[flatts1b]

Just a quick FYI.

I double checked with the MA DMF and we should not expect any changes to the recreational regs for Fluke and Black Sea Bass.

However, they are proposing changes to recreational scup.

More information may be found at...

Feb 26-27 MA DMF Public Hearing Announcement

 

[DandJfish]

Oh well

Guess that i'll just have to move up that way

. Might as well anyway, i booked soooo many trips with Marc that by the end of the year i'll feel like a resident anyway

.

 

[CaptTB]

Mass was one of two states deemed to not have exceeded it's recreational fluke landings for 2007 (at least as of the preliminary MRFSS numbers from the Dec. MAFMC meeting) so no change in Mass. Fluke regs would be required unless the 2008 target was lower than the 2007 landings (which again, was not the case as of the preliminary numbers)

As to Sea bass, sea bass regs are managed on a coastwide basis by NMFS/MAFMC and not set by the states. As of last check the NMFS had still not posted the recreational specifications for Sea Bass, so we are still waiting on that one. As of the Dec. meeting the 2007 preliminary MRFSS numbers showed no reduction for 2008 would be required, even though the quota for 2008 is less than 2007. Theoretically if the NMFS comes back with a reduction anyway (and Pat Kurkul was NOT happy with status quo at the meeting) the ASMFC could set it's own rules for state waters, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that one if there was a reduction that came down from NMFS.

This post edited by CaptTB 01:01 PM 02/04/2008

 

[MakoMike]

CaptTB wrote:
Mass was one of two states deemed to not have exceeded it's recreational fluke landings for 2007 (at least as of the preliminary MRFSS numbers from the Dec. MAFMC meeting) so no change in Mass. Fluke regs would be required unless the 2008 target was lower than the 2007 landings (which again, was not the case as of the preliminary numbers)


I believe the 2008 target is well below the 2007 landings and I think Mike is just reading too much into the notice. It doesn't say that the regs will stay the same it simply says that the hearing will not deal with recreational regs. I suspect that it besuae the ASMFC has not yet blessed the MA recreational equivalncy number, or may they have;t arrived at the "precision factor" for the state. I don't have my meeting materials handy, but I know that MA was going to have to take a reduction, inspite of not going over, due to the new lower quotas.

 

[flatts1b]

Makomike,

I spoke with the DMF on the phone and they were pretty clear that we should "expect no changes" in those regs. They practically finished my sentence when I asked them as if I wasn't the first one to ask.

They are usually pretty on top of this stuff.

But I guess you never know.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

This post edited by flatts1b 01:25 PM 02/04/2008

 

[MakoMike]

Mike,
I guess time will tell.

 

[flatts1b]

CaptTB wrote:
Mass was one of two states deemed to not have exceeded it's recreational fluke landings for 2007 (at least as of the preliminary MRFSS numbers from the Dec. MAFMC meeting) so no change in Mass. Fluke regs would be required unless the 2008 target was lower than the 2007 landings (which again, was not the case as of the preliminary numbers)

Hi Tony,

Given the recent discussion here regarding the individual ASMFC states going over/under their quota....

http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=102118&page=3

I don't know if there is a right answer to this but...

Would you say it could be argued here that MA is being rewarded for being more conservative and not going over its quota?

Afterall, if MA's landings were much higher last year, then wouldn't we need to make an adjustment to comply with the revised/lower quota this year?

Or do you think it might be all moot?

Thanks,
Mike F

 

[CaptTB]

flatts1b wrote:

Hi Tony,

Given the recent discussion here regarding the individual ASMFC states going over/under their quota....

http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=102118&page=3

I don't know if there is a right answer to this but...

Would you say it could be argued here that MA is being rewarded for being more conservative and not going over its quota?

Afterall, if MA's landings were much higher last year, then wouldn't we need to make an adjustment to comply with the revised/lower quota this year?

Or do you think it might be all moot?

Thanks,
Mike F

Rewarded? I'm not sure I understand your point. Mass. wasn't "more conservative, they simply didn't catch more fish in this year than the regs allowed.

NJ went 3 years in a row setting regs that were more restrictive than the ASMFC required. Irregardless we still exceeded our quota each year. The only reason we did not have to tighten our regs much was because of a quota increase.

Saying the are being "rewarded" is like saying they are being "punished" by not being allowed to relax their regs (since they were under quota in '07) because of the quota decrease in '08.

That statement makes no sense.

 

[flatts1b]

quote:

CaptTB wrote:

Irregardless we still exceeded our quota each year. The only reason we did not have to tighten our regs much was because of a quota increase.

Tony, "irregardless" isn't even a real word, so that statement makes no sense.

Now doesn't that sound silly and petty?

Tony, lighten up.

I'm just trying to understand the point of view shared by many that, under ASMFC, it doesn't matter what the states do landings-wise (that there is no benefit for being more conservative).

Mike F.

quote:

More on "irregardless"

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

 

[outrageous21]

LMAO, He tells you your statement doesnt make any sense then writes "Irregardless"

 

[flatts1b]

More to the point

quote:

CaptTB wrote:

Rewarded? I'm not sure I understand your point. Mass. wasn't "more conservative, they simply didn't catch more fish in this year than the regs allowed.

Might it be argued that the regs that MA chose put them (us) in a position to not go over the state's quota?

As I recall there were three recreational options presented at the public hearing that the MA DMF had regarding the 2007 fluke season. They ranged from less conservative to more conservative, but all were supposed to meet the the goal of staying under the quota.

The tackle dealers preferred the option for the longest season. They really wanted to get all 3 holidays in (memorial, independence, and labor days). But as I recall, that would have also created the most dead discards (higher size limits).

So in the end, MA didn't go with the riskiest option, and decided on a shortened season with a decent shot at being able to keep some fish (5 @ 17.5' June 10- Aug 15). Pretty reasonable, I think, which is why I supported it and the only heat I seem to have taken for some reason is from Loligo, and he's commercial fisherman. Go figure???

Anyway, I just wonder how things might have ended up for MA had we gone with the least conservative option. If we had gone over our quota by fishing the margins of sustainability in an already uncertain model, then we would certainly be looking at a reduction in 2008. No???

Best,
Mike F.

This post edited by flatts1b 08:43 AM 02/05/2008

 

[CaptPaul]

Flatts,

No, there is no reward or penalty system. The regs for a year are based on the new quota and how it relates to the preceding year's quota, and how successful the preceding year's regs were in achieving that year's quota.

A state cannot be rewarded for choosing stricter regs the year before- Effectually a state can only get better regs from one year to the next, assuming the same quota, only if they did not catch what they were expected to catch under the adopted regs, or if the state adopted regs that year which were more restrictive than necessary.

So, one may assume that they are being "rewarded" w/ relaxed regs, only if they were claim they were "punished" by their state's managers the preceding year , w/ stricter regs than necessary.

To directly address the purpose of this thread, now that you let the genie out, one would assume that NY managers should adopt a 19 1/2" size limit, w/ a one fish bag limit, and a season from July 4 thru July 18, and anglers could expect a reward for their efforts next year. Then, next year, assuming that the quota remains the same, we would be rewarded by being able to choose from the same regs we have to choose from this year. Assumod MRFSS doesn't report we overfished in those two weeks. The new Performance Factor will now effect some states regs, in that by getting the average overage down over the period starting in 2001, the PF adjustment will not be so large. However, no state has a negative PF, and I'm not sure they would allow one. The PF is not a reward program, ot is an adjustment to attempt to correct inconsistencies in the conservation equivilant regs.

And a small aside on the Performance Factor- Isn't it convenient that when NY screamed about the horrendous data for the 2003 year, when it rained every weekend, and we had a hurricane i August, MRFSS claimed our effort was up 20 %, even though the "anecdotal" data showed it down 25%. Funny how people went fishing w/o buying bait or fuel that year, especially when the head boats were down 30%+. they said they would address it, fix the system, don't worry about it, we only had to suffer through the next year's tougher regs. Well, that 112% overage is making a beautiful mark in our PF, being averaged into that seven year period, accounting for 16% of our bad PF. but no one will talk about this point, either.

Paul

 

[CaptTB]

flatts1b wrote:
quote:

CaptTB wrote:

Irregardless we still exceeded our quota each year. The only reason we did not have to tighten our regs much was because of a quota increase.

Tony, "irregardless" isn't even a real word, so that statement makes no sense.

Now doesn't that sound silly and petty?

Tony, lighten up.

I'm just trying to understand the point of view shared by many that, under ASMFC, it doesn't matter what the states do landings-wise (that there is no benefit for being more conservative).

Mike F.

Nevertheless was the word I should have used. Forgive me outrageous21 for thinking we were simply typing on an informal message board and not in English 101.

Mike, I thought I was answering your question. Lighten up? I didn't know I needed to. I was neither being "heavy" nor stern, I was merely trying to answer your question. I am still confused as to the "lighten up" comment, did my post somehow come off as if I was pissed because I said I didn't understand your point? Perhaps you need to lighten up a bit and not assume that because someone didn't understand you that they were not being confrontational

Ir?re?gard?less
adjective & adverb informal
regardless

ORIGIN early 20th cent.: probably a blend of irrespective and regardless.

USAGE Irregardless, with its illogical negative prefix, is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as : irrespective. Irregardless is avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean ?without regard or consideration for? or ?nevertheless?

Outrageous, didn't know I needed to be a "careful user" of english when typing on an internet message board. And, I was referring to my "example" comparison statement, not Mike's when I said it doesn't make sense.

Have to admit, it is appropriate to call someone who uses such an "incorrect" word "under the influence"

This post edited by CaptTB 11:44 AM 02/05/2008

 

[flatts1b]

Semantics??

Hi CaptPaul,

Thanks for your reply but it seems as if we are agreeing.

Perhaps instead of using "reward" and "penalty", we could just as easily use "incentives" and disincentives"??

In other words, there is a disincentive for a state to go over its quota, otherwise they might get whacked in the following year with a reduced quota. No?? In other words, I don't think it is a stretch to say this has the effect of punishing risk

Likewise, there is an incentive to be more conservative if a state wants to avoid a reduction in quota in a following year given the uncertainty that all folks agree exists. Again, it might be semantics, but I think this has the effect of rewarding precaution

If there are no rewards/penalties/incentives/disencentives, then there would be no accountability, right?

Best,
Mike F.

 

[MakoMike]

flatts1b wrote:
Hi CaptPaul,

Thanks for your reply but it seems as if we are agreeing.

Perhaps instead of using "reward" and "penalty", we could just as easily use "incentives" and disincentives"??

In other words, there is a disincentive for a state to go over its quota, otherwise they might get whacked in the following year with a reduced quota. No?? In other words, I don't think it is a stretch to say this has the effect of punishing risk

Likewise, there is an incentive to be more conservative if a state wants to avoid a reduction in quota in a following year given the uncertainty that all folks agree exists. Again, it might be semantics, but I think this has the effect of rewarding precaution

If there are no rewards/penalties/incentives/disencentives, then there would be no accountability, right?

Best,
Mike F.

Mike,
I think its more than semantics. If the coastwise quota stays the same, each states share of that quota will stay the same, year after year, regardless if they overfished or underfished thier quota in previous years. So ifr MA underfished its quota in year 1, then they would not have to cut back in year 2, and in fact they might be able to adopt more liberal regs, since they did not catch as many fish as they were entitled to in year 1. Similarly if NY goes over its quota in year 1, it sill still have the same quota in year 2, but it will have to tighten its regs, in order to have a reasonable chance of harvestin its quota. I don't view that as either an incentive or disincentive. Itsa kind of like driving down the Mass pike. You can choose to drive 50 MPH or 60 MPH but there is no incentive or disincentive to push you one way or the other.

 

[loligo]

Thats great news... now, when they shut down sea bass in the spring, I'll have an excuse for having 20 sea bass on the boat....everyday.

 

[CaptPaul]

Yup, I didn't see any congruity there. The PF is something very new, to boot. And one might imagine it was developed in an attempt for the managers to prevent NY from making a total mockery of this farce known as conservation equivilancy. If they have it so down, how come every set of regs they approve for NY fails? Because the whole conservation equivilancy concept was always a ploy- yes it was pushed by NY- but the fact remains that it is a poor management process, and this is one scenario that is proving it. So they throw in this PF, which, b the way, NY's PF is greater thatn every other states' PF combined. Does that sound like a comprehensive management system? Of course it does, if your state has a PF of 0.

So let's go back to the true conservation equivilency management system, before the PF was introduced. No penalties for overfishing. No incentive to truly submit regs that will come in on the number. We'll just adjust the regs next year, and see if that works. Why, tell me, why, don't we go to stae-by-state regulation of scup, sea bass, striped bass, etc.?

I don't know the origin of PF, but I would bet one of my boats that it was suggested by a state scientist whose state has a lot to loose by going to regional or coastwide mangement.

Paul

 

[MakoMike]

CaptPaul wrote:
Yup, I didn't see any congruity there. The PF is something very new, to boot. And one might imagine it was developed in an attempt for the managers to prevent NY from making a total mockery of this farce known as conservation equivilancy. If they have it so down, how come every set of regs they approve for NY fails? Because the whole conservation equivilancy concept was always a ploy- yes it was pushed by NY- but the fact remains that it is a poor management process, and this is one scenario that is proving it. So they throw in this PF, which, b the way, NY's PF is greater thatn every other states' PF combined. Does that sound like a comprehensive management system? Of course it does, if your state has a PF of 0.

So let's go back to the true conservation equivilency management system, before the PF was introduced. No penalties for overfishing. No incentive to truly submit regs that will come in on the number. We'll just adjust the regs next year, and see if that works. Why, tell me, why, don't we go to stae-by-state regulation of scup, sea bass, striped bass, etc.?

I don't know the origin of PF, but I would bet one of my boats that it was suggested by a state scientist whose state has a lot to loose by going to regional or coastwide mangement.

Paul

The PF was suggested by the SSC at the December meeting ih Philadelphia as a possible alternative if coastwide management was not adopted.