Holy Crap!!

[5th Tuition]

Originally Posted by reds

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

[reds]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

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.

[5th Tuition]

Originally Posted by reds

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.

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

[Fish Nut]

:

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

[Shore Thing]

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.

[B-Faithful]

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.

[Shore Thing]

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.

[bhl]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

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

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.

[reds]

Originally Posted by bhl

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.

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".

[bhl]

Originally Posted by reds

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.