea and as you have already stated NJ voted for its passage. The intent was there and I?m having a hard time believing that this will not come to fruition due to an oversight that probably wasn?t apparent to all at the time of the vote.

I suppose only time will tell on this one.

Originally posted by seabear:
It was MY personal feeling that NJ should set our regs for what's best for NJ. If the other states would benefit from that, I had no problem with that.
[/QB]
Again, correct me if I?m wrong, but I thought that NJ could have chosen to extend it?s season with what we had this year.

I am not OK with another state using our ?extra fish? when the southern end of NJ could have been benefited by an earlier starting season.

To have made a decision to save it for the purpose of stock rebuilding would have been one thing, but that was not an option under this addendum - it was use it or lose it.

I disagree with your take on it. In my mind, it was giving the use of NJ's extra fish away for other states to use.

Originally posted by seabear:
As I stated earlier public comment ran about 50-50.
[/QB]
I would really like to see the results of the public comment on this. What, if any, was the RFA and United Boatmen of NJ?s stance on this? If either of these groups gave an opinion ? did they, as well as the JCAA, poll their membership?

Originally posted by seabear:
If you add up all of the members of the JCAA clubs and the other major groups I think you would be hard pressed to have a majority of the NJ's anglers.
[/QB]
The word majority referred to the majority of those who gave a comment on the addendum. Not the enitre state of NJ anglers.

As to New York.

There is only one state under the summer flounder management plan who has a greater share of the rec fluke pie than the State of NY and that state is NJ.

It's my opinion that by saying it?s alright for other states to use NJ?s surplus this year, was a help to other states when they lay the groundwork in the future for a permanent state by state recreational allocation change.

Because now they can say - Hey you didn't need it this year.

I have compassion for the economic difficulty surrounding the fluke regulations on the western end of Long Island.

Yet at the same time, I have compassion for the businesses here in NJ that are either now gone or just hanging on, due to their own economic difficulties.

I'm disappointed by NJ's actions regarding this one. And I'm sorry to say, but I think those in favor of this addendum had their priorities misplaced or were mislead to the full picture.

[ 03-08-2006, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: observer ]
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top