ASMFC & Atlantic Fishery Management Council Meeting

[Fluke]

I went to the meeting of the ASMFC & the AFMC today in the Holiday Inn in Ronkonkoma. I don't think the Rec. fishermen have any idea as to what kind of trouble we are in. I'm not going to get into all the specifics of the meeting, but a couple of highlights.
1) A member of the CCA voted against the Recs.
2) An indifference to those that came forward to make statements.
3) A decision relative to the 50/50 split was pushed to somewhere in the future.
4) a lack of an agenda until the meeting started.
I could go on but, to be honest, I left early due to frustration. It was also interesting to see who didn't show up.
We need representation

[RJ]

The CCA is the WORST! They take your money...send the $25 membership back to HQ in Hoiuston, TX I believe and then send back only $8 to the state reps to work with.

They vote against the rec's in nearly everything and Charles Witek is the absolute worst director. Them CCA guys think everything that swims shoud be thrown back or be 50 pounds to keep.

[Fluke]

RJ- Right now, the only organization that exhibits any kind of influence is the RFA. The one existing problem is they currently don't have a NY branch, but I understand they are working on it. I also understand there is a new group forming, whose mission is to attack the problem we have through the courts. Not having all the details at this point, I'll get back to this subject at a later date.
Incidently, I really didn't want to mention names specifically, but Charles Witek was the CCA cast a vote that was in opposition to the Recs. needs.
The bottom line is, any recreational fisherman that does pay attention to what's happening and play some active role at this time, doesn't really have the right to complain and in a sense has to share the blame for all the bad regulations that have a negative effect on us.
Now is the time!!!!!!!

[LkyLindy]

Fluke-

You are absolutely correct -I've belonged to thre RFA for a while and am waiting for an official NY chapter to form to become more active--We must take control of our fate

[Fluke]

LkyLindy- Thanks.
From what I'm hearing, the pot is definitely boiling. There's serious talk of litigation to the extent there are lawyers (fisherman) willing to donate their sevices.
Now's the time. Don't back off. There are several organizations that recognize our plight. Support them.

[CharlesAWitek]

Heard that my name way being mentioned on the site, so I thought I'd stop by and see what's being said.

Given the incomplete information being posted, folks might be interested in the following complete description of events.

Prior to the discussion of the 50-50 allocation, the Mid-Atlantic Council voted to begin work on Amendment 14 of the Fishery Management Plan for Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass, with the expressed intent of doing a comprehensive review of the entire management scheme, INCLUDING THE COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL ALLOCATION. During the discussion, in response to some comments from the audience, I made it clear that I expected such allocation to be part of the Amendment 14 process, however the later discussion of the petition for reallocation turned out.

The decision to move forward on the comprehensive Amendment 14 made the reallocation petition moot and, in fact, made the petition a less desirable vehicle. Council Executive Director Dan Furlong stated that, in his opinion, the petition locked the Council into a single action--either 50-50 or nothing, which would eliminate the possibility for a more favorable split (politically unlikely, but still theoretically possible) or, if 50-50 was not acceptable to the Council, perhaps a lesser but still increased rec allocation, perhaps 45-55 or something similar. In addition, the petition would have to be accepted on its face, which I believed to be problematic, as Council staff had prepared a document which essentially disproved the core contention of the petition--that angling harvest was, prior to the base years used for the current allocation--far more than 40%. If the staff study is to believed, recreational harvest never exceeded 43% of the harvest in any combination of years, unless the best three years were chosen--but if that was done, the commercials would have wanted to use their best 3 years, and we'd be back at square one. The petition had served any purpose it might have had by keeping the issue before the public, but it was time to move on.

A motion was then made, at the advice of the attorney for the Council, to recommend that NMFS deny the petition, and to notify NMFS that the allocation issue would be addressed in amendment 14. (Note that even if the petition was not denied by the Council, it would still have to be considered as part of the Amendment 14 process; thus, there was no reason to keep it alive.) An attempt was then made to amend the motion to delete the recommendation that NMFS deny the petition. That motion, which I did not support for the reasons set forth above, failed on a 9-9 vote, The motion recommending denial passed by a higher vote, I believe 14-4.

This is all to the good of the anglers. We need to move this debate from historical share, which we will very probably lose, to the realm of policy and economic benefit, where the facts should be more in our favor.

So yes, I did not support the petition--first because it was moot, second because there were better options that would offer greater benefits to NY's anglers.

--

That having been said, let me take a few seconds to address the comments targeting CCA..

The initials, as you probably know, stand for Coastal CONSERVATION Association. Our primary interest is the restoration and health of sustainable fish stocks, for the benefit of today's anglers--and tomorrow's.

We are not an industry-advocacy group. Thus, we sometimes take positions that are unpopular with those who earn their incomes from recreational fishing. That's why we have no corporate, club or other memberships. We represent only the fish and the private anglers who are our members. All of our revenues come from member contributions, so we are beholden only to them--not to industry members who might then use their money to influence our vote.

And, for the record, when representing CCA NY, I always have and always will vote in accordance with board and member wishes, often as set forth in member surveys. I challenge anyone to produce evidence to the contrary.

And speaking of challenges--I'd be more than happy to debate the fluke vote, or any position taken by CCA NY (the fluke vote was made in my capacity as a representative of all of the citizens of NY, not just CCA NY), in a public forum, face to face with RJ or any other New Yorker who wants to make their case. Just let me know the evening and the place. I'll be there.

[RJ]

Fact remains...this is NOT the first time the CCA has voted against the recreational angler or the recreational fishing industry. The recreational industry has grown weary of the CCA and its lack of support under the guise of doing what is best for the "fishery."

The CCA continues to be way over the top on conservation and is probably considered the NY DEC’s best friend with Gerry Burnhart at top who’s philosophy also is leading the world in conservation and forget the who makes a living on the water…rec or comm.

What is best for the fishery and what the CA seems to never get...is that the recreational angler and user group as a whole needs to get these fair splits because we would not go through our quota anyway...so we are in fact protecting fish in the long run.

Voting against the 50/50 split in this case under the guise of a theory we could get more is preposterous and never going to happen. We had a chance to get or try to get the split going now and the CCA through Mr. Witek's voted against it and was the deciding vote my sources tell me.

I have sources inside the room that disagree totally with the Mr. Witek's assessment of the situation.

As for debating the events or the vote...I had Mr. Witek on the radio show many, many years ago and he does NOT directly answer questions. Typical lawyer/politician fashion…I even had to take a commercial break during the interview to speak with him off the air…that if he did not start answering some questions...whether we liked the answers or not...I would stop the interview altogether.

The main reason I have not had him on since…he does not answer the questions put forth and likes to dance his way through interviews.

I still have not heard back from CCA headquarters and it is obvious now they called Mr. Witek and gave him the heads up.. I will pout a call into the Texas again tomorrow to find out what is going on. This is not over and I am still pushing to get CCA out of NY!

[Fluke]

Mr. Witek- Unless I'm mistaken, there never was a motion on a 50/50 allocation put on the floor. There was however, a motion, brought to the floor, to discus the 60/40 allocation. This was promptly put down, due to the fact that, that allocation already exists and there would be no point in discussing it. It was tabled for future discussions with Ammendment 14. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It appeared to me, to be, a well choreographed act, to table any discussion on allocation.
I have no desire to put anybody down, but that meeting appeared to be an excercise in futility..

[RJ]

Good point...again the CCA rep is off mark. Good job fluke...glad you were there!:thumb:

[w3ace]

From the Federal Register:

NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register on November 3, 2003 (68 FR 62250), implementing Framework 3. Framework 3 implemented a process, for years in which the full Winter I commercial scup quota is not harvested, to allow unused quota from the Winter I period to be added to the quota for the Winter II period, and to allow adjustment of the commercial possession limits for the Winter II period based on the amount of quota rolled over from the Winter I period. Table 5 of the final 2004 quota specifications for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass (69 FR 2074, January 14, 2004) presented detailed information regarding Winter II possession limits, based on the amount of scup to be rolled over from Winter I to Winter II.

If you read on http://thefederalregister.com/d.p/2004-10-12-04-22839 It seems that the commercial fisherman didn't use their quota and are going to be allowed to overfish for awhile to make up for it.

What is going on?