The ASMFC and MAFMC have an addendum to modify the way rec regs for scup, sea bass, fluke and bluefish are set out for public comment.
Currently, recreational measures (bag, season, minimum size) are set by the percent change approach. This was instituted a few years ago to replace the old method, which basically used MRIP estimates of rec landings and effort to adjust the previous year's landings to meet new harvest limits. We all know how inaccurate MRIP is, and how erratic the resulting regs were.
The percent change approach currently in use was designed to stabilize regs. In a simple description it sets regs for two years at a time, incorporates uncertainty in MRIP numbers, and the biomass of the species compared to target levels. The percent change approach has proven to stabilize regs since it has been in use, but its use is set to sunset after 2025. This addendum looks towards the replacement of the rule.
One choice is Option A, to revert back to using MRIP to set the next year's regs.
Option B is to reinstate the current percent change approach.
Option C is a modification of the percent change approach put forward by council and commission staff, with the input of rec fishermen from the two bodies. This approach is designed to have better, more flexible options over the original design.
Option D is the percent change approach modified as above, but it factors in release mortality into the equation. Release mortality relies heavily on MRIP data, and that is something that can be volatile and highly inaccurate. Once again, MRIP is the Achilles heel of rec management, so it serves to minimize how much that can influence the process.
Based on the above observations, I'm strongly advocating for Option C. There is also a proposed change for accountability measures, which come into play when the rec allowable catch limit is exceeded. Here, I advocate for Sub-Option C-2. These are my opinions. I invite you all to read the document (attached). It is fairly dense, but hopefully my summary will help you understand it.
The next part is for action. Rec anglers need to express their desire through public comment. Public comment becomes official record, and all commissioners and council member get copies to read. The poor results on the commercial/recreational re=allocation was supported by the commercial sector due to their heavy favorable public comment. Having strong public comment in support of Option C and Sub-Option C-2 will help this addendum to be favorable to the rec sector.
However you feel the addendum should go, I strongly recommend you write an email of comment following the directions on page 1 of the draft document attached.
There are also several public hearings that can be attended either in person or virtually, including one in NY at DEC Kings Park tomorrow, 1/22, at 6:00PM. Webex Meeting Schedule
Currently, recreational measures (bag, season, minimum size) are set by the percent change approach. This was instituted a few years ago to replace the old method, which basically used MRIP estimates of rec landings and effort to adjust the previous year's landings to meet new harvest limits. We all know how inaccurate MRIP is, and how erratic the resulting regs were.
The percent change approach currently in use was designed to stabilize regs. In a simple description it sets regs for two years at a time, incorporates uncertainty in MRIP numbers, and the biomass of the species compared to target levels. The percent change approach has proven to stabilize regs since it has been in use, but its use is set to sunset after 2025. This addendum looks towards the replacement of the rule.
One choice is Option A, to revert back to using MRIP to set the next year's regs.
Option B is to reinstate the current percent change approach.
Option C is a modification of the percent change approach put forward by council and commission staff, with the input of rec fishermen from the two bodies. This approach is designed to have better, more flexible options over the original design.
Option D is the percent change approach modified as above, but it factors in release mortality into the equation. Release mortality relies heavily on MRIP data, and that is something that can be volatile and highly inaccurate. Once again, MRIP is the Achilles heel of rec management, so it serves to minimize how much that can influence the process.
Based on the above observations, I'm strongly advocating for Option C. There is also a proposed change for accountability measures, which come into play when the rec allowable catch limit is exceeded. Here, I advocate for Sub-Option C-2. These are my opinions. I invite you all to read the document (attached). It is fairly dense, but hopefully my summary will help you understand it.
The next part is for action. Rec anglers need to express their desire through public comment. Public comment becomes official record, and all commissioners and council member get copies to read. The poor results on the commercial/recreational re=allocation was supported by the commercial sector due to their heavy favorable public comment. Having strong public comment in support of Option C and Sub-Option C-2 will help this addendum to be favorable to the rec sector.
However you feel the addendum should go, I strongly recommend you write an email of comment following the directions on page 1 of the draft document attached.
There are also several public hearings that can be attended either in person or virtually, including one in NY at DEC Kings Park tomorrow, 1/22, at 6:00PM. Webex Meeting Schedule
