Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Bill
Someone help me understand the logic here. Option 32 is 3 fish at 18" for 145 days. Option 24 is for 3 fish, one a micro slot again between 17" and 18" and 2 over 18" with a 89 day season or 56 days less of fishing effort or an ~40% shorter season. EVERYTHING about recreational catch and MRIP is based on fishing effort so we have 56 days less fishing effort, same possession limit albeit one fish a slot and the projected reduction in catch is higher for option 24 by only 8/10th of a percent from 28.2% to 29%!
How do the models remove 56 days from a season, still keep a three fish possession limit and the only difference is one allows the third fish to be over 18" and the other the third fish has to be between 17" and 18", which will probably result in more fish killed being discarded, and there's only an 8/10th of a percent difference in projected catch!
Compare the same between option 32 and 23 with three fish at 17.5" and 41 less days in the season. Everyone complained this year about how hard it is to find fish between 17" and 18" yet 41 days less in a season by giving up a half inch in size minimum equates to the same conservational equivalency as option 32. Lose 30% of the season for three size fish that are hard to come by and the percentage reduction in catch mirrors option 32. I'd love to see how these models work because on the surface from a relative perspective they don't make any sense.
|
Add in totals are based on tonnage , so 17 1/2” fish weigh less .
So you should be able to harvest more. .
So has to be based on throwing back more fish (which are heavier ) to find the shorter fish .
We have said if for years , throw back 10 shorts with their 40% mortality and you over fished by 30 % and didn’t take a fish home .
.
Then throw in the belief that the majority of the male fish stay well offshore all year . Meaning most fish targeted here will be females no matter what the size is .
