Mr. Colvin informed the Council that the Department is now making the annual fluke recreational fishing measures selection.  The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and ASMFC have a choice whether to use state-by-state measures based on individual state quotas or go with a coastwide management plan.  For the past four years, over New York’s objections, the decision has been to go with individual state quotas.  Mr. Colvin stated that New York’s recreational fluke landings in 2005 exceeded its quota.  As the 2006 coastwide quota is decreased substantially over the 2005, New York may be facing as much as a required reduction of 38% in its 2006 projected recreational fluke quota compared to 2005.  State fluke regulations in 2005 were a 17.5” minimum size limit, 5 fish possession limit and an open season from April 29th to October 31st.   Mr. Colvin noted that many states landed much less recreational fluke last year than their state quota would have allowed, but three states exceeded their quota and are looking at a reduction -- New York 38%, Connecticut 35%, Massachusetts 15%.  The other states do not need to become more restrictive (even though the quota is being reduced) because they were so far under their quota last year.  On a coastwide basis, a collective reduction of 3.85% is required.  Mr. Colvin made a motion at the ASMFC Fluke Management Board meeting to the effect that all the states who would be able to liberalize their recreational fluke regulations in 2006 would NOT, and the three states that had the reduction would themselves change their regulations to accommodate the necessary 3.85% reduction, in the proportion of 38%/35%/15%.  That motion was postponed and will be heard at a special board meeting to be held at an upcoming MAFMC meeting.  If Mr. Colvin’s motion were to pass, New York’s required reduction for 2006 in recreational fluke mortality would be about 11.11%, not 38%.  Mr. Colvin distributed a table of combinations of recreational fluke fishery regulation changes that would, if put into effect, garner the required 38% reduction in fishing mortality (see below).  He asked the Council to review these options and to comment on them.

Option	Size	Bag	Open Season	% from size bag	% required from season	% from season	Total reduction
1	17.5”	5	May 1 - July 18	0.0%	37.6%	37.95%	38.0%
2	17.5”	5	June 1 - July 28	0.0%	37.6%	37.94%	37.9%
3	17.5”	5	May 1 - June 30 & August 1- Sept 4	0.0%	37.6%	37.76%	37.8%
4	17.5”	5	May 10 - June 30 & August 1 – Oct 31	0.0%	37.6%	37.81%	37.8%
5	18.0”	5	May 1 - August 6	24.4%	17.5%	17.78%	37.8%
6	18.0”	5	June 7 - Sept 4	24.4%	17.5%	17.79%	37.8%
7	18.0”	4	June 6 - Sept 4	25.0%	16.8%	17.10%	37.8%
8	18.0”	5	May 1 - August 10	27.1%	14.4%	14.42%	37.6%
9	18.5”	5	May 14 - Oct 31	35.3%	3.6%	3.71%	37.7%
10	18.5”	4	May 1 - Sept 4	36.0%	2.5%	2.4%	37.6%

Dennis Kanyuk of the United Boatmen’s Association, stated that he was looking at the worst case scenario because that is what he and others in the industry have come to expect.  He feels that none of the options presented in the table are acceptable.  In his opinion, if any one of them were to be implemented, many people in New York’s “for hire” sector will be out of business, especially those operating in the West End.

Councilor Dearborn expressed surprise and frustration that such an important issue had not been placed on the agenda before today.  She said this topic affects many people and they should have been given notice sooner to allow them to take part in this discussion.  She asked whether any closed season must be at least 30 days’ duration.  Mr. Colvin replied that the minimum closure time is two weeks.  Councilor Dearborn advised that the Council set up a meeting today to go over the results of the disposition of Mr. Colvin’s motion at the upcoming meeting of the MAFMC.

Councilor Danielson stated that all the options in the table are terrible; #3 & #4, each with a July closure, are totally unacceptable.

Chairman Wise said that since there really isn’t any action that can be taken until the results of the meeting are known, the Council will take a “wait and see” position for now.  Should Mr. Colvin’s proposal not be accepted, a special meeting will be called. 

Councilor Davi questioned whether state funds could be used to hire a person whose responsibility would be to set up a data base on the World Wide Web where information would be kept current, thereby allowing anyone access to the latest fishing quotas, trip limits, landings, etc.  Mr. Colvin commented that this would only work on an “information only” basis.  Anything that would be subject to enforcement would still require written notice.  However, he and the Council agreed that this is something that would be very helpful. 

 

Page last modified Friday, March 10, 2006 by George E. Carroll