Holy Crap!!
 

Per CCA email today!!

Interesting developments at the ASMFC today. There was a "move to include an additional option for Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission for a spring trophy fishery, pending approval by the TC, of one fish at 28-36" or one fish over 40". Motion by Mr. O'Connel, second by Mr. Gary."

This motion passed!!


This doesn't mean this will be the new 2015 season regulations; but it means there is now another option on the table which includes what we all thought would be adopted (36' fish or larger).

This is going to get interesting:eek:
5th

Don't worry Marty, I am sure you will limit out every trip... Hope your keeping warm...

Joe

Not really worried about "limiting out" because I don't bring very many trophy size fish home anyway. I like a 25-30 inch fish for eating; but my guests (some who don't fish much) like to take home a "big one".

Charters will have a real problem throwing 37, 38, and 39 inch fish back:roll eyes:
5th

36' or larger fish?? Sounds like you might be needing a bigger boat! :eek: :D

This new proposal was proposed by the charterboat people. First at the January SFAC then the TFAC.

Wasn't it proposed by "some" of the charter boat people? A certain sector in Solomon's?

As I said, I can live with a slot limit, but won't charter customers have a problem tossing back those slot fish?
5th

Wasn't it proposed by "some" of the charter boat people? A certain sector in Solomon's?
If you knew that, why didn't you post that in the original post?

Whether you knew this or not, The Maryland Charterboat Association and the Upper Bay Captain's Association are both on board with the proposal.

That only leaves some the Deale Boys not spoken for since the Rod and Reel guys are mixed in with the Solomon group.

Oh and the president of the MCA has resigned.

Personally, I'd rather have 28" to 36" and the original proposal of over 43" then anything else.

I would just like to be able to give my customers a credible answer as to why we need to save certain size fish. If it is to save the large breeders, so be it. The two proposals above seem to contradict each others ultimate goals.
Maybe we will have a decision before April 18th:rolleyes:.

The two proposals above are the same except the /or over 40". The original proposal was for 44" and the Soloman's group changed it to 40 or 41 in a letter to TFAC.

Either way, the intention was to protect the breeders of over 36". I might add that the commercial sector has a max limit of 36".

Reds,
Sorry, the proposals that I was referring to were the two in 5th's original post.
"one fish over 36" and "one fish between 28 and 36" and one over 40".
The one fish over 36" doesn't do much protecting of the breeders.

Reds; I didn't put it in my original post because my "inside" information is a bit spotty and the Email from CCA didn't expressly say which organization proposed this new option. I had no idea so many of the charter guys were for this option.
From my perspective, I thought this would be undesirable to the charters.

Once again, we are approaching the Spring season with a big question mark. Last year, it was the "three rod rule"; this year it is size limits. I just don't understand why we have to get down to the wire to get answers.
As I said, I can live with either option.

5th

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::

Wow. I was actually considering getting back into the water..........

I imagine those that profit from the spring tournamenst had a hand in the 40+ part of this. I think if they are going to implement any sort of slot limit it should be just that 28"-36" or 28-38" but MSSA and the like will not allow that to happen as it would shut down their tournaments.

I dont care what the regulations are as long as we dont lose days... I am fine with the no-take slot or the 36" min. providing we are in compliance with the ASMFC and other states are doing their part too.

To play devils advocate though:
1. ASMFC tech committee advised against any form of slot due to the uncertainties they create
2. ASMFC Law enforcement committee advised against it too since it creates a lot more problems with law enforcement.
3. MCBA does have a message problem given all their testimony during the preseason debates and public hearings. They repeatedly testified that all the fish they released during the no-take slot of 2007 died upon release. (I am glad to see through their proposal that releasing fish isnt the concern they originally thought it was.. Marty maybe they would support eliminating the rod restriction during the preseason for you since that regulation is merely geared at success not mortality :) )


As far as the issue of killing breeders, the fact of the matter is that Maryland only accounts for less than 5% of the entire SSB harvest of all Atlantic states during the trophy season. It is typically timed so the majority of the spawn is over. Plus, The percentage of fish caught during trophy season that are over 40" is very very small. Allowing for a fish over 40" is going to result in few fish taken yet preserve the hunt for fish of a lifetime. It also preserves state records and tournaments for those of us who like to participate in the sport aspect of fishing. The coastal reduction is going to have a far greater positive impact than what we could do here in MD on the SSB.

I will say that I do think the one fish over 36" would be better for my charters as most who go with me are not avid fishermen and I believe are going to have a hard time throwing back a 37" fish, which could be a fish of a lifetime for them, only to keep a 31" fish. I also think the no-take slot will be much tougher to catch a limit than the one at 36" given the last couple of years have shown mostly fish 34-38" (which will be an inch or two larger this year)

I also do fear a lot of fisheries violations coming across the NRP blotter with the no-take slot thus creating a lot more criticism of the fishery.

Hey Greg. Do you know what the actual number is that results in the 5% of catch? I still imagine that 5% equals tens of thousands of spawning female rockfish and tens of millions of eggs regardless of percentages. I have to disagree with the fact that they time the season so that most fish are spawned. If they back it up to May 1 then yeah but not currently. I think they should back it up to May 1 if there is really such a dyer outlook on the horizon.

I dont have the number before me but according to DNR it accounts for less than 5% of the SSB harvest.

Bottom line is that the best opportunity for the citizens of Maryland to engage in the migrant fish is only a very small part of the take. The fact is that the coastal reduction, which focuses on these fish up and down the coast with far greater creels from NC to Maine, will protect and preserve the SSB far more than what we could ever do here in MD with our shortened season and already low creels. Lets face it, the take from the entire coast, where some states have had a recreational creel of 3 fish per person (NJ), or very large commercial harvests on only fish over 34" (mass), or HUGE recreational takes almost exclusively on the SSB (NY).. Our take on big fish is peanuts. This isnt to point fingers at the other states but just the fact of who takes what. Our take is vastly on resident fish both commercial and recreational. These resident fish are said to be mostly male and the ASMFC doesnt have reference points for the bay yet to see if a reduction in the bay is needed or would even benefit the fishery.

If you want to see harvest numbers from years past during the trophy season, see my post from 2013 here: http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/show...=1#post2039561

I gave harvest numbers with what the regulations were for the given year. Note that the 2009 numbers were viewed as a statistical error by the ASMFC.

(yes I was advocating for a no take slot in 2013 but more so supported the 1 @36"+ this year. This was based more on the fact that the ASMFC TC and LEC prefers that it not be done. I believe that MD should not have asked for conservation equivalency so we had a leg to stand on down the road should further reductions be needed. Plus I dont want NRP blotters filled with rec violations. I am told that MD is going to protest the 20.5% reductions in the bay too so I think it is a bit "ballsy" to ask for both conservation equivalency and file a protest on the bay reductions )

If there really is a problem with the rockfish population which I dont totally buy then recreational fishermen need to make some concesions. Since commercial fishermen cant keep fish over 36" then there should be a slot limit for recreational fishermen 28" to 36" to coinside and the season should be moved back to May 1 so spawning fish are given time to do what they came here to do. Just my take on things if you want to make a difference in Maryland.

If we are going to base recreational regulations on commercial regulations, then we all should have to use the same gear-type, have the same size limits, and season lengths. Maybe we should all have the same creel and eliminate limited entry too.. This should be for all species also.

Bottom line is just because we have the regulation in MD that the commercial cannot keep a fish over 36" doesnt mean we should apply the same regulations to the recreational fishery. For what it appears to me, the Maryland recreational side is taking quite a hit this year with the no-take slot that eliminates the take of lot of fish out there. We will also have a 20" min this summer.

Look at the regulations out there for Bluefin, flounder, seabass, etc. There are different size limits on commercial and recreational takes on most species.

To each his own but I think fishery rules and regs should be skewed toward the commercial fishermen. They are doing it to make a living. Rec fishermen should be in it for the fun. Plus commercial fishermen pay exponential more in license and fees. Fees being the cost to obtain the license. Recreational fishermen need to make some concessions to help the fishery. I feel the same way about crabs.

Again; I can live with either option. I am no longer associated with a charter (as mate). I am strictly a rec angler, and what I say is strictly opinion.

1) I was (and still am) confused as to why the specific group who initiated and got behind PSCR restrictions (the Md Charter Boat Assoc.) and testified so strongly against it; now wants to impose a slot limit (C/R) on trophy fish.

2) Yes, it was Brian Keene who testified (on record) that all the slot fish the charters returned to the water, died. A panel of other charter captains, commercial fishermen, and rec. organization (MSSA and maybe CCA also), sat there and NOONE disputed this comment. PSCR was vilified. I had to sit and listen to stories about trollers dragging the cows through the water and stressing them to the point that they possibly released their eggs, or even died.
Now, the MCBA wants to C/R trophies 36 inches to 40 inches. Why?

3) I truly believe that most (maybe 95%, with cold water) survive C/R. Therefore, I think for the sake of conservation, the slot option will benefit the rock population.

4) I don't want to get into a pissin contest over this, because as I said, I can live with either option. I just scratch my head and wonder why? Perhaps, the MCBA believes that all those 38-39 inch fish we caught last year have grown another couple inches and we will see many more over 40 fish this year. Perhaps, the MCBA was afraid that even more restrictions were coming down the pike, and this was a way to "get ahead" of more restrictions. I don't know.

5) If the slot option is adopted, I do fully intend to ask DNR to "scope" the rod restriction for PSCR. DNR will have, in effect, supported C/R as a CONSERVATION tool.

These types of topics allow "speculation" to run rampant on fishing boards. My original post was to inform those on CBA that a new option was being thrown into the mix at what I consider, a late date. I had been lead to believe that the 36" and over was going to be the option presented. I guess I should know by now that "it ain't over till it's over"; and anything can change in Md. if you have somebodies ear.

the end
5th

Are you serious? In todays world, everything has to be fair!!! We can't have something skewed toward one group.

Do you want to turn on your TV to watch BassMasters or Roland Martin and see recreational fishermen with their hands up and saying "recreational fun fishing matters":eek:



Just my attempt at humor Shore Thing:D
If the slot keeps me from bringing home a full cooler this year, but makes more fish available next year (and for years to come); all is good.
5th

Life isn't fair Marty. Haha.

I am someone who believes strongly in individual freedoms. We need to protect the access and opportunity to do for oneself. People shouldnt have to buy their fish if they are willing and able to fish themselves. Open access to the public resource should be provided for ahead of any special limited entry. (google: public trust doctrine)

This is the model for most public state resources too. Fish such as redfish, rockfish (in nearly half the Atlantic States), snook, etc. are all allocated to benefit individual access first. It is also how other resources such as wild game like deer, goose, etc. are all managed as well.

As far as sport fishing being merely for ones pleasure. I suggest you ask Bill if he builds boats for his mere pleasure, ask Keith if he runs AllTackle for his mere pleasure, or Billy at ShoreTackle, ask Jim at BOE who he sells the bulk of his electronics too and if he does it for pleasure, ask the owners of many marine businesses (such as marinas boat dealers, guides, charters etc.) in this state if they operate out of mere pleasure. Do you insure recreational fishing boats for your mere pleasure? Our state sport fishery is driven by striped bass. I know people arent buying 100k 27 Judge's to fish for white perch, catfish and croaker.

You also bring up fees.. resource management is mostly paid for on the backs of sportsmen due to the shear numbers of people participating. Go to the DNR site and see where the money is generated. The sport fishing industry drives far greater tax revenue. State sales tax (fuel, gear, boats, trucks, trailers, etc.), license and fees, 10% federal excise tax on all our gear (wallop breaux),... Heck, DNR is desperate to raise the numbers of recreational license sales so that they qualify for more Wallop Breaux money from the feds- Like $2 mil more) Most commercially harvested rockfish are going out state and we never see sales tax. Cost of gear is written off against profits and there are far fewer of them due to limited entry.

Given your philosophy, maybe I should run with it and advocate we go to limited entry on the sportsmen side and only let those with limited professional guides licenses to fish the trophy season :D If you want to keep a fish during the trophy season you need to fish with licensed charter. After all charters are just trying to make a living :D You just have all the money wrapped in your boat merely for pleasure so you dont count (at least as much). :p

Not saying to do away with recreational rockfishing. Just saying if you really want to help the fishery recreation fishermen should concede more. The charter industry is in a tuff spot within the industry and I see why you tAke the stand you do. Charter fishing in my opinion is a commercial fishery subject to recreational regulations. We could go back and forth for hours regarding financial impacts but I'm not suggesting any drastic moves to impact business as I really don't think the fishery is in such bad shape.

I dont think the fishery is in dire straights either. However I do hold the ASMFC accountable to ensure we are not over-fished. I am hopeful that the 25% reduction on the SSB will be effective.

I must note that I take the position of recreational fishing ahead of charter fishing. I view charter fishing as facilitating fishing for oneself. We are hired to enable people to fish for themselves, not catch the fish for them. We can instruct and teach but they catch the fish. Also, though I have a limited entry license, I am against guide/charter licenses from being limited entry. I think anyone who takes the time to become USCG certified, buys the licenses, safety gear, insurance (I think there should be an insurance requirement by law in order to protect passengers -think you might like that ;)), and registers their trips and catch should be able to offer for-hire services. I am a free market guy and it would provide better public access to our resources.

As far as rockfish in the commercial market in Maryland goes, they make up a small percentage of the overall landing value according to NOAA. As far as actually MD harvested seafood goes, we are typically 85% or so non-finfish dependent with crabs, oysters, clams, etc. driving our harvest value. Even still, the vast majority of our seafood industry fincancially is driven by imported seafood. Seafood distributors, grocery stores, and restaurants have plenty of other product to supply them even if rockfish was declared a gamefish, which I dont think is necessary either. However I do believe protecting individual access should priority over protecting special privileges.

Agreed. My original point was if they are going to make changes to rec. regs then do something worthwhile that really helps the fishery and dont appease someone's agenda. Which I feel has happened with the slot limit and over 40. Whether it be MSSA or the charter industry. But I guess that's how politics work.

I actually think this slot limit is going to be more effective than what people think. My bet is that it results is far greater than a 25% reduction. Vast majority of fish over the last couple of years will be in that no-take slot this year. Look at the numbers in the link i posted above to see how effective they were the last time too. (There was ~45% reduction over the previous year and participation went up -http://www.tidalfish.com/forums/showthread.php/345081-2013-SB-Stock-Assessment-Summary?p=2039561&viewfull=1#post2039561 )

I dont know about you but the fish over 40" make up a small percentage of what is caught. I think it is great that people will be able to weigh and check in a state citation. The popularity of the trophy season is due to people being able to keep a fish of lifetime.

Where I think the no-take slot will hurt is in recreation violations. DNR is going to have to be real-clear on how fish are measured. For me I have always flat tailed measure just to make sure we are over a mark. What happens if an officer can squeeze a tail a tad more than the boat did. A 35.5" fish can go over 36" with a tail squeeze. A flat ruler vs a tape that curves on the fish can add a 1/4" or more too. DNR noted that there was a significant increase in violations with the last time we had a no-take slot. Hopefully they will do a good job at notifying and education to help reduce that. Also if they are in place multiple years, participants will have a better understanding.

Agree again. Only thing I disagree with is people can still go home with the fish of a lifetime with a picture and a tape measure. The majority of the fish I caught last year were 38-39 inches. I wonder if that is the class of fish they are trying to protect but will be 40 inches this year and kept. Will be interesting to see to say the least.

While I am a big catch and release guy myself, I will argue to look at participation levels of when people can keep big fish from when they cannot. The trophy season has very high levels of participation over the short period of time because people can catch and keep big fish. I see this with my charters too. People are asking when the season opens to keep fish. When I offer earlier season catch and release trips 9/10 say they want to wait until they can keep the fish even if I offer the C&R only trips at a discount. Sportsmen have a long tradition of celebrating the biggest fish. There are a lot of charters who charge more during the trophy season because of the demand to catch and keep big fish.

I should note that I also fear people screaming about release mortality too. Though I believe the release mortality to be very low (especially in the colder water) and the slot will reduce overall mortality, it is only going to take a few photos of floating big fish to tug at some's heart strings. The battle over C&R will heat up again too.

You may want to call DNR and ask, but I believe a tail squeeze is the correct way to keep yourself out of trouble.

Reds / others - When we had the slot limit before , a good friend of mine was checked at Sandy Point by two DNR officers.

The fish was just a kiss under 36 when on measuring stick but over a kiss when officer pinched the tail.

The two officers were not sure which was correct way to measure. One wanted to give him a citation - other thought fish was legal.

My friend argued the point - sounded like it got ugly real quick , knowing him.

End result - DNR let him keep the fish but told him next time to pinch the tail.

Now it gets better - same guy , week later at Solomons with a pinched tail Rock at 40 1/4. Officer checks and flat tail it is just under 40 inches.

He explained what officers at Sandy Point had told him - this officer said that was wrong.

I agree - the slot makes for honest mistakes. IMHO - 36 flat tail is simple / easy.

With this new slot - I'll likely C/R any just over 35 inches to avoid confusion. Over 40's I usually C/R anyway.

Reds I believe you are correct that it is the pinched tail.

However this all goes to my point that there will be confusion, especially with the occasional weekend warriors, and this will cause more problems than the simplified 36" and up regulations (to which the ASMFC Technical committee and Law Enforcement Committee both recommended)

Either way, I don't care but see where the no take slot may cause more PR problems.

IIRC< I was at a TFAC meeting when the subject was brought up. The DNR high ranking officer said the tail had to be pinched to measure.

28 to 36" saves the cows and stops the crying from the people who can not catch, but think it's the lack of fish.

IMHO, the new regs should be:

Spring, (1) fish 28"-36", barbless hooks only

May-15-Dec-15, (1) fish 20"-28"

I agree so long as the fishery is really as bad as some claim. I don't think it is. It's funny to me MSSA and the likes are the same groups saying there are no rockfish yet lobbying to have an over 40" limit.

I agree with this 100%.

FWIW, one fish per person after 15 May would be devastating to the charter industry. While I am sure some would be okay with that, others aren't.

I agree with Greg, a lot of parties wait all year for trophy season so they can get their shot at big fish, however, there is also a large number of people who specifically wait until trophy season ends so that they can keep two fish.

Not many parties are going to be willing to pay $700+ to take home one 20" fish.

My fear is the number of 18" - 19 7/8" fish that will be killed while sorting through them to get a limit of 20"+ fish, especially come mid-August through September.

I agree with Tawn about needing two fish in the summer. I think it would be devastating to not only the charter industry but fishing participation in general if the summer creel were one fish. I know a lot of die hard fishermen support catch and release. I do to. However the bulk of the sport fishing population wants to keep fish. Most do not make the number of trips a year that diehards do either. Lets face it, the fish has so much value as table fare that there is commercial market for them. It is hard to tell someone who makes only a few trips per year at most that they can only keep one fish resident size fish per trip. They may not even buy a license for that.

Personally I dont have an issue with the 20" min but I run 4 packs and can search out larger fish on a given trip since I only have to find 8 fish. I dont have 10 people on board all hoping to catch their fish and can move off smaller fish or use larger spot. (lets not go down the road of limiting people who can fish or number of trips either as we are all sportfishing whether one is paying to fish from a with 10 other people boat or one fishing from a private boat). So I get Tawn's concerns here.

Most here have to remember that scientist are requesting a 25% reduction on the SSB, not a closure of striped bass fishing (they dont know if there is need for a reduction in the bay on resident fish yet as they are still developing the reference points). I know some wont be happy until no one keeps a fish but it is a God-given resource that is to be used wisely. Wisely being the key word and up for debate :p