Dave is a great representative to have on the commission.
Flounder regs didnt go as I had hoped as I would have prefered option 3, 4 or 5 over option 2 that passed. However I understand why number 2 passed as the flounder fishery is primarily a coastal fishery and there were expressed concerns over deep hooking mortality trying to reach the 19" and the 18.5" fish being more opportunistic for ches bay fisherman. I thought Option 4 would have been the best option since it would have started the season just before memorial day and run into Oct. However I am told that the coastal fishery is important to have it start earlier in May would be more beneficial to their fishery. A 1/2" is probably equal to several inches in striped bass and the majority of flounder fishing is done with bait fishing so release mortality can be relatively high. I will say that Capt Ed did abstain from the flounder vote on the options presented but spoke about his disapproval over the ASMFC not approving MD to have a split in regulations between the bay and the coastal fishery. DNR did note that they had over 100 people attend the regulations meeting in OCMD and the vast majority of attendees voted for number 5 with the long season and 19" min. They noted that their email responses have been the same.
I will be a little more challenging to Tom O'Connells support of the increase in coastal commerical quota. Here is what I posted on the other forum:
Mr. O'Connell best tried to justify the stance he and Maryland took at the ASMFC through a "fairness" (for lack of a better term) stance. Of course there were charts thrown up over how the coastal recreational quotas have steadily increased over the years while the commercial harvest quotas have remained flat. It is important to note that all of these charts failed to include the changes in demand for these fish commercially through market prices and/or the impacts of either fisheries, recreational or commercial, to our state economies.
The thing that concerns me most over their position is the fact that while Maryland has enacted regulations that would reduce the effort (ones opportunity to catch a fish) on a particular method of recreational fishing without quantitative justification during the catch and release only season, they cited concerns for the future of the stock citing a few indicators including YOY and spawning biomass recruitment. Given true concerns for the future of the stock and their self-proclaimed tendency to "err on the side of the resource", one would believe that our Maryland representation would have taken a different position on this issue.
What most disappoints me is that there is no real justification for their support other than "fairness" given by Mr. O'Connell. This is troubling to me because their is no shortness of supply in the commercial marketplace for striped bass or real need for and increase in commercial quota. As a matter of fact, prices have been depressed in most markets due to there being enough or steady supply for the demand.
If, in fact, Maryland DNR does see this ultimately as an allocation issue, I am again disappointed in their actions given the lack of market need for higher commercial quotas and the vastly higher economic impact of the still growing recreational striped bass fishery. In other words there is no market justifications or strong economic benefit for an increase in the coastal commercial quota over any recreational quota given what recreational angling provides to state economies, especially given the growing interest for these fish recreationally. Either way, if this ultimately is a management or allocation issue in the eyes of DNR, I believe the position taken by those that represent our state at the ASMFC have failed the state of Maryland.
Mr. O'Connell did note that their vote would do nothing more than to start discussions on the issue and that he did not ultimately know what position Maryland would take with future votes. Lets hope that Mr. O'Connell and the Maryland representation take into account the real "fairness" to what is in the best interest of the citizens of our state.