Looks like we should have taken 3 @ 19"

[DoubleG]

http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cf...7&ParentCat=19

So now we get 3 fluke at 18" with a shortened season, 104 days. May 25th - Sept 5th.

I don't know about you guys but 3 @ 19" with 128 day season sounds better to me than when we ended up with.

Oh well, can't wait until the 25th so I can get out there! Good luck y'all!

[dales529]

This still has to be approved by the Technical Committee. I suspect it will be but its not official yet.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Mixed emotions about 3 @ 19 with a longer season or 3 @ 18 with a shorter season, pick your poison.

With 3 @ 18 I think people have a better chance of keeping some fish for the table. However 3 @ 19 with a longer season allows people to fish more, albeit for larger fish...

Either way we're still taking it in the shorts and things need to change.

I would bet the office of the Secretary of State did not want to deal with an appeal and told NOAA find some way to work this out with NJ so everyone had to compromise something.

I think Jim Hutchinson summed it up nicely in his article when he wrote " It’s been said that a good compromise is one from which all parties leave equally dissatisfied"

[Bigadam119]

I think we got the lesser of the two evils. The fishing seems to almost shut down after Labor Day anyway.

[Man Workin]

I would like to say that it is a positive sign for our fisheries when people feel so strongly about the issues at hand. My opinion is that it is a decent compromise if it goes through. I can see how the shorter season is going to reduce the income for charter/head boat fleets, and can also agree that the mortality rate will be reduced. Fishermen have been complying with these reductions for years; it can only be a matter of time before their arguement that these nessisary restrictions we are fighting through have worked and they should be weakened.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Just heard from Dales.... The 3 @ 18 went to a vote and it was turned down. As it stands now, they said we need to agree to 3 @ 19 with the longer season or we will be deemed out of compliance.

Not sure what's going to happen.... I guess we continue with our appeal and take our chances or we fall in line....

Much more to follow here.

[Rocky]

We need this to come to a head and if we just keep taking the scraps that they throw us it never will.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Just heard from Dales.... The 3 @ 18 went to a vote and it was turned down. As it stands now, they said we need to agree to 3 @ 19 with the longer season or we will be deemed out of compliance.

Not sure what's going to happen.... I guess we continue with our appeal and take our chances or we fall in line....

Much more to follow here.

Gerry, didn't mean to mislead you if I did. Its not that the 3@18" 104 days was voted down. What the motion that passed states is that we have until May 21 to institute option 5 OR meet conservation equivalency with the 3@18" 104 day season. That is now up to the technical committee to approve or disapprove next week. If they disapprove it than whats next is kind of open at this point.
By May 21 if we don't institute regulations that meet the mandates than a letter goes out saying NJ is out of compliance. Again what happens then will be forthcoming as it happens.
So once again we wait until next week before anything is official.

[Ttmako]

I was listening this morning and tried to do a play by play.
NJ offered 3@18 and would rescind out appeal.
The whole process is very confusing.
Again, Adam Nowalsky did an excellent job in representing on our behalf. We are truly lucky to have him on the council.

I'm not sure how this will play out but it seems the council is determined to find us out of compliance.

The one thing that is crystal clear, is NJ Rep. Tom Macarthur failed to help our cause. He was repeatedly asked to help with our cause and he failed to show us any support. He did sign 2 letter on our behalf, but never came to a meeting or advocated to Commerce Secretary Ross on our behalf.
The guy flat out lied and is not worthy of being reelected.

[Rocky]

Originally Posted by Ttmako

The one thing that is crystal clear, is NJ Rep. Tom Macarthur failed to help our cause. He was repeatedly asked to help with our cause and he failed to show us any support. He did sign 2 letter on our behalf, but never came to a meeting or advocated to Commerce Secretary Ross on our behalf.
The guy flat out lied and is not worthy of being reelected.

Are you 100% positive that Macarthur didn't contact the commerce secretary?