Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

The political support dried up earlier this spring.
Tom Macarthur bailed on us. If you are in his district, please remember him next election cycle.
You are correct, we need to keep fighting this.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

ttmako no disrespect but we have been hearing that for 40 or so years.what have they done for us in those years?????.i'll tell you what they have done......
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

No we should have gone out of compliance. Once again promised a fight once again miserable failure.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

This is a complete failure on all levels.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

My exact sentiment....who the hell caved in? Whatever happened to "enough is enough"? All I heard for weeks was "now that Trump is our president, he'll help us out" ditto with Commerce Secretary Ross..."oh he's pro business, he won't let us down". Where the hell are these guys now and their support? Compromise....BULL****
We either use the support we had at Pt. Pleasant (remember that day guys?) or put our tails between our legs. Horrible development. Starting a charter business in NJ?...think twice all you retirees. 5@18 for 128 and nothing less...NOTHING!

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

On a side note, under the circumstances, the Delaware Bay shouldn't get that extra inch smaller fish. Sure they are hurting, but good fishermen still limit easy there. Economic realities of the area? Atlantic County is number one in the nation in foreclosures two years running from casino debacle. So why not inch lower for them? Point is, I don't think in this climate of being screwed, that one area should have lower size and better cut. Just my opinion. Wish it had worked out better so far. It stinks.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

How did the word compromise get interjected into this discussion , there is no compromise , we didn't get the time of day . This outcome if it sticks will be a devastating blow to our shore front businesses . Recreational fishing is in a bad state & we're all at fault ! It's the 11th hour for those who still don't get it !

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

There were 2 choices on the table.
Abide by addendum 28 and have 3@19". The default measure if we didn't go along with would have been 2@21" for July and August.
So the DEP, who has done a great job with issue, in my opinion has offered the MAMFC to do 3@18, with a shorter season.
I never knew 3@18 was an option, but consider the following:
1-it's better than the default measure (2@21) and offers us a better chance to legally keep something.
2-it's better than the NY regs. Remember, they screwed us in 2013.
3-this isn't over. The technical committee still needs to approve our "offer".

If every single person on this site CALLED or were to WRITE to their senator or congressman, they would have to act. The plain hard truth is maybe 30 people from this site actually have made the effort to notify their senators. Shit, we can't even get a load of people to go on a fund raiser for this exact issue.

The shame here is the councils have managed to piss off every NJ bottom fisherman. People are just gonna do whatever they want.

The councils are following the rules set forth by magnuson. The law needs to be changed. The council leadership needs to be change.
Laws get changed when people stand up and demand change. Notify your legislator what you want. They work for us.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

Guess they'll be no party boats left in 2 years

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

How about Frank Pallone?

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

Well it looks like i'm done with fluke. It's hard enough trying to go a couple of times on a fixed income. Now 3 fluke not worth it. I'll buy a couple lobster instead. I filled out the survey but do you think that anybody cares if your not able to afford it.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

If this is the result you'll be the only one patting yourself on the back. This is a failure. The charter businesses and tackle businesses are screwed.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

All NJ has to say is the following:

You can implement whatever limits you want on the federal level, just know that we are not going to provide enforcement for a size and bag limit we don't agree with.


Think of it like weed in Colorado.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

I've been saltwater fishing for just the past five years, and I'm an active member in four fishing clubs. I've been told by fellow anglers that the fluke regs used to be 10 fish---then reduced to 8 fish---then reduced to 5 fish (which is what I'm familiar with)---now reducing the bag limit to just 3 fish.

Enough is enough! Every year size and bag limits are reduced for fluke and sea bass. The Black Sea bass fishery is alive and well, with fish now being caught as far north as the Gulf of Maine. I participated in sea bass studies this past fall in south Jersey, and pulled up 380 fish on one trip!

Two friends went haddock fishing the past two weeks (on different boats) out of Gloucester, MA where NOAA shut down the cod fisher two years ago. The results: one told me 5:1 ratio of cod to haddock---the other who just went on Thursday, caught a 50/50 split of haddock and cod (including 10-15 lbers.), all which had to be released after being pulled up from 140 ft of water.

Insane! "Worse available science" prevails time and time again.

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

That's because it has more to do Bill with these characters trying to justify their jobs, lifetime salaries, pensions, etc. then them actually caring about the fishery. This makes them look " important " making these decisions!! :rolleyes:

Re: Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"
 

While I don't think anyone is getting rich on the salaries being paid to Fisheries staff, what it creates is more government over site. I've said it once and I'll say it again. If you pay someone to do something, that's what they're going to do....

Having said this, I think all of us can agree that on the surface Fisheries Management is needed to protect the resource and make sure it does not get exploited. Further when the laws like Magnuson were written and passed, most of us thought it was a good idea since it protected the resource. But look what it's morphed into... We are the ones being exploited and the very resource we sought to protect is being held hostage...

You don't need to look too far to find other Government over sites that have gone bad. Healthcare is a perfect example.

Time to take back our country and our fishery and make it work for the people paying the bills around here...