Fluke Regs this year

[jcstriper1]

Just something to throw around. What's your opinion on the upcoming fluke regs? Does anyone think it will stay the same as last year or some type of size and amount change? what's your thoughts on this just to kick around.

John

[Merle31483]

3 fish at 18" is hard enough to achieve... If they decide to go to a 19" minimum size the daily limit should at least be brought back to 5 fish whatever works for the comerical fishery is gonna set the bar for the recreational fisherman in other words we are gonna probably get screwed in some shape or form

[FlukeU2]

I’d be happy with 5 fish at 19”. We had so many trips throwing back multiple 20”+ fish back cause we already have a boat limit of fish

[Cuz]

The party and charter boats will be choked out of business with a 19" limit. Hard to get many that size in late July and all of August. It cost about $115 for a family of four to fish on a half day boat. Add food, drinks, gas, tolls. That's an easy $175. How many trips with no fillets to bring home is a man going to pay for during the course of the fluke season? Maybe two. And 3/4 day party and charters boats cost three times as much. With all the rules and regulations today it's not even fun to go fishing. Depressing to say the least.

[dakota560]

I’d be happy with 5 fish at 19”. We had so many trips throwing back multiple 20”+ fish back cause we already have a boat limit of fish

Even better let's make it 7 fish at 23". This would as already pointed out put the nail in the coffin for Party and Charter boats and coincide with an increase to the commercial quota resulting in even greater damage to the overall fishery. There's one answer here gentlemen, slot limit re-introduced, shut the fishery down to commercial harvest for two months during the spawn and take pressure off the female composition of the biomass.

[Detour66]

3@ 16.5"....2 @ 18"- 21" ... 1 trophy fish with tag! (21" +)

[bulletbob]

I’d be happy with 5 fish at 19”. We had so many trips throwing back multiple 20”+ fish back cause we already have a boat limit of fish


I am happy for you and the anglers you fish with.. You must all have a terrific skill set, as most of us just can't muster those kinds of numbers on any given day during the year, let alone with the consistency alluded to in your reply..


I realize there are some guys out there with the right boats that can get out to the deep water broken bottom and get a limit + every time.. However, most are using boats with limited range and must stay closer to shore, and in bays and tidal rivers. Others fluke fish on crowded party boats, or off jetties, piers, docks, inlets, the surf, etc... Tough for guys in those positions to get even say 2 keepers at 18'.. Honestly, a slot limit is THE ONLY way to keep the population in balance, and get the available fish distributed among all fluke anglers in an equitable manner.bob

[hartattack]

SLOTS gaining traction for several species: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/sfsbsb-recreational-management-fw

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Framework Framework on Conservation Equivalency, Block Island Sound Transit, and Slot Limits
The Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) jointly manage summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Council and the ASMFC are developing a joint framework action and addendum to consider adding the following management options to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan:

Conservation equivalency for the recreational black sea bass fishery,

Conservation equivalency rollover for summer flounder

Transit provisions for Block Island Sound for recreational and/or commercial fisheries for all three species, and

Slot limits for recreational fisheries for all three species

[hammer4reel]

Should have pushed for the slot fish instead of asking for status quo.
Would more than likely had a better chance then instead of having the refs shoved down our throats we got .

As far as only some boats being able to get to the fish to fulfill a limit at 18”.
BS.
WAS plenty of fish well under 3 miles from any marina last year north of Barney for sure , right through to Statin island .

Not just a few boats having limit trips daily , was lots of boats doing it .

.

[bulletbob]

Should have pushed for the slot fish instead of asking for status quo.
Would more than likely had a better chance then instead of having the refs shoved down our throats we got .

As far as only some boats being able to get to the fish to fulfill a limit at 18”.
BS.
WAS plenty of fish well under 3 miles from any marina last year north of Barney for sure , right through to Statin island .

Not just a few boats having limit trips daily , was lots of boats doing it .

.

Ok, Understood.. then WHY the slot limit??.. I mean according to a few guys, the fishing is great, getting a limit of fish is no problem, then why not just keep the status quo??.. Seriously. If the fishing is that good, limits are no real problem, why change anything at all??.. must just be a lot of pretty poor unskilled anglers out there that just don't know what they're doing, [such as myself], or a lot of fluke fishermen that just like to complain, despite good fishing... bob

[hammer4reel]

Ok, Understood.. then WHY the slot limit??.. I mean according to a few guys, the fishing is great, getting a limit of fish is no problem, then why not just keep the status quo??.. Seriously. If the fishing is that good, limits are no real problem, why change anything at all??.. must just be a lot of pretty poor unskilled anglers out there that just don't know what they're doing, [such as myself], or a lot of fluke fishermen that just like to complain, despite good fishing... bob

Slot limit was based on boats fishing skinny water being able to take a few fish home , AND to hope some of those smaller fish were males . Taking some pressure off our breeding females.

IMO many guys catch just as many fish as they had ten years ago , difference is with the keeper size being larger they don't catch as many keepers.
But we get charged a high mortality rate for the fish we throw back.

SO instead of getting charged poundage for fish getting released, allow those guys to keep a few fish and actually get to eat what they got charged for.

Many guys catching 20 - 30 shorts might actually be done fishing after keeping a few 17" fish also lowering the BS mortality quota.

[tuna john]

Fish 90% of time in Cape May, ride to catch fluke anywhere from 7 miles to almost to 18. We fish a lot of days and like to think we are at least average. Honestly they could have made the limit 20 fish last year, as most day we were lucky to have 5 or six keepers for 3 to 4 guys. Crap year. drop the size few fish to take home and less harmful to the stock

[pectoralfin]

Why the slot limit for scup and black sea bass?

[dakota560]

3@ 16.5"....2 @ 18"- 21" ... 1 trophy fish with tag! (21" +)

Don't mean to stir the pot here but I think it's important for us all to understand what's happening. I know I'm a broken record on this topic but it's important enough to me and should be to everyone including the many business owners associated with the fishery so I'll accept that risk.

Two years ago, Dan (hammer4reel) and I, attended the public meeting in south NJ along with a hundred or so other people, a few from this site. Based on data included in the ASMFC Draft Addendum XXVlll handout, specifically the two attached charts addressing Recruitment (egg reproduction) and Catch (2nd and 3rd charts), I put together a data table to analyze trends over the last 20 - 30 years. A portion of that data table is reflected in the first chart which includes Recruitment, Total Catch (recreational and commercial combined), Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and Recreational Size Limits.

Years covered are 1982 thru 2015. Numbers are rounded but representative of the data NMFS and ASMFC are basing their regulatory decisions on. The recruitment numbers are in thousands so for example in 1982, 61,000 is actually 61,000,000. PLEASE review the trends for each category in the first chart and it tells the entire story. Compare 1982 to 2015 individual years if you want the Reader's Digest version of whats happened. Egg reproduction was approximately 61,000,000 in '82 vs approximately 23,000,000 in '15. Catch 25,000 metric tons in '82 vs. 7,500 in '15. SSB (biomass) 24,000 metric tons in '82 vs. 36,250 in '15, an almost 50% increase. Also note the biomass was as high as 50,000 metric tons in 2002 and has been decreasing ever since. Size limit '82, there wasn't one compared to 18" in '15. Since NY/NJ combined harvest makes up about 85% of the annual fluke harvest, I used the weighted average of just those two states to arrive at average regulatory size limits each year.

The most significant relationship in the analysis which should be the primary focus of NMFS and ASMFC is egg reproduction decreasing from 61 million to 23 million from '82 to '15 while the biomass increased from 24,000 metric tons to 36,250 metric tons. Keep in mind again it reached a high of 50,000 metric tons in 2002. While the biomass exploded upward, egg reproduction fell off the cliff. That's a relational statistic that should jump out at everyone and be the single most important issue fisheries management is focused on. In reality, it doesn't appear to even be on their radar screen. You'll notice egg reproduction started tanking when size limits approached 17", the cross over point in Rutgers "Size and Sex Study" when 90% - 95% of all fluke at or over that size are females. Coincidence, not a chance.

Reason I bring this up is based on the two options Detour66 posted. In my opinion, there's really only one option, 3 @ 16.5". Option 2, 2 @18"-21" and a special bonus tag for one over 21" will only intensify the pressure on female fluke and kill Party and Charter boat businesses. NMFS and ASMFC have their heads in the sand if these are truly the options they're considering. Any option which doesn't address the decline in egg reproduction shouldn't even be considered. AND until commercial harvest during the spawn is addressed, the current state of the fishery won't improve. I'm not suggesting commercial quotas be cut, they should be reallocated to times of the year that won't coincide with and disrupt the spawn. For a fishery supposedly spiraling downward as much as this one to allow commercial harvest during the primary spawn without understanding the consequences on egg reproduction which is off approximately 75% - 80% from historical highs is inexplicable and essentially gross negligence by NMFS and ASMFC.

[Billfish715]

Dakota, I posted this on a previous thread about the price of supermarket fluke and I agree with your conclusion regarding the targeting of spawning fluke during times when those fish are very susceptible to commercial dragging. The migration routes to and from those spawning areas near the continental shelf are well-known and documented thereby making the spawning females extremely vulnerable and exploitable.

Many members and lurkers on this board are too young to remember seeing the party boat fluke fleets fishing just off the beaches along Monmouth and Ocean Counties. Patrons on those boats were seldom disappointed when they went home. They had fresh fillets for dinner. The fish were small by today's "standards" yet there were always fluke to be caught and kept and there was no controversy or overdone intervention. Then, the regulations began to appear and the size limits kept increasing. From that point on, the fear of the "sky falling" took over. More and more mature female fluke were being taken because of the increased size limits and eventually the smaller fluke that were so plentiful along the beaches began to dwindle. With that, the party boat fleet and bait shops and the tackle industry noticeably also began to wane and disappear. Did the increased size limits have an adverse affect on the spawning stocks? Maybe, but most of the larger females (even today) are offshore and on snags and rough bottom where most party boats (back in the day) did not fish. Recreational fishermen were satisfied with the smaller, meal-sized fluke along the beaches. Now, except for the Sandy Hook and Raritan Bay fluke fishing, most of the boats from the southern inlets have to fish well offshore to have a chance at a few keepers. Lately, even some of us who fish out of the northern end of Monmouth County head to deeper water to satisfy our limit catches rather than tossing back countless undersized fluke. How many undersized fluke did everyone throw back last year? I'll bet the numbers would floor you.

This was only a theory, but it should be considered. We let them go in the rivers. We let them go in the bays. We let them go along the beaches. We release thousands and thousands of consumable fluke each year. Where do our released fluke end up? Hmmmm?

https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/..._quota2019.pdf

https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/comquotas.htm

The new commercial regs for fluke landings seems to have been reduced for 2019 by about 70,000 pounds (if I'm reading the letter correctly). What stands out, though, is the total allotted pounds of commercially landed fluke for the months of January and February and September and October. The quotas are drastically increased during the months when fluke are either on their spawning grounds or massing during their migration to those spawning grounds. The commercial boats may land 1500 pounds of fluke per week during those periods. The commercial limits are encouraging fishing for the spawning stocks which will eventually hurt everyone's future fishing potential including those of the commercial guys. Wake Up! I could be wrong, but I'll bet the wholesale price of fluke increases substantially during the same period. If so, the stimulus to catch more spawning fish is also substantially increased. Change the distribution of the quotas to put less pressure on the spawning fish.

[frugalfisherman]

How's this. 5 fish 17-20 inches. Anything over 20 goes back. That way you save the big breeder females. Only drawback no more pools.

[dakota560]

Billfish I couldn't agree more with your comments. I firmly believe when you compare egg reproduction with size limit increases and plot it against Rutgers "Size and Sex Study" absolutely size increases played a major role in destroying egg reproduction by changing the gender composition of the biomass. The data, their data, supports that theory 100%.

When the season closes for recreational harvest in September, it should simultaneously close for commercial and be closed in October and November as well. From what I've read, the spawn is pretty much completed by the end of November. Again don't cut the commercial quota, re-allocate it throughout the year so it doesn't occur during the spawn. Close it for a minimum of 2 - 3 years and study the impact on egg reproduction. That's where the entire focus of NMFS and ASMFC needs to be. Of the thousands of fish released during the summer, how many do you actually think survive the commercial onslaught during the fall migration offshore. Numbers killed I suspect are significant. NMFS tracks hook and line mortality but has no idea what the mortality rate is with hygrading at sea since it's self reported by commercial operators. Anyone who disagrees, we're all entitled to our opinions but I find it impossible to believe operators whose livelihood depends on commercial fishing would steam 40, 50, 60 or more miles offshore and not harvest larger females which carry a 60-70% price premium back at the dock while tossing the smaller less valuable fluke back dead. NMFS has to come to grips with that problem. Offshore commercial harvest has been happening for years which others have pointed out, what's changed is the surge in demand for Sushi grade fluke (almost exclusively larger females) creating a retail price imbalance placing a target on the heads of larger female breeders. It's a game changer and killing the fishery three ways: disrupting the spawn, increasing dead discard of smaller fish while increasing the harvest of larger females. The options discussed for the last twenty years and for 2019 don't address any of these issues and it's a monumental mistake in the manner this fishery is being managed. An almost 70% decrease in egg reproduction over the last 25 years based on a significantly larger spawning stock biomass and someone help me understand how the options proposed for '19 or any prior year are addressing that problem.

[dakota560]

How's this. 5 fish 17-20 inches. Anything over 20 goes back. That way you save the big breeder females. Only drawback no more pools.

Frugal my opinion, 17"-20" are still primarily females and doesn't address the commercial problem. Look again at the first chart I posted in my earlier email. I'd propose as a start a slot as low as 14" - 15" with maybe one fish allowed over 15" with no upside limit. If commercial operators can harvest 14" fish, recreational anglers should be afforded the same opportunity. That would greatly help Party and Charter boats, wouldn't effect one fish tournaments and most important would start reducing the pressure on larger female fluke. It's a good start.

Fishery management still has to address the commercial side of this and in my opinion the way to do it involves two changes. Level the retail price differential for large and smaller fluke so that a 14" fluke brings equivalent value as a 23" fish. That would immediately eliminate the culling or dead discard problem. Once operators hit their daily quota, no one would drop their nets again if there's no incremental value to be gained. How you change the market price is beyond my pay grade but someone should be able to figure it out if the health of the fishery is what's at stake.

Second as I've said, close the spawn season for 2-3 years and conduct studies on the impact on egg reproduction. That's the only path to recovery. Remember when we had a 14" - 15.5" inch size limit with an 8 fish possession limit, the biomass increased to it's highest level on record in 2002. In addition, look at overall catch, it was almost double in 2002 compared to today. Check the chart I posted. Coincidence, again I don't believe so. That in itself should highlight the problem and be the basis of establishing a sound recovery plan which can be monitored and quantified.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Ok, Understood.. then WHY the slot limit??.. I mean according to a few guys, the fishing is great, getting a limit of fish is no problem, then why not just keep the status quo??.. Seriously. If the fishing is that good, limits are no real problem, why change anything at all??.. must just be a lot of pretty poor unskilled anglers out there that just don't know what they're doing, [such as myself], or a lot of fluke fishermen that just like to complain, despite good fishing... bob

Slot fish regs are put in place for conservation not to increase the chances of someone being able to attain their limit. The smaller slot fish would allow people to fill their bag limit without forcing them to keep only keep 18" plus inch fluke, which for the most part are all females and breeders.

It's similar to the reasoning on Stripers where here in NJ your bonus tag used to be used for only larger fish and now it's for undersized fish...

http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/East-End/556906/For-A-Striped-Bass-Slot-Limit

[Gerry Zagorski]

Frugal my opinion, 17"-20" are still primarily females and doesn't address the commercial problem. Look again at the first chart I posted in my earlier email. I'd propose as a start a slot as low as 14" - 15" with maybe one fish allowed over 15" with no upside limit. If commercial operators can harvest 14" fish, recreational anglers should be afforded the same opportunity. That would greatly help Party and Charter boats, wouldn't effect one fish tournaments and most important would start reducing the pressure on larger female fluke. It's a good start.

Fishery management still has to address the commercial side of this and in my opinion the way to do it involves two changes. Level the retail price differential for large and smaller fluke so that a 14" fluke brings equivalent value as a 23" fish. That would immediately eliminate the culling or dead discard problem. Once operators hit their daily quota, no one would drop their nets again if there's no incremental value to be gained. How you change the market price is beyond my pay grade but someone should be able to figure it out if the health of the fishery is what's at stake.

Second as I've said, close the spawn season for 2-3 years and conduct studies on the impact on egg reproduction. That's the only path to recovery. Remember when we had a 14" - 15.5" inch size limit with an 8 fish possession limit, the biomass increased to it's highest level on record in 2002. In addition, look at overall catch, it was almost double in 2002 compared to today. Check the chart I posted. Coincidence, again I don't believe so. That in itself should highlight the problem and be the basis of establishing a sound recovery plan which can be monitored and quantified.

Lots of people concerned about the commercials being allowed to keep 14" Fluke when we're forced to take 18"...Why not let them fill their quota with 14 inch fish. If you make it 18 like us, what happens to all those 14 inch fish they catch in their nets? They'll wind up being dead discards and are wasted.

[dakota560]

Lots of people concerned about the commercials being allowed to keep 14" Fluke when we're forced to take 18"...Why not let them fill their quota with 14 inch fish. If you make it 18 like us, what happens to all those 14 inch fish they catch in their nets? They'll wind up being dead discards and are wasted.

Gerry I'm actually not against commercials being allowed to keep 14" fish, I'm in favor of it for the reason you cited. What I said earlier is we should have a slot limit introduced where recreational anglers and Party and Charter boats have the same opportunity, both would take pressure off the harvest of the larger female breeders.

My issue with commercial is the retail price I've mentioned. If 14" fish aren't being hygraded with larger fluke which carry a significantly higher retail value, you're comment is correct. If they are, which I absolutely believe to be the case, then the smaller fluke become dead discard anyway. You know it's happening on these long range winter trips. No way commercial guys are coming back in from that far off shore if they can increase the value of their catch by 60% - 70% with larger fish. The issue is market price here, not size limit for commercials. As I said, make the price per pound for a 14" fish the same as a 23" fish and the entire issue of hygrading and dead discard goes away. This isn't a size / possession limit issue, this is an FMP / market price issue. Basically what I'm saying is regulate the retail market prices to commercial to take the incentive away from harvesting larger female fluke. The disparity in retail prices they're getting for larger fluke is causing the entire hygrading problem, correct it and problem solved.

Look at the attached video I posted two years ago. Look at the size fish being discarded, they have to be 5 lbs. minimum and up. Everyone of those fish thrown back plus every fish retained as part of their catch was more likely than not a female. If it was September, October or November, there's a good chance they were loaded with eggs. If that's what was discarded dead, imagine the size of the fish retained and how many smaller fish from 14" on up were killed in the process of catching their quota. One boat, multiply that by the number of commercial boats involved and extrapolate out how huge the dead discard number must be. You think on the FVTR (Fishing Vessel Trip Report) log the captain reported how many fish were thrown back dead, not a chance. It's an enormous problem being completely overlooked by fisheries management all because the commercial industry has lobbying clout recreational doesn't. It's tragic what's happening at sea and what's worse is it's all correctable. Gerry to my earlier point, if the price paid per lb. to commercials for 14" fish was the same as the price paid for those larger fish thrown overboard, those beautiful fluke tossed overboard dead would never have been harvested because there would have been no incremental economic value to what was probably already on board. Please check out the attached video, it'll make you sick. Absolute waste of the resource and in my opinion a major reason egg reproduction has all but collapsed over the last twenty years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inSNl01unzw&feature=youtu.be

[Detour66]

@Dakota560... What I posted was 1 option not 3 separate options. This way people can bring home some fish. It's just my opinion. I can see you are much more educated on the subject than I am. I am just putting in my own 2 cents. I think smaller slot fish would help the industry without wiping out the fish. That is something I do not want to see.

[dakota560]

@Dakota560... What I posted was 1 option not 3 separate options. This way people can bring home some fish. It's just my opinion. I can see you are much more educated on the subject than I am. I am just putting in my own 2 cents. I think smaller slot fish would help the industry without wiping out the fish. That is something I do not want to see.

Detour I thought it was two options but understand your point. NMFS has ONLY attempted to manage this fishery by focusing on catch through size increases, possession limit reductions, shortened seasons or reduced overall quotas. It was working to some degree until they broached the high 16" / 17" size limit, then everything went to hell. Prior to that as their data shows, the balance between reduced catch from the early to mid 80's coupled with relatively strong reproduction numbers the biomass responded very favorably through 2002. When they continued increasing size limits beyond that point with the intent again of reducing catch, they created the unintended consequence of changing the gender composition of the biomass destroying egg reproduction in the process. Add to that what's happening with commercials and that's why the fishery is suffering.

[Detour66]

Detour I thought it was two options but understand your point. NMFS has ONLY attempted to manage this fishery by focusing on catch through size increases, possession limit reductions, shortened seasons or reduced overall quotas. It was working to some degree until they broached the high 16" / 17" size limit, then everything went to hell. Prior to that as their data shows, the balance between reduced catch from the early to mid 80's coupled with relatively strong reproduction numbers the biomass responded very favorably through 2002. When they continued increasing size limits beyond that point with the intent again of reducing catch, they created the unintended consequence of changing the gender composition of the biomass destroying egg reproduction in the process. Add to that what's happening with commercials and that's why the fishery is suffering. I have read what you are saying by many anglers and captains on almost every fishing site. And it makes sense to me. Now why doesn't it make sense to the NMFS with there size increase and possession limit policy? That is the real question and should be addressed! It seems to me if this bad policy isn't fixed the Fluke stocks will continue to decline and not at the fault of the hook and line fisherman!

[dakota560]

I have read what you are saying by many anglers and captains on almost every fishing site. And it makes sense to me. Now why doesn't it make sense to the NMFS with there size increase and possession limit policy? That is the real question and should be addressed! It seems to me if this bad policy isn't fixed the Fluke stocks will continue to decline and not at the fault of the hook and line fisherman!

In my opinion two reasons. Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA" which has been revised a few times since being enacted initially in 1976 with focus almost exclusively on attaining an arbitrary SSB thresh hold level never before attained. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who can answer how that level was arrived at. So every year when SSB comes up short, immediately the mandate is reduce catch. That was the correct answer in the 80's when annual catch exceeded SSB. The biomass was being turned over every year, harvest was excessive and not sustainable. Once catch was brought under control, SSB started a significant climb until continued size limit increases caused a negative impact on reproduction causing SSB to reverse it ascent and provisions of MSA kicked in every year since starting in 2003 mandating again catch reductions year after year.

Second NMFS / ASMFC have to make this decision their way on their time frame and their terms otherwise by default they admit they've mismanaged the fishery for the last twenty or so years. No government agency is going to publicly acknowledge that, instead they hide behind the provisions enacted under MSA 42 years ago which is a convenient CYA excuse to fall back on. Basically we're stuck in a political black hole until the fishery is at the brink of collapse. At that time NMFS will have no choice but to step in, introduce a slot, maybe do what I suggested with the commercials which is absolutely needed but a long shot and say THEY saved the day. When that happens is anyone's guess.

[bulletbob]

In my opinion two reasons. Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA" which has been revised a few times since being enacted initially in 1976 with focus almost exclusively on attaining an arbitrary SSB thresh hold level never before attained. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who can answer how that level was arrived at. So every year when SSB comes up short, immediately the mandate is reduce catch. That was the correct answer in the 80's when annual catch exceeded SSB. The biomass was being turned over every year, harvest was excessive and not sustainable. Once catch was brought under control, SSB started a significant climb until continued size limit increases caused a negative impact on reproduction causing SSB to reverse it ascent and provisions of MSA kicked in every year since starting in 2003 mandating again catch reductions year after year.

Second NMFS / ASMFC have to make this decision their way on their time frame and their terms otherwise by default they admit they've mismanaged the fishery for the last twenty or so years. No government agency is going to publicly acknowledge that, instead they hide behind the provisions enacted under MSA 42 years ago which is a convenient CYA excuse to fall back on. Basically we're stuck in a political black hole until the fishery is at the brink of collapse. At that time NMFS will have no choice but to step in, introduce a slot, maybe do what I suggested with the commercials which is absolutely needed but a long shot and say THEY saved the day. When that happens is anyone's guess.

Slot limit when the fishery collapses??.. Probably not.. they would just shut it down for recs most likely... bob

[hammer4reel]

Tom
They are hygrading , but not by throwing back smaller fish dead .
They use a net bigger than their minimum size so smaller fish swim through .
I asked about mortality of smaller fish when bigger ones cover the net .
They said most of the smaller fish get pushed up and swim through .
Much of what looks like smaller fluke being pulled is actually skates.
There are actually More skates pulled up in a haul than fluke .

While there are some guys out there who would break the law, for many of these guys the ocean is the only life they know.
They aren’t throwing back fish that someday would be money for them .

The guys making videos throwing back boxes of fluke are showing the waste nmfs is causing not allowing some bycatch while fishing for other species.
Makes them sick to do so.

[dakota560]

Tom
They are hygrading , but not by throwing back smaller fish dead .
They use a net bigger than their minimum size so smaller fish swim through .
I asked about mortality of smaller fish when bigger ones cover the net .
They said most of the smaller fish get pushed up and swim through .
Much of what looks like smaller fluke being pulled is actually skates.
There are actually More skates pulled up in a haul than fluke .

While there are some guys out there who would break the law, for many of these guys the ocean is the only life they know.
They aren’t throwing back fish that someday would be money for them .

The guys making videos throwing back boxes of fluke are showing the waste nmfs is causing not allowing some bycatch while fishing for other species.
Makes them sick to do so.

Dan when you say they, who exactly are you referring to? If as you say the mesh sizes being used are larger than 14" to allow 14" fish to swim through, why do the commercial regulations allow harvest of 14" fish? To Gerry's point earlier, I'd prefer the mesh size be 14" to have less breeders harvested. What your suggesting is larger fluke are being targeted because of the price differential which defeats the whole point of the 14" minimum. As far as the by-catch issue is concerned, regardless of what NMFS allows, the net result (no pun intended) is a significant amount of fluke are being killed, tossed back dead and not reported in FVTR's. Reason they're thrown back dead doesn't matter, fact that they are does.

While I agree the ocean is in many cases the only thing commercial operators know, you simply have more faith in commercial fishing ideologies than most. I do a lot of reading and a lot of research and have read too many articles about illicit netting and lived to see too many species wiped out in my lifetime by commercial operations. Ling, whiting, cod, mackerel, weakfish (which never rebounded), bass in the 70's, herring which caused the reduction boats to come down here and start mopping up all the bunker as well as the damage Omega Protein does, flounder, fluke, porgies, sharks, tuna etc. It took decades for the porgy fishery to rebound, let's see how long that lasts. Blackfish are next and it's already happening. Any fishery targeted by commercial interests will be exploited until it's no longer economically viable and any by-catch that gets in the way killed as well as ocean habitat destroyed. I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch but where do you draw the line. World demand for fish combined with technological advances in commercial fishing equipment will destroy every fishery until there's not a species left to fish for. That doesn't mean every commercial operator has no conscience, it means there's a history which can't be ignored of one species after another being destroyed by commercial over fishing.

Hopefully we agree (based on the NMFS data we have to work with) fluke reproduction has been decimated over the last 25 or more years. Do you agree commercial fishing should be closed during the Fall migration until we better understand the impact it's having on egg reproduction and the spawning process in general? Until the cause of the reproduction problem is understood and the trend reversed, no amount of changes to catch, possession limits, length of season will compensate enough to rebuild this fishery. Last 15 years prove that point and why every year the options we get to choose from amount to nothing more than scraps. NMFS and ASMFC reshuffle the same deck every year while the fishery is hamstrung today with the same problems it faced 15 years ago.

[Detour66]

The new administration recently signed the "Modern Fishing Act". Does this act have the potential of correcting the unfair and ignorant regulations that are now in place? Can anyone answer this or is it a "wait and see" situation?

[dakota560]

The new administration recently signed the "Modern Fishing Act". Does this act have the potential of correcting the unfair and ignorant regulations that are now in place? Can anyone answer this or is it a "wait and see" situation?

Here's a link which explains a bit about the recently signed Modern Fishing Act. I believe it gives states and the recreational angling community more options or leverage but not sure it alters the provisions of MSA directly. There's others on the site much more versed in this who could chime in here.

http://www.trcp.org/2019/01/01/president-trump-signs-modern-fish-act/

It's definitely a step in the right direction but with any legislation it needs to be time tested to understand what impact it's ultimately going to have. There's a lot of people fighting for recreational interests and giving their time, significant amounts at that. The biggest drawback as others have mentioned is recreational is not as well organized as commercial and we have a shadow of their funding and lobbying power. From my perspective, when fisheries management starts making the right decisions to rebuild stocks and when rebuilt gives both recreational anglers and commercial concerns equal access and equitable allocations unlike what's happening with the Sea Bass fishery, then the system is working.

[hammer4reel]

Dan when you say they, who exactly are you referring to? If as you say the mesh sizes being used are larger than 14" to allow 14" fish to swim through, why do the commercial regulations allow harvest of 14" fish? To Gerry's point earlier, I'd prefer the mesh size be 14" to have less breeders harvested. What your suggesting is larger fluke are being targeted because of the price differential which defeats the whole point of the 14" minimum. As far as the by-catch issue is concerned, regardless of what NMFS allows, the net result (no pun intended) is a significant amount of fluke are being killed, tossed back dead and not reported in FVTR's. Reason they're thrown back dead doesn't matter, fact that they are does.

While I agree the ocean is in many cases the only thing commercial operators know, you simply have more faith in commercial fishing ideologies than most. I do a lot of reading and a lot of research and have read too many articles about illicit netting and lived to see too many species wiped out in my lifetime by commercial operations. Ling, whiting, cod, mackerel, weakfish (which never rebounded), bass in the 70's, herring which caused the reduction boats to come down here and start mopping up all the bunker as well as the damage Omega Protein does, flounder, fluke, porgies, sharks, tuna etc. It took decades for the porgy fishery to rebound, let's see how long that lasts. Blackfish are next and it's already happening. Any fishery targeted by commercial interests will be exploited until it's no longer economically viable and any by-catch that gets in the way killed as well as ocean habitat destroyed. I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch but where do you draw the line. World demand for fish combined with technological advances in commercial fishing equipment will destroy every fishery until there's not a species left to fish for. That doesn't mean every commercial operator has no conscience, it means there's a history which can't be ignored of one species after another being destroyed by commercial over fishing.

Hopefully we agree (based on the NMFS data we have to work with) fluke reproduction has been decimated over the last 25 or more years. Do you agree commercial fishing should be closed during the Fall migration until we better understand the impact it's having on egg reproduction and the spawning process in general? Until the cause of the reproduction problem is understood and the trend reversed, no amount of changes to catch, possession limits, length of season will compensate enough to rebuild this fishery. Last 15 years prove that point and why every year the options we get to choose from amount to nothing more than scraps. NMFS and ASMFC reshuffle the same deck every year while the fishery is hamstrung today with the same problems it faced 15 years ago.

I wish if people wanted to eat fish they had to catch their own . I want to eat elk as much as some guy in Colorado wants to eat fluke .
Don’t see them sending me any elk .
But the case is our fishery feeds more than just us .
While everyone knows commercial fishing has hurt many species in the past , these local boats are highly watched .
F&G wait for them at the docks , and go with them to watch their weights caught .
Their boats are electronically monitored 365 days a year .
The free for all isn’t happening like it used to .

Beyond that unlike some who are drinking the koolaid I don’t believe the numbers NMFS gave us .
For more than a few reasons .
First is I personally see no lack of fish in any of the areas we fish from BARNEGET INLET to north of the Verizono.
No matter where we fish between them we find good bodies of fish .
Commercial guys fishing this area used to fish from BARNEY to FIRE ISLAND to meet their catch quotas. Most fish within 10 miles of their docks the whole season now.
Ask fisherman around what they are catching . Most will tell you they threw back 25 fish just short of 18”.

If we had a 17” limit they would be saying it was the best fluking ever .
NMFS has hit the magic number at 18” .

Talk to boats actually doing the netting for recruitments , they will tell you they are asked to drag areas they know won’t hold fish .
The numbers are bogus , catches can’t be good and NMFS numbers be correct.
.

If we really wanted to believe NMFS numbers as I pointed out at the meeting .we should go back to a 16” size limit
As recruitment by their numbers showed at an all time high with us taking a lot more fish home.

I still would like to know when a fluke drops a million eggs , are half male and half female ?
Or did Mother Nature make more females naturally .
As according to most info 98% of the fish we have been taking for years have been females.
And there isn’t anyone throwing them back.

REAL answers need to be addressed to create real management plans .

Instead IMO the government wants both recs and commercial fisherman to. Get frustrated and stop fishing .
Then they can sell the fish for political gain to other countries willing to pay a lot more money for the fish.


.

[dakota560]

One last post on this thread and I'll leave it at that. Dan you can have the last say, but clearly we view a number of issue impacting not just the fluke fishery but all fisheries differently.

Here's what I believe. Fact, increase in the world's population both domestic and abroad coupled with an explosion of health crazed consumers including the sushi market explosion have brought the demand for fish and shellfish to record levels. That demand has caused wholesale prices and the size of the global fish market (estimated at ~$150 billion in '19) to hit record levels as well.

Here's an excerpt from an article "The Rise and Fall of the Codfather, America's most notorious fishing criminal":

Last year, the U.S. government hauled in a big fish: Carlos Rafael, dubbed ‘the Codfather.’ For years, Raphael was the largest player in New England’s groundfish industry, but last September he was handed a four-year prison sentence and a partial seizure of his groundfish fleets and permits. The charges against him include false labelling and falsifying fish records in order to exceed fishing quotas, as well as cash smuggling and tax evasion. Illegal fishing is big business, and the Codfather’s story is just one example of how it is harming the oceans.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) Fishing around the world has an estimated value of $23 billion USD annually and accounts for up to 30 per cent of global catches.

One person essentially ignored every regulation involving multiple species, primarily ground fish, paid $1.75 million dollars to have his scales altered to under report actual weights, falsified FVTR reports (one rare instance when he got caught he reported 1,365 lbs of scallops on board when in fact he had 12,356 lbs.), mislabeled fish to avoid daily and seasonal quota limitations, bypassed the supply chain by selling directly to the NY based black market, owned distribution outlets himself to control and circumvent regulatory compliance and got away with it for 30 years. Law enforcement officials were found to be involved to pull it off. A majority of the commercial operators in New Bedford knew about it but elected to either turn a blind eye out of fear or simply by choice so it went undetected for decades. It wasn't until the FBI got involved (for money laundering cash from black market sales in NY) that NMFS and F&G got involved in a joint sting operation which ultimately took him down. If not for the FBI's money laundering investigation, he'd still be in business or someone else would have purchased his operation for the $175 million he was asking.

Story is well documented and there are hundreds of articles on-line you can read which illustrate just how out of control the commercial industry is with illicit practices. Don't think the "Belford Pirates" earned that distinction because they were "Guardians of the Ocean".

Dan we agree that a majority of commercial operators play by the rules because they're upstanding people and or they have to. Their livelihood depends on it and if caught and they lose their permit(s) it's game over for them. I believe a minority of operators don't play by the rules causing extensive damage to every fishery they target. As much as efforts have been stepped up to address compliance, lack of enforcement resources and based on the sheer amount of dollars involved in this industry, I don't agree enforcement is nearly as iron clad as you make it appear. We simply can disagree on that point.

Question for you, boat sails off shore during winter harvest. Not 100% certain of daily / weekly limits but let's assume it's 1,500 lbs. per trip. Boats are electronically monitored as you mentioned but there's no one from F&G on board which means the catch is not monitored or weighed until it's back at the dock. Assume on this trip, 5,000 lbs of fluke is harvested, operator calls in 2 hours in advance of the 6:00 am to 6:00 pm weigh-in guidelines so F&G is at the docks to meet the boat as required but before he returns, he offloads 3,500 lbs of his catch to a runner boat 5 miles offshore that runs it up to NY harbor, offloads it in any of a thousand different places without risk of detection, gets $5 / lb. for his efforts or $17.5k more for the trip and it's on the menu in NY restaurants later that evening selling for $40 a plate. How would that be detected? Think that doesn't happen? Carlos Raphael made multiple tens of millions a year and accumulated a fortune basically doing just that. With the limited resources F&G is hamstrung with, who would even know?

As far as the 2018 fluke season is concerned, we must have fished different oceans. Since our boat was destroyed in the Seaport Inlet Fire, we charter multiple times a year now. In June and July I had six charters scheduled (won't mention boat names but they were reputable and local). One was cancelled due to weather, two were cancelled because we were told the fluke fishing was terrible, one we went on and 5 keepers were caught between six very good fisherman plus the captain and mate with every boat around us having the same kind of day and one we were told to fish for a different species because the fluke fishing was that bad. August improved dramatically for just about everyone and we had one trip in early September with a very well known local charter and had an outstanding trip. If you based your opinion about the health of every fishery on his catches and reputation alone you'd swear every fishery was in great shape. I'm sure most of you know without naming names who I'm referring to. I think for most, even though I know you don't agree, 2018 wasn't just a mediocre year it was a very off year for the majority even though the network you run with would say otherwise.

As far as the NMFS data and recruitment numbers we have to work with, it is what it is. I don't buy the argument that the numbers are wrong for the last 30 years. This isn't a recent anomaly and if your implying the numbers are wrong you're de facto implying Rutgers "Sex and Size" study is wrong. You yourself in this thread said commercial operators increased mesh limits to allow 14" fish to escape their nets. First I heard that and it defeats the entire purpose of them being given a 14" size limit to begin with which again means they're targeting larger females. I don't believe between the weight of the catch and pressure caused by the trawl that smaller fish covered up by larger fluke will find their way to the top and swim back out unscathed. So again what that means is the recreational and commercial harvest consists almost entirely of female fluke. Combine that with commercial harvest during the spawn without understanding the impact it has on egg production and the numbers are what I'd expect. What other fishery do you know that has data strongly suggesting a reproduction problem and allows commercial harvest or any harvest during the spawn. How can any fishery survive when you harvest nothing but females and commercial harvest pounds the biomass during the spawn. Answer is it can't and the data is exactly what I 'd expect it to be based not on science but based on common sense.

Dan you can have the last say, everyone knows my position not just of the summer flounder fishery but fishery management in general. There's not a fishery with commercial exposure that will survive without regulations, not with $150 billion dollars at stake. Recreational anglers fish because they enjoy it, commercials fish to profit and make a living, inherent conflict in motivations. As I said, I believe a high percentage of second and third generation commercial operators play by the rules but a minority percentage don't and are destroying one fishery after another at everyone else's expense. Current enforcement resources can't possibly control what's going on at sea, it's simply not humanely possible.

There's other issues at play here but in my humble opinion there's three things which should be considered. Re-establish slot and I would make it 14" - 15", somewhere in that range. Start with three fish possession limit initially, 2 fish within the slot and one fish over 18". That should help party and charter boats and allow a big fish for recreational one fish tournaments. Second, when the recreational season ends, the commercial season does as well through December 1 so the spawn is protected. Leave their annual quota the same, re-allocate the timing of the harvest so as not to coincide with the spawn. Third have the powers to be address the wholesale price differential between smaller and larger fluke to eliminate the problem of hygrading. I realize two and three are a long shot with commercial lobbying power but they're changes which need to be considered and in my opinion adopted. After three years, re-assess the impact on the biomass and recruitment and based on the data and science plot the course accordingly. In addition, if enforcement isn't addressed, regulations won't matter if the above statistic is remotely correct in that 30% of annual harvest goes unreported. In addition, a study should be conducted both offshore and inshore to track and understand more of where the reproduction problem is occurring. It shouldn't be difficult to assess and in my opinion is the key to rebuilding this fishery.

[hammer4reel]

Tom
There is no doubt there will always be the guys who cheat .
And they def can cause major damage .
The research set aside program was stopped after a boat payed for 30000 pounds was caught selling 289000 pounds .

My point about the commercial guys who have fished the ocean their whole lives are seeing more fluke than ever.
Many other things they fish for have had fluke showing up as bycatch in places they hadn’t before .
I think they have more knowledge on fish numbers than the numbers NMFS gives us .

We had another great season last year .and traveled less to get to good bodies of fish than years past .

Find the bait , find the fish .
What has def helped the recreational fishing in our area is the betters seasons have been closed through the summer . That leaves much more fish for us to catch than years past when they were fishing the same areas as us daily.

I also see all the boats regularly fishing tournaments to be doing just as well as we did .
They always said 10 % of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish .
And reading here on many posts I believe it’s pretty accurate .

The charter captain you make mention of proves daily , with good fisherman on board and his expertise their are LOTS of fish to be caught where 200 other boats claim there isn’t a fish to be found.

.

[pectoralfin]

I believe that $150 billion number includes imported seafood. Several years ago NMFS decided to include imports to inflate the economic value of the commercial fishery. By the way, this was done despite the objection of the vast majority of responders to the proposed change. If 90% of the seafood is imported, it means that the value of the commercial fishery is really about $15 billion.

I learned more from the above posts than any other website or publication on this matter. Does anyone think to meet with the commercial groups to get a dialog going about this and see if we both can benefit from a unified front?

[Joey Dah Fish]

How's this. 5 fish 17-20 inches. Anything over 20 goes back. That way you save the big breeder females. Only drawback no more pools.

Oh there’s another major draw back you don’t realize. If you implement something like you’re thinking our season would be 6 weeks.

[Fin Reaper]

One part of the “logic” that I never understood concerns the throw back mortality rate.....if they are basing in part what we can keep (size and bag limit) on what’s going to die when we throw it back why then wouldn’t you let us keep more of the ones that are doomed to die? If the science truly says that a large percentage of what we release dies, Why implement regs that increases the number of fish we release?

[Merle31483]

If everyone is concerned about the fluke fishery for the future which it seems like everyone is than the approach should be taken into consideration in comparison to the blue fin tuna fishery have a set number of pounds allocated for a season and when that amount of pounds is reached seasons closed set a size limit that will make everybody happy that won't kill the party boat fishing industry and take it from there

[dakota560]

I believe that $150 billion number includes imported seafood. Several years ago NMFS decided to include imports to inflate the economic value of the commercial fishery. By the way, this was done despite the objection of the vast majority of responders to the proposed change. If 90% of the seafood is imported, it means that the value of the commercial fishery is really about $15 billion.

I learned more from the above posts than any other website or publication on this matter. Does anyone think to meet with the commercial groups to get a dialog going about this and see if we both can benefit from a unified front?

The $150 billion in my earlier post was to reflect the worldwide value of the seafood market. I mentioned it to present scale of the industry and amount of money involved which in my opinion influences many things including legislation and behavior. Wasn't intended as a breakdown by country or effort to quantify the size of the US commercial fishery. Point is, demand has grown exponentially and will continue to do so. Just realized the number for '19 is ~$135 billion, still a very significant number and as you can see is expected and will continue to grow. Source is attached.

As far as part two of your post, I think the relationship between both parties is somewhat comparable to the Hatfield's and the McCoy's. Personally I don't believe "Unified Front" is a recognizable term between the recreational community and commercial industry unfortunately. Good idea but personally just don't see it happening, would love to be proven wrong.

[Ry609]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuccU1en0b8

[dakota560]

If everyone is concerned about the fluke fishery for the future which it seems like everyone is than the approach should be taken into consideration in comparison to the blue fin tuna fishery have a set number of pounds allocated for a season and when that amount of pounds is reached seasons closed set a size limit that will make everybody happy that won't kill the party boat fishing industry and take it from there

Review the attached charts from the data table I posed earlier. The data supports the fact that catch or pounds as you referred to it is not the problem. We were harvesting a significantly higher percentage of the biomass and catch totals (metric tonnage) in the absolute between the years 1989 and 2002 than today and during those years the biomass increased ~600%. Now compare that to the chart recruitment relative to size limit increases beginning around 2000 showing an absolute inverse relationship between size limit increases and reduction in recruitment statistics over the last 15 years. Last chart shows recruitment numbers in the absolute, it's been decimated and remember it's fallen off a cliff at a time when the biomass is significantly larger. Again that's a trend which should be on everyone's radar screen and the single most important issue fisheries management should be focusing in on.

Problem with your suggestion is it's basically what the angling community has been asking for over the last few decades. Problem is twofold. Compliance with Magnuson Stevens Act provisions and NMFS and ASMFC focusing solely on catch and their past practices of ONLY increasing size limits, reducing possession limits and overall harvest totals. From what I understand, data and conclusions from Rutgers "Sex and Length" study indicating most fluke landed at 18" are females is being incorporated in Peer Review so hopefully at some point in the next year or two a slot size will be introduced. It's one of several steps necessary in my opinion to the recovery of this fishery.

[dakota560]

One of the graphs from Rutger's study which illustrates the relationship of length and sex for summer flounder. Graph is in centimeters, 18 inches equals 45.72 centimeters. You can see how disproportionate the relationship is between males and females as size increases to the point where almost all fish over 19.5 inches are females. NMFS's insistence on increasing size to control catch relative to this data is one of the reasons recruitment has been decimated. Combine that with the following statistics and the results are disastrous.

Reproduction:
Both males and females become sexually mature at the age of 3. The fecundity (number of eggs produced in a single spawning season) of females increases with size and weight. A 14 inch female produces about 460,000, and a 27 inch female about 4,200,000 eggs in a season. Reproduction takes place in the fall, as soon as the fish begin migrating to wintering grounds. Peak spawning activity occurs from early September through early November in water temperatures of 53 to 66 degrees F and at depths of 60 to 160 feet. The center of spawning activity occurs off the coasts of New York and New Jersey with less concentrated activity occurring in southern New England waters. The eggs float in the water column, hatching 72 to 75 hours after being laid.

Translated, not only are we harvesting almost exclusively breeders, every time size limits are increased we're increasing the harvest of larger females with considerably greater egg production capacity at what could conceivably be a 10:1 ratio. Couple that with the commercial fleet harvesting concentrated schools of migrating fish during their fall / winter offshore migration and spawn and NMFS / ASMFC wonders why the biomass is trending down over the last 15 years. You can draw your own conclusions but the data strongly supports a gender imbalance created in the biomass by size increase legislation over the last almost twenty years compounded by commercial harvest in the fall / winter months during the spawn without understanding the negative impacts that harvest has on overall egg reproduction. It's obvious for every female harvested we lose the immediate benefit of that years egg production. Larger question in my opinion is how many eggs already released are destroyed by continued netting and what impact does the harvest have on stressing out the biomass, potentially impeding it's ability to reproduce. No one to my knowledge has that answer and it arguably might be one of the most important pieces of the puzzle.

[pectoralfin]

Below is from NOAA website for 2015

U.S. Recreational Fisheries Economic Impact Trends:
Jobs - 439,242, Income - $22.7 Billion, Sales - $63.4 Billion, Value Added - $26.1 Billion, Total Trips - $60.9 Million

U.S. Commercial Fisheries Economic Impact Trends:
Jobs: $1.18 Million, Income: $39.7 Billion, Sales: $144.2 Billion, Value Added: $60.6 Billion, Revenue: $5.2 Billion

[AndyS]

Effective 6:01 p.m. on Sunday, December 2, 2018, which started a new fishing week, the New Jersey commercial Summer Flounder trip limits increased from 500 pounds two times per week or 1000 pounds one time per week, to 1,250 pounds two times per week or 2,500 pounds once per week. On the evening of Saturday, December 1st, 2018 shortly after 6:00 p.m., Lt. Scott observed a commercial fishing vessel enter Manasquan Inlet and dock up at the Fisherman's Dock Cooperative in Point Pleasant Beach and begin the offloading process. Upon inspection of the vessel, Lt. Scott noticed that the vessel's Federal Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) listed 1,000 pounds of summer flounder that were going to be sold to a New York-based dealer. Additionally, it was discovered that the operator failed to give at least two hours notice to the Marine Region Office prior to offloading summer flounder. Lt. Scott asked the operator if the vessel was loaded with more than the 1,000 pounds of summer flounder that was recorded in the FVTR. The operator indicated there was additional summer flounder in the hold and claimed his plan was to offload the 1,000 pound trip limit then head back out to make a few tows so he could get the rest of the new weeks trip limit. Lt. Scott advised the operator this was a violation in addition to offloading after 6:00 p.m. and directed the operator to offload all the fish he had onboard. When the offload was completed, more than 3,000 pounds of summer flounder was in possession along with other managed species of fish, which were not listed on the FVTR. Additionally, just under 100 pounds of black sea bass was onboard which was over the legal bycatch amount of 50 pounds. Summonses were issued for failure to accurately complete FVTR, failure to provide two hours notice prior to offloading summer flounder, offloading summer flounder after legal hours, possess more than the daily trip limit of summer flounder and possess black sea bass over the bycatch limit.

[dakota560]

Effective 6:01 p.m. on Sunday, December 2, 2018, which started a new fishing week, the New Jersey commercial Summer Flounder trip limits increased from 500 pounds two times per week or 1000 pounds one time per week, to 1,250 pounds two times per week or 2,500 pounds once per week. On the evening of Saturday, December 1st, 2018 shortly after 6:00 p.m., Lt. Scott observed a commercial fishing vessel enter Manasquan Inlet and dock up at the Fisherman's Dock Cooperative in Point Pleasant Beach and begin the offloading process. Upon inspection of the vessel, Lt. Scott noticed that the vessel's Federal Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) listed 1,000 pounds of summer flounder that were going to be sold to a New York-based dealer. Additionally, it was discovered that the operator failed to give at least two hours notice to the Marine Region Office prior to offloading summer flounder. Lt. Scott asked the operator if the vessel was loaded with more than the 1,000 pounds of summer flounder that was recorded in the FVTR. The operator indicated there was additional summer flounder in the hold and claimed his plan was to offload the 1,000 pound trip limit then head back out to make a few tows so he could get the rest of the new weeks trip limit. Lt. Scott advised the operator this was a violation in addition to offloading after 6:00 p.m. and directed the operator to offload all the fish he had onboard. When the offload was completed, more than 3,000 pounds of summer flounder was in possession along with other managed species of fish, which were not listed on the FVTR. Additionally, just under 100 pounds of black sea bass was onboard which was over the legal bycatch amount of 50 pounds. Summonses were issued for failure to accurately complete FVTR, failure to provide two hours notice prior to offloading summer flounder, offloading summer flounder after legal hours, possess more than the daily trip limit of summer flounder and possess black sea bass over the bycatch limit.

Didn't call in, waited until shortly after the required 6:00 pm weigh in cut off, rolled the dice and came up snake eyes. A big THANK YOU to Lt. Scott and F&G in general! And the FVTR was already filled out with 1,000 lbs, what a surprise. Probably no dead discard either I'm sure. To my point earlier, with the limited resources F&G has this happens all the time. 2,000 lbs. more and lets say on average wholesale was $4/lb. at the dock, that's $8k more in illegal catch value. If the guy offloaded to another boat or waited a few hours, chances are he wouldn't even have been caught.

Until the laws change and the fines outweigh the upside financial benefit, operators are going to take these risks. Permits should be forfeited, heavy fines imposed and boats / equipment confiscated. A slap on the wrist isn't going to change behavior when the upside benefits are so significant. Guys like this abuse the fishery at the expense of the operators who play by the rules and the recreational community.

[Billfish715]

Just something to ponder.........the commercial fluke quota is 1,500 pounds per week during a few months during the year. That equals 750 two pound fluke per week for one boat. Which party boat or boats caught 750 keeper fluke in one week? Increase the number of commercial boats to ten. That is 7,500 keeper fluke per week. I don't care how good the captains and anglers are on the party and charter boats along the coast, but 7,500 keepers is quite a total to match. Think about it.

I'd like to hear from someone representing the commercial industry to hear what their take is on this topic. I know they will have their complaints and arguments but I can't see why they would be opposed to closing the fluke season for them during the fluke migration to and on the spawning grounds if they want to protect their future. Of course the argument will be that they are losing money but losing their livelihood due to the extinction of a species is worse.

[AndyS]

They get to keep 14 inch fish, correct ?

[Billfish715]

Yeah, they do Andy. I know where you are going with this. They "harvest" considerably more than 750 fluke per trip. Because the discussion was mainly about females, I thought I'd focus on larger fish. But, you are correct, by catching smaller fish, they are actually catching more fish. And, how does a smaller 14" or smaller fluke get out of the net (even with larger mesh) when they are being squashed by all of the fish on top of them. That, I just don't understand. If you drag a net full of fish that are being squashed for any length of time or distance, don't you think they will get suffocated? I need this to be explained to me.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Yes commercials are allowed to keep 14 inch fish.... I'm fine with that since those fish count towards their quota which is in pounds not number of fish... If they had to discard those 14 inch fish that happened to get caught in their net, those fish would not count towards their quota, end up discarded/dead and would be wasted...

Further, people above are doing the math that commercials keep X amount of fish each time they go out and how that is way more then any party boat could possibly catch... The one thing missing in this logic is commercial landings are monitored and counted by weight and once their quota is attained, no matter what the date is, they get shut down... On the recreational side we are given seasons from X date to Y date and can fish all of those days.

As far as quotas, it varies from year to year but right or wrong, commercials usually get a little more then the recreationals do... Last year they got 54% of the quota and we got 46%.

Some of you maybe reading this and think, hmm Gerry's pro commercial fishing.... The reality is there will always be commercial fishing as long as there is demand for fish. Knowing that you just need to be sure the quotas are split fairly, the commercials are monitored closely so they don't exceed their quota and given sensible rules that don't force them to waste the resources with discards, which is why I support allowing them to keep 14 inch fish..

[dales529]

This is a great post different from winters past as there is a lot of good information here ( Thanks Tom Dakota for all the in depth research) and others with well intended and informative posts. Tom you have to get on one of the main councils one day!

Mild reality check:
1) Recreational and commercial has always been and will remain under separate regulations and the two can not be compared except for poundage allocation. The spawning closures would be great however another major act to the current regs. The video earlier in this post in dumping the Fluke over was NOT because they were over the limit but because it was by catch out of season so they had no choice. Again if By catch measures out of season were changed say a poundage allocation for in season and a by catch allocation for out of season on that same species not to exceed the yearly allocation may make sense. But since counting fish is apparently impossible that has issues too.

2) While the female harvest vs stock biomass is obviously a major issue the methodology is not in place YET to address this . SSFFF and Rutgers studies did NOT pass peer review due to a computer data input vs output glitch so current modifed stock assessments are still in play. The Sex based studies will not be used and may take more time until it can pass peer review and be implemented
Please continue to support SSFFF and Rutgers as much as possible to achieve the final goals.

Having said that in my opinion and I agree with Joey Da Fish due to the current management process the introduction of a slot fish in any manner will result in one and only one result. A SHORTER season by weeks not days.
Doesn't mean any of the information in this post isnt valid or important just don't think the system is ready YET for that change.

Modern fish act allows for more flexibility so lets see how that translates but will still be based on the current stock assessments for input data or "best science available that exists


Good news is we are looking at an increased quota (lbs) by maybe 16 to 17% for this 2019 season. Changes to the " best science available" are in the works and under consideration but not quite there yet

This does or does NOT mean anything yet as those meetings are yet to be done and slot fish may or may not be on the table.

Simply put All Fishing groups and the public etc will all be involved as much as allowed for input but in the end I expect (dont know yet) that NOAA will supply the 5 options for our season to be debated but not listened to and PICK one at the NJ State level.
Should be an interesting couple of months AGAIN.

This is JUST MY Opinion.

[Billfish715]

Percentages and quotas are all good if it prevents a harvesting free-for-all. The harvesting allotments though, have to be established by using accurate data. I've always held that the recreational allotments are the result of inaccurate or estimated catch data. The commercial catches have to be logged in and provide data that accurately reflects the tonnage brought to market. The recs don't so our numbers are calculated using a mathematical formula based on hypothetical numbers. Even when we lose fishing days to bad weather, it is presumed we make up for the loss of time and fish for those days by catching more in the remaining days. I'm not sure of the basis of their reasoning, but the regulatory committees seem to use a flawed formula for determine fluke quotas for the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately, trying to have recreational anglers fill out a log or report their catches at the end of the year is an unlikely scenario. So, our fluke quota is solely dependent on the "reported" landings of the commercials since our allotment is a historically applied ratio to the total pounds of fish brought to market by the draggers.

One out-of-the-box idea is to include the party and charter boats in the commercial category. They could share in the same seasons, size limits and quotas as the draggers. Pay-to-fish is a kind of commercial enterprise. That would leave only the catch by private fishermen to be tallied. It's only a thought, but think about the possibilities for the party and charter captains. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[Gerry Zagorski]

One out-of-the-box idea is to include the party and charter boats in the commercial category. They could share in the same seasons, size limits and quotas as the draggers. Pay-to-fish is a kind of commercial enterprise. That would leave only the catch by private fishermen to be tallied. It's only a thought, but think about the possibilities for the party and charter captains. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

This will never work... Although the commercials have dates when they can start fishing, their season ends not on a date, it's when what they've weighed in meets their quota. So say an example they meet their quota on 8/1... Now the the party and charter boat guys have to stop fishing on 8/1 because the commercial quota is filled??

That and what are you going to do to figure out what the party and charter boats catch to add to what the commercials catch? Are you going to force them to weigh their catch when they come back in each day like the commercials have to??

Unless I'm missing something here, your suggestion makes no sense at all!!

[AndyS]

I love all the science and number crunching, then the commercial dragger comes along and wipes them out, wake up people.

[Billfish715]

This will never work... Although the commercials have dates when they can start fishing, their season ends not on a date, it's when what they've weighed in meets their quota. So say an example they meet their quota on 8/1... Now the the party and charter boat guys have to stop fishing on 8/1 because the commercial quota is filled??

That and what are you going to do to figure out what the party and charter boats catch to add to what the commercials catch? Are you going to force them to weigh their catch when they come back in each day like the commercials have to??

Unless I'm missing something here, your suggestion makes no sense at all!!

Don't be too quick to dismiss the idea. There are six commercial "seasons" of approximately two month each. Seldom has a season been closed so prematurely as to severely affect the number of days on the water. Once the season is closed, there is always the provision for by-catch and then the anticipated opening for the next season which is usually a short time afterwards.

Ask the "for hire" captains if they would like to fish throughout the year for fluke. Ask if they would mind reporting their catches online or if their customers would like to take home some smaller fluke. Other states have regulations that require their commercial fishermen to report their catches. The striiped bass fishery in the states south of us is regulated to include hook and line fishermen who are considered commercial fishermen.

It seems to me that the people who are being hurt the most in all of the recreational regulatory management plans are the party and charter boat captains. They have more skin in the game than those of us who fish only a few days or less per week on our own boats. Their needs should be considered more urgently than the rest of us. They should be in a different category. Maybe they should be able to share the seasonal allotments differently than they do now. Their total catch affects our total catch quotas and none of our combined quotas affects the commercial draggers limits.

Give the small charter businessmen a better shot at making a living. Think outside the box. Don't be too quick to say that it doesn't make sense. True, it does have to be "fleshed out" but they stand the most to lose by maintaining the status quo. In fact, they are already losing. When you think about it, the fact that the party boats and small charters are lumped in with the rest of the recreational fishermen means that the "recs" are actually helping to over fish our seasonal quotas and visa versa. Perhaps it's time for the party and charter boats to have their own seasons and limits.

Consider it. A captain whose livelihood depends on fishing and catching should be given a voice and it should be heard. My idea might be a bit radical to some but I haven't heard it discussed before. I think it's an option that has some merit.

[Capt Sal]

Shorter seasons and lower limits make it hard to make a living with any for hire boat.Lot of pressure on fluke and stripers with the ridiculous limits on winter flounder and weakfish.This battle has been going on for years and millions of dollars spent.Some good news would be welcome.

[dakota560]

Yes commercials are allowed to keep 14 inch fish.... I'm fine with that since those fish count towards their quota which is in pounds not number of fish... If they had to discard those 14 inch fish that happened to get caught in their net, those fish would not count towards their quota, end up discarded/dead and would be wasted...

Further, people above are doing the math that commercials keep X amount of fish each time they go out and how that is way more then any party boat could possibly catch... The one thing missing in this logic is commercial landings are monitored and counted by weight and once their quota is attained, no matter what the date is, they get shut down... On the recreational side we are given seasons from X date to Y date and can fish all of those days.

As far as quotas, it varies from year to year but right or wrong, commercials usually get a little more then the recreationals do... Last year they got 54% of the quota and we got 46%.

Some of you maybe reading this and think, hmm Gerry's pro commercial fishing.... The reality is there will always be commercial fishing as long as there is demand for fish. Knowing that you just need to be sure the quotas are split fairly, the commercials are monitored closely so they don't exceed their quota and given sensible rules that don't force them to waste the resources with discards, which is why I support allowing them to keep 14 inch fish..

Gerry couple comments. In theory I'm also as previously mentioned in agreement with commercials having a 14" minimum size limit if it's being followed. Concerned about Dan's comments that mesh sizes are increased on a spot basis or in general since it would completely defeat that benefit and why the legislation was adopted initially. Over the years I've witnessed winter offloads at the docks and believe me there's aren't many if any 14" fish in their catches simply because that's not where the value is. Also don't believe higher mesh sizes help 14" fish escape. Most articles I've read say a majority of the catch due to weight of the catch combined with water pressure created during the trawl come up already dead or in a condition they won't survive if released. So while I agree the size was allowed to benefit the fishery, don't believe it's accomplishing it's intended purpose because of this wholesale price differential issue between smaller and larger fish.

Minor point but point nonetheless. Watch the video I posted earlier which I posted again below. Notice the huge strip at the 38 second mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inSNl01unzw&feature=youtu.be

Video was made in 2010. Here's an excerpt from the 2010 Summer Flounder regulations:

Unloading of summer flounder can only occur between 6:00AM and 6:00PM from November 1 through April 30 and between 6:00AM and
8:00PM from May 1 through October 31. When a vessel contacts the Division regarding the time and place of unloading, the vessel must also report
how many landings will have been made that week, including the proposed landing being called in. Once the season has been closed in the directed
commercial summer flounder fishery, no vessel can land and no dealer can accept any summer flounder landed in New Jersey in excess of the bycatch allowances specified above, provided the amount of summer flounder landed from any vessel cannot exceed 10%, by weight, of the total weight of all species landed and sold. A portion of the annual quota is dedicated to a by-catch fishery. Once the directed and by-catch quotas for a season have been landed, no vessel can land any summer flounder and no dealer can accept any summer flounder landed in New Jersey. Only whole fresh summer flounder can be landed, except that individually frozen summer flounder can be landed in amounts not exceeding by-catch allowances specified above provided they can be measured for total length. No vessel can land and no dealer can accept any summer flounder which have been filleted or processed in any way.

Why would there be a fluke strip on board when filleting wasn't allowed at sea and then take a guess where those fillets ended up. I'm sure it wasn't filleted and discarded. Sure it wasn't reported on the FVTR since only whole fish are allowed to be weighed in. Based on the size of the strip the fish was a very big female like the others dumped only probably larger. Wouldn't be difficult to hide a bunch of fillets on board and sell them in the black market once back in port by transferring to another boat before pulling in to offload their catch. It's only one strip in the video but the larger point is it questions behavior at sea. As I've said, if those were the size fish tossed back dead, imagine the size of the 200 lbs. retained and how many other fish might have been filleted and either offloaded before docking or hidden from F&G back at the docks. Lot of compartments on commercial boats, wouldn't be difficult. There has to be ~50 fish in those three totes. Average size appears easily over 5 lbs. per fish for a combined weight of at least 250 lbs and if those constitute the smaller fish compared to what was retained, safe to say over 500 lbs. of female fluke were killed as by catch alone by one boat on one trip. Multiply that by the number of boats fishing and the numbers are staggering. If we're suppose to believe most fish come up alive in nets, you have to ask why all those fish were thrown back dead and not released alive when they hit the deck especially if the purpose of the video was simply to make a point to NMFS. Why would you have to kill those fluke to make that point. More likely scenario is fish were stock piled on deck throughout multiple hauls, culled after the last, largest fish were retained and overage either filleted or tossed back dead. When the boat returns to the dock, they appear to be compliant with 200 lbs. of fluke but the damage at sea has already been done. 300 lbs. isn't reported anywhere against the commercial quota and I'd venture to say minimal dead discard reported on the FVTR. Why would they, it would only be used against them in future quotas and is completely unquantifiable. It's the honor system and it doesn't work with the amount of dollars wrapped up in these fisheries.

I'm not concerned with quota allocations in general since they aren't terribly disproportionate and commercial and recreational have both been impacted. Regarding your comment " the commercials are monitored closely so they don't exceed their quota and given sensible rules that don't force them to waste the resources with discards". I agree efforts have been stepped up to monitor compliance at the docks but what occurs at sea is completely not monitored other than the location of the boat which does nothing to monitor catch. With the wholesale price differential, I believe hygrading is a major problem in this fishery and causing extensive damage. I know the "Codfather" story I mentioned is maybe an extreme case in terms of magnitude, BUT the fact it went on for 20 - 30 years undetected and was only brought to surface as a result of the IRS money laundering investigation speaks volumes about the ineffectiveness of enforcement efforts. While enforcement efforts have been improved, I don't agree the process and limited resources insure overall quota and catch compliance. NO ONE from enforcement has any idea what's going on at sea. It's simple to offload any amount of their catch before docking and run it up to NY to sell in the black market we all know exists and no one from F&G would even know. Hygrading is a problem, 60 - 70% differential in wholesale prices guarantees it. I believe the majority of operators play by the rules but a lesser percentage who don't reap havoc on this fishery. That problem is not an NMFS regulatory issue, it's a combination of the disparity with wholesale market prices between size fish coupled with the lack of sufficient enforcement resources fueled by a multi eight or nine figure black market for fresh fish that circumvents the regulatory supply chain.

As far as creating a separate category for charter and party boat catches, would have to give that more thought but my first reaction is along the lines of Gerry's reply and twofold. First it adds more divisiveness to the fishery and complicates certain matters (some of which Gerry already eluded to) more than they already are. Second it focuses again on catch and not reproduction which again in my opinion is the wrong focus. We're not addressing the primary problem hurting the fishery if we're to believe the data we have to work with is remotely and directionally correct. While I agree we should be open-minded to all suggestions, just my quick thoughts on the suggestion Gerry already replied to.

[Billfish715]

[QUOTE=dakota560;524827

We're not addressing the primary problem hurting the fishery if we're to believe the data we have to work with is directionally correct. .[/QUOTE]

I think the comments and discussion on this thread are really healthy and civil and thanks to Gerry for moderating and keeping things on track. It is exposing some sore spots and frustrations as well as emphasizing some of the problems and stumbling blocks that face us. Most of us would like to see more liberal size and bag limits. Most of us question the data that is being used to determine the quotas and seasons. This is all causing divisiveness between various interests with the federal interventionists at the root of the debate. There will have to be a compromise somewhere and not just one that maintains the status quo. A status quo to the current regulations might be considered a win by some because we didn't give anything back. But, what did we get? How has all of this negotiating been a compromise when both sides didn't give or get something. As long as the Feds keep threatening to increase the quotas and we keep begging them to not do it, we've not made any progress. The threat of increased size limits and shortened seasons will always be held over our heads.

Do we want more female fluke to spawn? Do we want to catch bigger fluke or more fluke? Do we want to be able to keep more fluke for our coolers? Just what do we want? If we want all of the things I mentioned, what are you willing to sacrifice? It can't just happen with a wave of the hand. It will take time to rebuild the stocks. That will happen when the commercial seasons are adjusted to prevent egg-bearing females from being targeted while they are on the spawning grounds. That will mean concessions from the commercial draggers and legislation by the NMFS. Something like that would be a start, but we will have to give something in return. What might that be? Who will give in first and what will it be?

Do we trust the data that NMFS is using? I hate to use hypothetical situations but if it makes someone think, then it is useful. So, hypothetically, what would happen to the fluke regulations if the data about the fluke reproduction numbers came back at a ten-year high? Would our quotas be adjusted? I don't know. What I do know, is that despite observable increases in fluke populations, the sizes limits have increased as well. What would it take for the NMFS to decrease the size limits and liberalize the bag limits? It is all hypothetical of course but to think the size limits might be lowered is highly unlikely.

So what is the problem? Waiting for more fluke to be spawned; wanting more fish to be harvested now; or expecting the NMFS to concede and lower their optimum harvest levels? As I've mentioned, something has to give. Someone has to make a concession. I just feel that we've been more than patient while waiting for the government agencies to try to restore the fluke fishery to some mythically and mystically historic level or to whatever they indicate is their optimum number.

[Capt John]

Don't be too quick to dismiss the idea. There are six commercial "seasons" of approximately two month each. Seldom has a season been closed so prematurely as to severely affect the number of days on the water. Once the season is closed, there is always the provision for by-catch and then the anticipated opening for the next season which is usually a short time afterwards.

Ask the "for hire" captains if they would like to fish throughout the year for fluke. Ask if they would mind reporting their catches online or if their customers would like to take home some smaller fluke. Other states have regulations that require their commercial fishermen to report their catches. The striiped bass fishery in the states south of us is regulated to include hook and line fishermen who are considered commercial fishermen.

It seems to me that the people who are being hurt the most in all of the recreational regulatory management plans are the party and charter boat captains. They have more skin in the game than those of us who fish only a few days or less per week on our own boats. Their needs should be considered more urgently than the rest of us. They should be in a different category. Maybe they should be able to share the seasonal allotments differently than they do now. Their total catch affects our total catch quotas and none of our combined quotas affects the commercial draggers limits.

Give the small charter businessmen a better shot at making a living. Think outside the box. Don't be too quick to say that it doesn't make sense. True, it does have to be "fleshed out" but they stand the most to lose by maintaining the status quo. In fact, they are already losing. When you think about it, the fact that the party boats and small charters are lumped in with the rest of the recreational fishermen means that the "recs" are actually helping to over fish our seasonal quotas and visa versa. Perhaps it's time for the party and charter boats to have their own seasons and limits.

Consider it. A captain whose livelihood depends on fishing and catching should be given a voice and it should be heard. My idea might be a bit radical to some but I haven't heard it discussed before. I think it's an option that has some merit.

Bravo Billie....someone thinking outside the box to "rescue" the poor and struggling for-hire captain's. How many more captain's have to go out of business to prove the system is broken? It's about time someone thought about "leveling" the playing field. It's an idea I talked about for a long time, only to fall on deaf ears.....sad. Thanks for bringing up the topic and putting forth a viable solution to a long standing problem.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the commercial's....they work very, very hard for what they do, BUT so does the for-hire fleet. Shouldn't they be afforded the same rights? The for-hire guys catch fish for a living...don't they?

You want to save the Jersey shore especially after Sandy.....save the party and charter fleet and ALL the businesses associated with fishing in New Jersey..$$$$$$$$. Thanks again Bill...spot on.

[Billfish715]

As far as creating a separate category for charter and party boat catches, would have to give that more thought but my first reaction is along the lines of Gerry's reply and twofold. First it adds more divisiveness to the fishery and complicates certain matters (some of which Gerry already eluded to) more than they already are. Second it focuses again on catch and not reproduction which again in my opinion is the wrong focus. We're not addressing the primary problem hurting the fishery if we're to believe the data we have to work with is remotely and directionally correct. While I agree we should be open-minded to all suggestions, just my quick thoughts on the suggestion Gerry already replied to.

Hi Dakota, I'm humbled by your intimate knowledge and interest in what has been an " Oh-Too-Long" controversy. Your perseverance in all of this is enviable.
I totally agree with your observations about targeting spawning female fluke and it makes total sense, even to me, a mere fisherman. In order for that to happen, the NMFS will have to make a deal with the commercial lobby. I doubt if they are up for a battle nor do I think they will budge from their position toward achieving total restoration of the stocks. While I agree with their mission, I think their strategies have been flawed if not failed given the amount of time their plans have been in effect. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is INSANITY! That is where we are now.

The scientists depend on data for their decisions. Evidently, there are two sets of books containing that data. If decisions are based on data and the data is wrong, we are left in a lurch. I just think the NMFS will not take the time to reexamine their data or be open-minded enough to entertain other points of view or other data.

As for the idea of a different set of regulations for the party and charter boat fleets, well, I still think it has to be considered. There would have to be some accounting for their catch, that's true, but the good captains all keep logs of their catches, only, they are not reported to the state as the commercial guys do. There are only estimated catch totals of the fluke that are harvested by the recreational anglers and a theoretical formula to determine mortality from released fish. How is that scientific? How does the NMFS come up with their recreational harvest numbers, by an estimate? How accurate are those estimates?

If the party and charter boat captains agree to log in their landings in order to extend their seasons and catches, it's worth a shot, in my opinion. I know that liberalizing the quotas and sizes limits and seasons for the "for hire" captains will take some work and some give and take. The harvesting of more fluke many not fit into your plan to take pressure off the spawning females but it does satisfy the needs of the party boat industry at least until your plan can be implemented.

The commercial fishermen don't lose anything except a few weeks of closed seasons but they retain the same quotas of pounds of fish landed per season.
The stocks get a chance to be rebuilt. The recreational fishermen don't lose any fishing time and the party boats are able to stay in business. But, it all has to be agreed on and egos will have to be put aside, and compromise will have to be agreed upon. It is a win-win if everyone just "chills out" and talks and realizes that we are not adversaries but allies. Change is always hard to accept but life is always changing. To ignore and resist change is like I mentioned before...........INSANITY!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Don't be too quick to dismiss the idea. There are six commercial "seasons" of approximately two month each. Seldom has a season been closed so prematurely as to severely affect the number of days on the water. Once the season is closed, there is always the provision for by-catch and then the anticipated opening for the next season which is usually a short time afterwards.

Ask the "for hire" captains if they would like to fish throughout the year for fluke. Ask if they would mind reporting their catches online or if their customers would like to take home some smaller fluke. Other states have regulations that require their commercial fishermen to report their catches. The striiped bass fishery in the states south of us is regulated to include hook and line fishermen who are considered commercial fishermen.

It seems to me that the people who are being hurt the most in all of the recreational regulatory management plans are the party and charter boat captains. They have more skin in the game than those of us who fish only a few days or less per week on our own boats. Their needs should be considered more urgently than the rest of us. They should be in a different category. Maybe they should be able to share the seasonal allotments differently than they do now. Their total catch affects our total catch quotas and none of our combined quotas affects the commercial draggers limits.

Give the small charter businessmen a better shot at making a living. Think outside the box. Don't be too quick to say that it doesn't make sense. True, it does have to be "fleshed out" but they stand the most to lose by maintaining the status quo. In fact, they are already losing. When you think about it, the fact that the party boats and small charters are lumped in with the rest of the recreational fishermen means that the "recs" are actually helping to over fish our seasonal quotas and visa versa. Perhaps it's time for the party and charter boats to have their own seasons and limits.

Consider it. A captain whose livelihood depends on fishing and catching should be given a voice and it should be heard. My idea might be a bit radical to some but I haven't heard it discussed before. I think it's an option that has some merit.

Charter and Party Boat Captains, feel free to chime in here and keep me honest..

Bag and size limits aside, I think what Charter and Party boats are looking for is as many days on the water with something to fish for and a season that has specific dates so they can plan their schedules and or book charters... Further, those days on the water need to line up with the times of year their patrons want to fish.... The same is not true of commercials because they don't care about days on the water or what time of year they're allowed to fish. They'll fish any time of year and want to fill their quotas in as few days as possible..

If that's the case, by combing Party and Charter boat businesses with Commercials you have 2 parties with a totally different set of needs... Can you see that Fisheries Management meeting when they ask for public comment feedback about seasons, bag and size limits?

Party and Charter boat businesses need to be aligned with a group with similar needs as them so they have a better chance of having their needs met. IMO they line up better with Recreational then they do with Commercials.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Though many of these ideas are very well thought out I believe it’s highly inappropriate. The focus should be on the government on how regulate the fishery. Their science etc. only when we start properly collecting data and securing proper proven science will any of be able to make a proper assessment on what we think is a good idea. Though discussions are healthy I think it’s like pissing in to a fan.

[Down Deep Sportfishing]

Charter and Party Boat Captains, feel free to chime in here and keep me honest..

Bag and size limits aside, I think what Charter and Party boats are looking for is as many days on the water with something to fish for and a season that has specific dates so they can plan their schedules and or book charters... Further, those days on the water need to line up with the times of year their patrons want to fish.... The same is not true of commercials because they don't care about days on the water or what time of year they're allowed to fish. They'll fish any time of year and want to fill their quotas in as few days as possible..

If that's the case, by combing Party and Charter boat businesses with Commercials you have 2 parties with a totally different set of needs... Can you see that Fisheries Management meeting when they ask for public comment feedback about seasons, bag and size limits?

Party and Charter boat businesses need to be aligned with a group with similar needs as them so they have a better chance of having their needs met. IMO they line up better with Recreational then they do with Commercials.

Sure Gerry, all “fisherman” would agree to as many days on the water for all different species. True “fisherman” are a dying breed. We submit catch reports daily for everything that is brought aboard, regardless of size or specie. Forces in higher places have a stranglehold on recreational fishing. Couple that with days lost to weather, cancellations and unforeseen circumstances there are days you never get back. Seasons aren’t extended 40 days if 40 days are lost to weather. If you’re in this game for the money you need your head examined. Lastly, cut the cake anyway you like,

ROD AND REEL WILL NEVER HARM AN OCEAN FISHERY”, period, end of story.

[Billfish715]

Gerry, I'm not promoting a program that cuts into the commercial limits. I'm first of all just wondering how the NMFS comes up with it's recreational catch totals. On what scientific evidence do they base their results? Except for some dockside interviews, has anyone given evidence of their catch totals to the NMFS or any state agency?

Yes, it would be difficult to set up separate regulations for the party boats and the recreational private boaters and shoreline fishermen, but not impossible. Would there be gripes? Of course, just because people don't take well to anything that might appear to be unfair to them. Who, though, would begrudge a private charter or party boat captain an opportunity to make money by extending their season or limits? Not me!

Did the private boaters catch more fluke over the last few years than the party boats? If they did, and that's the reason our seasonal quotas and lengths have been compromised, then that should be shared. If it's the other way around, then the private boaters will be pointing fingers in the other direction and that should b shared as well. Once the culprits are discovered they should be willing to forgo some of their season or catch limits to the other group just to make it fair.


So, here is a topic for another thread........Who caught more fluke last season.....the party boats and "for hire" captains, or the private boaters?

[Gerry Zagorski]

The feds use MRIP to estimate recreational landings


https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/recreational-fishing-data/about-marine-recreational-information-program

[dakota560]

Though many of these ideas are very well thought out I believe it’s highly inappropriate. The focus should be on the government on how regulate the fishery. Their science etc. only when we start properly collecting data and securing proper proven science will any of be able to make a proper assessment on what we think is a good idea. Though discussions are healthy I think it’s like pissing in to a fan.

Joe I have a lot of respect for you, Gerry, Dave and a lot of people on this site and others I've been fortunate to meet trying to help our cause. I thank associations like RFA and SSFFF for their time and effort representing us in efforts to save this fishery for us and generations to come. I believe in the saying "Actions talk, bullshit walks". Not sure you meant to say the ideas on this thread are highly inappropriate, at least I hope that's not what you intended. They may prove fruitless and ultimately action is required for change, but inappropriate means something completely different. Great part of the site is exchange of information, if that's not appropriate I've wasted a lot of my personal time with countless research and posts the last three years.

You're correct focus should and has to be on government, NMFS, ASMFC, MAFMC and any other regulatory body ultimately making policy decisions. "When we start collecting proper data and using proven science", in my opinion waiting for that to happen is the equivalent of waiting for the Mets to win another World Series, it's never going to happen and if the collection methods changed someone whose position it doesn't support would end up questioning it anyway. Precise reason I used their data from their science for my analysis and the articles published in Fisherman Magazine and RFA Making Waves, it's takes away NMFS's and ASMFC's ability to question or dispute it.

There is NO DOUBT in my personal opinion what happened here. As complex as fisheries management can be, in the case of summer flounder it's obvious what's caused a decline in SSB. And since SSB and MSA thresh holds and provisions drive all decisions, question is how do we get commercial operators, recreational anglers, party and charter captains, the individual states that make up the Mid-Atlantic Fishery and fisheries management in general on the same page. Personally I don't think we need to do anything with data collection. The data whether you believe in it or not is not going to change yet the trends it portraits in my opinion make perfect sense. I know that's a bit of a contradiction but we're stuck with the data so bear with me while I connect the dots.

Some more research. Check the first graph which is from the 41st SAW (Stock Assessment Workshop). Recruitment (egg production) is in (000's) and SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) is in metric tons. Look at the relationship of recruitment to the biomass in '83 (almost 5:1), the trend from '83 to '04 and the relationship in years '03 and '04 when it drops below 1:1 for the first time ever. That trend continued it's decline over the ensuing years, drastically dropping between 2010 thru 2015 (last years data provided for in Addendum XXVlll) right after size limits spiked in 2008. Since fluke become sexually mature at the age of three, that's exactly the relationship I'd expect between recruitment and size limit increases between '08 and '10. In '15, the ratio dropped to a low of .5:1 from 5:1 in '83, so in 32-years that's a relative decline of ~90%! Compare that to the next two attachments and pay close attention to the illustration of changes in size and possession limits. The relationship of egg production to SSB started it's tumultuous decline in 2002 when limits were increased from 15.5" for recreational anglers while commercial operators maintained a 14" size limit even with substantially lower possession limits and catch quotas in place today compared to years past. Why, gender composition of the biomass with more and larger breeders being harvested was altered and egg production has been decimated ever since.

Why is that, look at charts four and five regarding overall and commercial catch by age of fish. Source of these charts is from the 57th SAW. In the 80's and 90's, younger fish were being harvested because of the size regulations, look at the shift in size starting around '02 when size limits increased exponentially. In '02, SSB hit it's high water mark of ~50,000 metric tons and has since been on a steady and continuous decline because older, larger female fluke are being harvested. The data is right there for anyone to see but it's being ignored because of MSA. Rutgers "Length and Sex" couldn't support these facts more which makes it more disturbing it failed being incorporated into this latest Peer Review. That alone seals the fate of this fishery for conceivably the next 5-years unless something changes. We're too far down the rabbit hole. I found an article which I have to relocate stating in the mid 80's, ~75% of the annual harvest was made up of fish measuring in the 14" range. Today, conservatively 90% of the entire harvest is made up of fish over 18", almost entirely consisting of female breeders with significantly greater egg production capacity. That's all anyone needs to know about the "State of the Union" regarding this fishery.

The last chart attached I was only able to find for the years '79 thru '85 but I'll find more current information eventually or maybe we can get some input from someone on the site with commercial experience. Look at the last column which has inflation adjusted wholesale prices for small, medium, large and jumbo fluke in '85. I assume these are wholesale prices and bear in mind they're from 33 years ago. Demand for fluke and increase in sushi demand in particular I can only assume has increased the disparity in these prices. Jumbo - $1.27 lb, large - $1.14, medium - $.93 and small - $.61. There's a 100% difference between small and jumbo which is precisely the reason I believe significant amounts of hygrading occurs at sea when you can increase your overall catch value by 100% retaining larger females and discarding smaller fish regardless of mesh sizes. In today's market with today's demand, who knows what that price differential might be.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. We already experienced a period, 1989 thru 2002, when SSB the driving force behind basically every regulatory decision, increased from ~7,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons. Possession limits were 8 for the most part with size limits ranging between 14" to 15.5". Average catch quotas were much higher than today, recruitment was much higher than it is today and SSB hit record levels. Why NMFS and ASMFC wouldn't consider re-instating those tried and tested regulations is absolutely beyond logic and comprehension. If we kept them in place and recruitment stayed healthy, commercials would be happier, recreational anglers would be happier, party and charter captains would be happier, catch quotas could be much greater and SSB would probably be at 200,000 metric tons if the trend trajectory it was on continued. MSA thresh-hold SSB for the fishery to be considered rebuilt is ~62,000 metric tons so MSA would no longer present an obstacle.

I'll work with any council, commercial leadership, recreational leadership, scientists or government affiliation in a unified manner to help save this fishery but government has to be willing to listen otherwise Joe as you so eloquently put it, "We're just pissing in a fan".

[Billfish715]

The feds use MRIP to estimate recreational landings


https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/recreational-fishing-data/about-marine-recreational-information-program

So, who do you know, or how many fishermen do you know who were surveyed? The key word throughout the NOAA charts and explanations is " estimated". So, the fate of the summer flounder rests on a part-time survey that is randomly administered to a very small sampling of anglers. It's results are then used as part of a mathematical formula which then produces an estimated result. To me, the only science in the matter is that someone uses math. As we know, if one variable changes in the formula, the results change as well.

The NOAA report indicates the stocks to be restored but seems to insinuate that they want it to be restored even more. The scientifically inspired decisions appear on the computer screens of only a few people. Once the numbers start crunching, the system gains momentum and strength. Once it gets going, it won't be sidelined. A conclusion is ultimately reached and the rubber stamps get inked and await the opportunity to be put to paper. The stage has been set and the actors appear to read their lines. The play begins; the drama unfurls; the rubber stamps appear and the cast plays its final scene. The curtain falls and the actors retire to celebrate and await the revival of their performance again next year despite the outrage and disappointment of the audience. " All the world is a stage". How true. How true!

[AndyS]

"ROD AND REEL WILL NEVER HARM AN OCEAN FISHERY”, period, end of story."

I USED to be a firm believer in this until about 8 or 10 years ago a school of striped bass sat off LBI for about 2 months. And for 2 months this massive school of striped bass got pounded by recreational anglers by both beach and boat. This is when boats were flying out of Manasquan inlet at 40 mph at 5am to be "first on the fish". I swear in those 2 months 1/3 of the East Coast striped bass population was taken by recreational anglers, the runs haven't been the same since.

[bulletbob]

"ROD AND REEL WILL NEVER HARM AN OCEAN FISHERY”, period, end of story."

I USED to be a firm believer in this until about 8 or 10 years ago a school of striped bass sat off LBI for about 2 months. And for 2 months this massive school of striped bass got pounded by recreational anglers by both beach and boat. This is when boat were flying out of Manasquan inlet at 40 mph at 5am to be "first on the fish". I swear in those 2 months 1/3 of the East Coast striped bass population was taken by recreational anglers, the runs haven't been the same since.

Well stated Andy.. I do believe what the captain says is true, but only for certain species.. maybe fish like Blues, Fluke, Sea Bass, porgies, ling etc.. Fish that move around some, migrate, inhabit different types of bottom..
however, fish like blackfish, can certainly be harmed by relentless pressure from recreational fishermen, there no doubt about it..

I have related this story here before but its worth repeating, and is similar to yours.. back in the early 80's, there were massive numbers of the biggest of the big tiderunner weakfish sitting right off the sandy hook shoreline in between ambrose and sandy Hook channels.. The fishing was beyond description.. 2 guys drifting could catch 100 of them during a night tide - 7 to 12 pounders, and often did.. The boats knew they were there of course it was no secret, party boats and private boats both,, Those fish were pounded relentlessly.. Guys were going out each night with coolers the size of friggin' bathtubs, and filling them.. those fish were being sold to markets for pennies a pound, to help offset gas expenses mostly.. Within about 6 weeks of that craziness those fish were simply gone, never to return in similar numbers.. They were stacked up in a relatively small area that was well know, they were stupid and easy as hell to catch once the sun went down, and it was a summertime fishery which meant that guys went after them a lot because it was close to the ramps, and the weather was warm.. thousands and thousands of big potential breeders were taken when they were most vulnerable crowded together, then sold basically as dog food, so guys could get out the next night.. I was there, witnessed it all, living in Union beach during those years.. Personally I would take 5 or so myself when I went out, but looking back, even that was too much, and 2 of those huge weaks was plenty.. I must place some of the blame on myself, and I do..
many of us know better now, but few of us did at the time... The fish were ALWAYS there,, always.. Fluke/weaks/blues/sea bass/blacks/flounder/whiting/ling/macks.. Always there.. until they weren't.. I don't blame recs so much as I blame the draggers and pound netters, but we sports CAN put a big dent in certain localized ocean fisheries, theres no doubt about it.. those fish are in certain zones, they are NOT everywhere.. Once where we know where they live - which is easy in the modern age, we can inflict terrible damage... bob

[hammer4reel]

"ROD AND REEL WILL NEVER HARM AN OCEAN FISHERY”, period, end of story."

I USED to be a firm believer in this until about 8 or 10 years ago a school of striped bass sat off LBI for about 2 months. And for 2 months this massive school of striped bass got pounded by recreational anglers by both beach and boat. This is when boat were flying out of Manasquan inlet at 40 mph at 5am to be "first on the fish". I swear in those 2 months 1/3 of the East Coast striped bass population was taken by recreational anglers, the runs haven't been the same since.

Add in the massive catches of Va every winter when egg laden cows filled the fish boards.
Glad Va stepped up and now limit is only fish under 36"
All bigger fish have to be released.
.

[Billfish715]

"ROD AND REEL WILL NEVER HARM AN OCEAN FISHERY”, period, end of story."

I USED to be a firm believer in this until about 8 or 10 years ago a school of striped bass sat off LBI for about 2 months. And for 2 months this massive school of striped bass got pounded by recreational anglers by both beach and boat. This is when boat were flying out of Manasquan inlet at 40 mph at 5am to be "first on the fish". I swear in those 2 months 1/3 of the East Coast striped bass population was taken by recreational anglers, the runs haven't been the same since.

Did that fleet look something like this?

[bulletbob]

Did that fleet look something like this?

Thats obscene.. With that type of pressure, there's no choice but to throw fish back.. a lot of them,, its either that, or just not have fish in the damn water... bob

[Gerry Zagorski]

So, who do you know, or how many fishermen do you know who were surveyed? The key word throughout the NOAA charts and explanations is " estimated". So, the fate of the summer flounder rests on a part-time survey that is randomly administered to a very small sampling of anglers. It's results are then used as part of a mathematical formula which then produces an estimated result. To me, the only science in the matter is that someone uses math. As we know, if one variable changes in the formula, the results change as well.

The NOAA report indicates the stocks to be restored but seems to insinuate that they want it to be restored even more. The scientifically inspired decisions appear on the computer screens of only a few people. Once the numbers start crunching, the system gains momentum and strength. Once it gets going, it won't be sidelined. A conclusion is ultimately reached and the rubber stamps get inked and await the opportunity to be put to paper. The stage has been set and the actors appear to read their lines. The play begins; the drama unfurls; the rubber stamps appear and the cast plays its final scene. The curtain falls and the actors retire to celebrate and await the revival of their performance again next year despite the outrage and disappointment of the audience. " All the world is a stage". How true. How true!

Bingo and here in lies part of the problem... NFMS knows MRIP is flawed but they fall back on "it's the best available science". It's impractical to think they can measure it like they do commercials and weigh everyone's catch. So you do some sampling with surveys, you apply some assumptions, some math and you have an estimate... Is the estimate correct, who knows but it's all you have...

There are a few other problems worth mentioning here that effect our regs:
- Stock assessments... After all the landing information is gathered, which we know is flawed, every now and then you need to get an estimate of the stocks. Again, you do some sample surveys, in this case some trawls. You then count the fish, their sizes, apply some assumptions and math to it. This past assessment indicated there was plenty of Fluke but a shortage of younger Fluke which indicates the future may not be that bright and you slam the breaks on and proceed with caution.
- Better Science and the reluctance of the NMFS to accept it.. SSFFF has been fighting to include the sex model studies for years now as well as the actual fishing research they funded in cooperation with Rutgers on charter boats. Under the heading of it's not a good idea unless it's it their idea, they go a bit defensive about it but they seem to be coming around which is good.

You also can't ignore the political side of things
- You need to change the laws under which fisheries are managed and the Modern Fishing Act is s step in the right direction
- There is constant pressure from Environment organizations which would rather us not fish at all


Lastly, a huge organization like NOAA with an annual budget of $5.6 billion with $921 million going to the NFMS, you naturally want to protect it and you have to justify your existence. If you're paying them to manage the fisheries, what do you think they're going to do?? They are going to over manage it and be reluctant to invite outsiders into their sandbox. We outsiders typically only get to comment once they've decided what the quotas are and what we want our season, sizes and bag limits to be to achieve their predetermined quotas.

Let me be careful to say this is not a dig on the people in the NFMS, it's a dig on the system they are forced to work within.

[Rocky]

[QUOTE=Gerry Zagorski;524899
Lastly, a huge organization like NOAA with an annual budget of $5.6 billion with $921 million going to the NFMS, you naturally want to protect it and you have to justify your existence. If you're paying them to manage the fisheries, what do you think they're going to do?? They are going to over manage it and be reluctant to invite outsiders into their sandbox. We outsiders typically only get to comment once they've decided what the quotas are and what we want our season, sizes and bag limits to be to achieve their predetermined quotas.

Let me be careful to say this is not a dig on the people in the NFMS, it's a dig on the system they are forced to work within.[/QUOTE]



And that sir is called "Job Security" which is a big part of the problem.

[dakota560]

Check out the attached links.

https://www.surfcastersjournal.com/who-speaks-for-the-striped-bass/

Look at the 3rd and 4th picture in the above article. There was a video on line of that catch years ago that would make you sick if you saw it, appears to have been removed. If I do find it, I'll post it. Thousands of very large pregnant striped bass caught in gill nets trolled from the beach in Virginia, thrown on the beach, tossed in a pick up truck and carted off. Not sure the year or what the rules were but it was enough to make you sick. Check out the last picture which is a video of dead discard from commercial operators in North Carolina not many years ago. Thousands of fish killed by four commercial boats that were allowed to keep 50 fish a piece, cull the largest and throw everything else overboard dead. A complete waste of the resource. 200 fish supposedly harvested, thousands killed as they were slitting their bellies in an effort to sink them and avoid detection. What you're seeing are the ones that didn't sink, imagine what the dead discard numbers actually were. This is in my opinion the minority who could care less about the resource as opposed to how much money they make every trip. Damage done is extensive and irreparable.

Look at the first attached chart from The Fisherman Magazine and tell me what it reminds you of, in particular recruitment to size of biomass. Exact same pattern. Recruitment in 1994 was ~180 million, ~170 million in 2004 and reduced to ~30 million in 2013 when the biomass was significantly higher than 1994. Just look at the recruitment (egg production) trend from 1994 thru 2015. As Dan pointed out, combine all this with the continued onslaught of egg laden cows in Virginia and North Carolina that continues today both commercially and recreationally. A fishery headed for another collapse. Look at the images of beach gill net catches in Virginia and does anyone wonder where this fishery is headed. Sorry for the size of the files but these fish are large and predominantly females. Fisheries management hasn't learned from past mistakes, same pattern we're living with summer flounder. No inshore north south migratory species with a commercial market can sustain this onslaught of pressure year round and yes when it comes to inshore fisheries recreation absolutely contributes to the damage. Stripers get pounded year round, even during the spawn. Regulations have to be implemented protecting them for some period of the year, the fall winter months again would make most sense when eggs develop and the spawn occurs. But you know the southern states on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council or the commercials with equal vote won't allow that to happen so once again let's collectively let another fishery collapse and deal with it when it's too late. Outstanding fisheries philosophy.

Even though it's not related to stripers, watch the attached video regarding the harvest of croakers. Seen any of those around lately? In particular look at the 1:45 thru 2:35 mark and pay special attention to the comments the narrator makes from 17:45 thru 18:10. Will blow your mind. Absolutely unbelievable and speaks to the prevailing mentality existing with a percentage of commercial operators which is unconscionable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-7bR1Ol8Fw

[dakota560]

Bingo and here in lies part of the problem... NFMS knows MRIP is flawed but they fall back on "it's the best available science". It's impractical to think they can measure it like they do commercials and weigh everyone's catch. So you do some sampling with surveys, you apply some assumptions, some math and you have an estimate... Is the estimate correct, who knows but it's all you have...

There are a few other problems worth mentioning here that effect our regs:
- Stock assessments... After all the landing information is gathered, which we know is flawed, every now and then you need to get an estimate of the stocks. Again, you do some sample surveys, in this case some trawls. You then count the fish, their sizes, apply some assumptions and math to it. This past assessment indicated there was plenty of Fluke but a shortage of younger Fluke which indicates the future may not be that bright and you slam the breaks on and proceed with caution.
- Better Science and the reluctance of the NMFS to accept it.. SSFFF has been fighting to include the sex model studies for years now as well as the actual fishing research they funded in cooperation with Rutgers on charter boats. Under the heading of it's not a good idea unless it's it their idea, they go a bit defensive about it but they seem to be coming around which is good.

You also can't ignore the political side of things
- You need to change the laws under which fisheries are managed and the Modern Fishing Act is s step in the right direction
- There is constant pressure from Environment organizations which would rather us not fish at all


Lastly, a huge organization like NOAA with an annual budget of $5.6 billion with $921 million going to the NFMS, you naturally want to protect it and you have to justify your existence. If you're paying them to manage the fisheries, what do you think they're going to do?? They are going to over manage it and be reluctant to invite outsiders into their sandbox. We outsiders typically only get to comment once they've decided what the quotas are and what we want our season, sizes and bag limits to be to achieve their predetermined quotas.

Let me be careful to say this is not a dig on the people in the NFMS, it's a dig on the system they are forced to work within.

Rutgers study was well thought out and took years to conduct. Tremendous amount of actual at sea data was collected and analyzed, fact based data. One of the few aspects of this fishery with data not being questioned. And what happens, it's pushed aside by NMFS due to technical reasons in a process where everyone is crying for accuracy and arguably the study contains the most important and accurate data needed to reverse the decline in recruitment statistics NMFS's own data underscores. There's not a fishery in the world that can rebuild or sustain itself with a 90% reduction in relative recruitment strength of the biomass. Instead NMFS continues the use of data highly based on assumptions to make the same regulatory decisions which have continuously failed the fishery for the last twenty or more years. The fishery is not "Steep" so Mr. Witek if your reading this please don't embarrass yourself suggesting it is. NMFS data says it's not. And if you find the term "Relative Recruitment Strength" offensive or too hard to understand, don't give it more thought as some people have spin doctored the truth so long common sense explanations and terms become perplexing and almost impossible to understand. Don't want you hurting yourself trying to grasp basic relational trend analysis.

Washington has the ability to change anything if it benefits their agenda. NFMS is made up of the people who work there and as such you can argue the system they work within was created by them with the exception of MSA imposed impacts. Not using Rutgers Study in the latest Peer Review has NOTHING to do with MSA and is a mistake based on what we know. Secretary of Commerce Ross has all the power and resources available to change the direction of NMFS, the processes used and the regulatory philosophies followed and once again it appears we're going to be faced with the same failed options we've been faced with since the early 2000's.

When Washington wants something, they can move at the speed of light. When they don't, moving at a snails pace would appear fast compared to the pace they operate at. Just a fact of life we're forced to live with every day. Unfortunately this fishery and many others represent the later and the frustration is not knowing how to change it. I know what people will say BUT we've been saying the same things for a very long time with no substantive changes..........very frustrating considering what's at stake here.

[hammer4reel]

Did that fleet look something like this?

That’s just a half mile of the 15 miles of boats .
And that was when most boats had left their marinas for the season.

Anyone running a boat that thinks we don’t put pressure on a fishery either has no clue , or their head in the sand .

[Irish Jigger]

Man is winter fun !!!

[shrimpman steve]

Florida. Flounder (these are the same as our summer fluke. 10 fish 12 inches:eek:

[bulletbob]

Florida. Flounder (these are the same as our summer fluke. 10 fish 12 inches:eek:

Florida has 3 distinct species of "game" flounders in good numbers .. Gulf/Southern/ Summer..
they lump them all together as "flounder"..


We can catch 3 fluke here, and then 2 winter flounder, and then unlimited sundials, and unlimited 4 spots,..... we have MUCH more liberal flat fish regs than Florida does.:rolleyes:..

[dakota560]

Someone help me understand the following harvest data. First chart deals with historical and current commercial quota allocations by state extracted from the Summer Flounder Commercial Issues Amendment dated August 2018. Second chart comes from the ASMFC Draft Addendum XXVlll in 2017.

If you look at Chart 2 (Recreational Harvest) North Carolina and Virginia combined in '16 were projected to make up ~3.6% of the overall recreational harvest or ~230,000 lbs relative to a coastal-wide harvest of ~6.4 million lbs.. Currently North Carolina has a 4 possession limit at 15", Virginia 4 possession at 16.5" for recreational, significantly more liberal than all northern States.

Commercial landings in 2017 were 5.83 million lbs. North Carolina and Virginia combined represented almost 50% of those landings, equivalent to other nine states combined or ~2.9 million pounds. How is that possible?

Please review the third chart and following comments which were included in a letter from New York Attorney General, Division of Social Justice Environmental Protection Bureau dated March 23, 2018 to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.:

Because older and larger summer flounder are distributed further northeast in the summer flounder’s range, and possibly due to other factors, the center of biomass of the summer flounder stock has shifted northeast since the 1980's. Trawl survey data indicate that the stock is now concentrated in the northern mid-Atlantic waters east of New Jersey and south of Long Island, and in the southern New England waters east of Long Island and south of Rhode Island and Massachusetts (see Figure 2).

That being the case, how does NC and Va. receive 50% of the commercial harvest in this fishery which I assume are being harvested from our local and offshore waters. Would appreciate others perspectives. And while we're on the subject of location of the biomass and all the global warming theorists, this has always been my opinion. While there's obviously global warming occurring which needs to be understood and addressed, my personal belief is it has little impact on this fishery since a majority of the existing biomass per the attached chart still resides in our back yard. As with most species, larger fish seek out cooler waters, I believe the illusion which many believe of a massive northern migration due to climate change is in fact the result of size increase regulations causing less of a harvest of 15" to 17.99" fish establishing the geographioc relocation of the biomass further north. Global warming didn't drive them, average size has. Review charts 4 and 5. Commercial harvets used to consist primarily of 1 - 2 year old fish (Chart 4), fish which weren't even sexually mature. So essentially past year harvests in the 2000 to 2002 and earlier years didn't even effect egg production. Today with size increases and the harvest consisting of primarily 3 year old fish and older, almost every fished harvested negatively impacts recruitment. And NMFS, ASMFC don't even address, mention or question a 90% decline in relative recruitment statistics. A three year old fish on average is ~45 centimeters or ~18" with differences between females and slower growing males. Compare all this to Chart 5 which illustrates age to length and relate that to the commercial harvest information by age on Chart 4. The regulations have allowed smaller fish to grow, but with their significantly lesser egg production capacity it's had little to no effect on increased recruitment as NMFS hoped. Instead it's put a target on larger females with incredibly greater egg production capacity and caused the biomass comprised of larger fish on average to move further north. Still find it interesting how two states, who are more responsible than any other state for the last and potentially next crash of the striped bass fishery because of commercial over fishing, receive ~50% of the commercial summer flounder quota, a majority of which are harvested in our own local waters almost 400 miles away from their home ports. They have no biomass in their area which is why recreational landings are so scarce, for that reason they're given more liberal recreational size and possession limit and provided access commercially to harvest stock (almost half the quota) in our own waters. Someone help me understand the reasons behind these decisions and allocations. To add insult to injury, commercial harvest in our area back in the 80's was estimated to be ~46% of the annual commercial harvest, today it's estimated to be ~90%! NMFS IS LEGISLATING THE DECIMATION OF RECRUITMENT AND CRASH OF THIS FISHERY. 90% of commercial harvest in our own backyard where most of the spawn takes place, tell me this isn't having serious consequences on the spawn. The more research I do the more incompetent fisheries management appears to be in their interpretation of data and policy decisions. We're working our way to a 2 fish possession limit at 27" with a season starting on March 1st and ending June 30th. Level of incompetency is without rival how the summer flounder stock is being managed.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Keep going !!



Andy maybe I misunderstood your post but when I saw the baggies and the pirate patch, I think you're encouraging people to keep what they want...

It's not only you but many others seem to have issues when people keep Stripers but it's OK for Fluke?

Point in case.... Someone puts up a deck shot with some Fluke here, no one seems to care.... But put up a deck shot with Stripers, and people loose their minds, you'd think they killed Flipper or something and the lectures start.

I'm curious to find out why there's a double standard or maybe I misunderstood your post?

Anyone else have any opinions??

[dakota560]

Keep going !!

I took Andy's post, and easily could be wrong, to say NMFS has their head where it doesn't belong and is suggesting making your own set of rules. Andy chime in.

I'm absolutely convinced the data I've worked with, the conclusions drawn and reasons stated are killing the fishery, they need to be changed. It would create enormous benefits for commercial and recreational interests combined in approximately three years. As mentioned earlier, states, government regulatory bodies, commercial and recreational interests, party and charter boat captains etc might all be impacted short term and have to work together meaning certain compromises would be in order. In the end, the fishery will flourish and "Enough is Enough" will forever be in the rear view mirror.

[jmurr711]

Andy maybe I misunderstood your post but when I saw the baggies and the pirate patch, I think you're encouraging people to keep what they want...

It's not only you but many others seem to have issues when people keep Stripers but it's OK for Fluke?

Point in case.... Someone puts up a deck shot with some Fluke here, no one seems to care.... But put up a deck shot with Stripers, and people loose their minds, you'd think they killed Flipper or something and the lectures start.

I'm curious to find out why there's a double standard or maybe I misunderstood your post?

Anyone else have any opinions??

I am working on getting that permit

[Gerry Zagorski]

I am working on getting that permit

I don't doubt that for a minute :D

[jmurr711]

I don't doubt that for a minute :D

than I can kill 2 more different species of dolphin a year than you :D:D:D:D

[Gerry Zagorski]

than I can kill 2 more different species of dolphin a year than you :D:D:D:D

:eek::eek::eek:

[jmurr711]

I hope for a longer season more than anything,having a lot of friends in the rec business it is unfair that they have little to sail for in September & October. I wish theyd leave it open til at least Columbus day, sure fluke could be gone or they could be stacked in 90ft of water & the fishing can be amazing

[dakota560]

I hope for a longer season more than anything,having a lot of friends in the rec business it is unfair that they have little to sail for in September & October. I wish theyd leave it open til at least Columbus day, sure fluke could be gone or they could be stacked in 90ft of water & the fishing can be amazing

So instead of trying to close the fishery to commercial in the fall during the spawn you'd prefere it opened up to recreational and by extending the season the possession limit for the entire season would probably drop to 1 fish @ 20". Interesting perspective.

[Gerry Zagorski]

So instead of trying to close the fishery to commercial in the fall during the spawn you'd prefere it open it up to recreational and by extending the season the possession limit for the entire season would probably drop to 1 fish @ 20". Interesting perspective.

How dare you question our King :D:eek:

[the directa]

leave the regs the same as 2018 just try to lengthen the season

[dakota560]

That's precisely what's going to happen when the options come out which means nothing has changed regarding regs or the overall status of the fishery. We're still getting crumbs which is a shame until the management of the fishery changes which more and more appears to be never.

[dakota560]

How dare you question our King :D:eek:

I know as soon as I posted my reply I realized the sacrilege of my ways so instead of being relegated to the wine cellar, I'm imposing a self inflicted ban from the site..........Dilly, Dilly!

[Detour66]

leave the regs the same as 2018 just try to lengthen the season
I respectfully disagree. Shorten the season on both ends a bit and up the catch by one and allow 16.5 fish to be kept. Fluking really doesn't start to pick until when the water starts to warm up in mid-June and most of the fish move out after the first tropical storm hits us in early Sept. So it's a waste. At least that's the case in Raritan bay. That's MHO. For what it's worth. Tight lines!

[jmurr711]

I know as soon as I posted my reply I realized the sacrilege of my ways so instead of being relegated to the wine cellar, I'm imposing a self inflicted ban from the site..........Dilly, Dilly!

i am talking perfect world scenario but as we know that will never happen.Fluking is boring anyway but if it was open in October it would keep all the prostaff tog jiggers using bucktails longer & not beat the population up

[frugalfisherman]

This is getting too complicated. I'm glad I make my own rules.

[Irish Jigger]

3 between 17.5 and 24. One over 24". Bigger males are caught, people stop complaining, and the pressure on the big females is reduced. Logical so its unlikely!! If you can t get your 3 @ 17.5 find a new hobby.

[dakota560]

3 between 17.5 and 24. One over 24". Bigger males are caught, people stop complaining, and the pressure on the big females is reduced. Logical so its unlikely!! If you can t get your 3 @ 17.5 find a new hobby.

Irish while I agree with the point you're making, the sizes have to be different. Reason I say that is based on Rutgers Sex and Length study, 75% of 17.5" fluke are still females and almost 100% of 24" fish or greater are as well.

Recreational sector is not well organized but improving, not well funded but work is being done behind the scenes to address that issue as well. Put those two attributes aside, one of the most important things we can do is understand what's causing the issues within the fishery and it's decline with data to back it up. We can question the data, but it's data published by NMFS based on their own science and best we have to work with.

You know by now my theory why the summer flounder fishery has declined and my view the destruction in recruitment being the primary reason caused by the continuous and unabated harvest of larger primarily sexually mature fish with a higher percentage being females. Read the articles in the attached links as it relates to size fish, age and number of eggs produced as well as Patrick Sullivan's memo dated September 22, 2015.

http://www.cptdave.com/summer-flounder.html

https://forums.noreast.com/17-inshore-tackle-techniques-lep/163398-flounder-length-age-weight-chart.html

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/56058a3ce4b00047c4edeb08/1443203644403/Tab11_Sullivan-Summer-Flounder-Model.pdf

The one article mentions a 27" female summer flounder produces ~4.2 million eggs annually relative to a 14" fish producing ~460,000 annually, a key statistic impacting fishery managements philosophies. The second link states a 7 year old female flounder is ~ 24" (~61 centimeters) and the third link contains a memo from Patrick Sullivan of Cornell University which support these relationship as well as fish over 21" or ~53 centimeters being exclusively females. Rutgers study supports these facts as well. Review the attached charts regarding fish harvested over the last ~37 years, paying special attention to age of fish harvested over that time frame.

First chart shows the trend of commercial fish harvested ages 2 years and under from 1982 - 2012. Notice the increase in age fish being harvested between the years 1988 and 1990, the start of a growing trend. Whats important about this chart is summer flounder ages 2 year and younger are by far sexually immature fish so fish being harvested in the 80's, while significantly higher than todays harvest, were primarily sexually immature fish with no impact on SSB and recruitment or egg production. In other words we were both recreationally and commercially harvesting smaller fish and letting the larger breeders fuel the future of the fishery. Second chart is the same information but in terms of percentages. In the 80's, 91% of fluke harvested consisted of 2 year or younger age fish, that percentage dropped to 81% in the 90's, still statistically significant in having little impact on SSB or negative impacts on egg production. Larger breeders were still sustaining egg production while smaller fish made up the larger share of annual harvest growing SSB even at heightened catch levels compared to today.

Look at chart three and how all that changed when catch levels started being cut and recreational size limits started their continuous upward increases. Look at charts 5 and 6, trend for average weight of fish harvested by commercial and recreational sectors and compare those weights to the above post regarding age, sex and length in the second link and you'll see an extremely high percentage of fish being harvested today are females which is why for the last 25 years recruitment / egg production has been dropping and since 2002 SSB has been in a constant decline.

Review chart 4, Commercial Summer Harvest by Year Trend Ages 7+, chart is very revealing in particular the number of fish ages 7+ harvested in years 2005, 2011 and 2012. Compare the number of 7+ year fish harvested beginning in 2003 / 2004 relative to the years 1989 through 2002. Again all this information is based on 57th SAW so numbers were only available through 2012 and doesn't include recreational but due to the size regulations in place only magnifies my point. A 24" fish converts to 61 centimeters and based on Rutgers "Sex and Length" chart are exclusively females. For the three years '05, '11 and '12, if the article that states a 27" summer flounder produces ~4.2 million eggs annually is remotely accurate, let's assume 7+ year old fish on average produce conservatively ~3.5 million eggs a year, realizing a decent percentage of 7+ year old fish in the data table are actually 8+ years and older and capable of greater egg production than 4.2 million a year.

Do the math on the extent of egg production capacity being removed from SSB every year by harvesting these size fish from the biomass. Fish which were never harvested in the 80's and 90's based on catch data presented by NMFS / ASMFC. Those three years average ~390,000 fish 7+ years of age or older. At ~3.5 million eggs per fish at ~390,000 fish, we're removing approximately 1.4 TRILLION eggs annually and losing their reproductive strength every year thereafter. And, as mentioned, that number represents just the commercial harvest impacts. Since recreational average weight per fish due to increased size regulations resulted in the average weight per fish being greater than the commercial harvest (charts 5 and 6), the impact on recruitment and SSB is actually greater. Wouldn't surprise me if we're removing in excess of 3 to 3.5 TRILLION eggs alone annually from R by the harvest of these larger breeders between commercial and recreational harvest. And that completely ignores the increase in harvest for fish ages 4 - 6 years which has increased substantially as well. Compare the same information to the harvest of similar size fish between the years 1982 - 2002. 7+ year old fish over that period harvested averaged 7,638 and for the years 1989 - 1998 averaged 2,843 fish. From 2004 - 2012 7+ year old fish averaged 228,207, an ~8000% increase. 1989 - 2002 represents the time frame SSB increased exponentially by 600% based on 57th SAW or 900% based on 66th SAW. Recreational size increases coupled with increases in ex-vessel prices for larger fish caused by cuts in commercial catch quotas (supply and demand) killed recruitment and caused a steady and on-going decline in SSB. Regulations are killing this fishery. 2019 regulations of status quo for recreational and a 40% increase in commercial harvest will further compound this very problem. And that's without consideration given to potential impacts commercial harvest could be having on the primary spawn which no one can quantify. We're losing this fishery due to recreational size regulations which worked up to a certain point and then didn't when we pushed past the size limit recreationally of 15.5", and cuts in commercial harvest caused commercial operators to harvest larger fish with higher ex-vessel market prices which more than doubled in value from 2002 to 2017 (last chart green line) to compensate for cuts in catch quota and stay in business. It's that simple.

These are the problems and challenges facing today's fishery and are largely or entirely not being addressed. It's not environmental, it's not predation, it's not mortality, its not catch which is at all time lows. It's recruitment being destroyed, the singular most important element of any sustainable salt water fishery, based on the above facts. Fisheries management has to acknowledge these facts and adopt remedial measures before this fishery can correct itself. Right now the current regulations are doing more harm than good. No fishery can harvest 80% - 90% females and almost 95% sexually mature fish, a trend more problematic due to the harvest of larger females with greater egg production capacity, and sustain itself. It's simply not possible regardless of reductions in catch levels and you don't need a degree in Marine Biology to understand that concept.

[Gumada]

How does Mass get a 5 bag limit and 17” size ? They should be at least 18, maybe 19” and a lower bag. I smellz a rat.....