MAFMC webinar 27-Feb: Fluke/SeaBass assessments + 2019 recreational recommendations

[hartattack]

http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2019/sfsbsb-mc-meeting-feb-27

The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee will meet on Wednesday, February 27, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The meeting will take place over webinar with a telephone-only connection option.
• Webinar Link: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/mc-feb2019/
• Audio: 800-832-0736; room number 4472108
The purpose of this meeting is to review updated summer flounder stock assessment information and recommend revised 2019 and new 2020-2021 commercial and recreational Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Annual Catch Targets (ACTs), commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits for summer flounder. The Committee will also recommend recreational management measures for summer flounder in 2019, including either the use of conservation equivalency or coastwide recreational management measures to achieve but not exceed the revised 2019 recreational harvest limit.
Meeting Materials
• Draft Agenda https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5c6428ebeef1a1c616afcb58/1550067947220/FSB_MC_27FEB2019_draft_AGENDA.pdf
• 66th SAW Assessment Summary Report
o Updated 2019-2021 OFL and ABC projections (as of 1/31/19)
• Staff Memo: 2019-2021 Summer Flounder Specifications
• Staff Memo: 2019 Su mmer Flounder Recreational Measures
• Staff Memo: 2020 Interim Specifications for Scup, Black Sea Bass, and Bluefish
• February 21 SSC Report
• Revised catch and landings limit tables based on SSC recommendations

AGENDA Please note: times are approximate and may change based on pace of discussion. Public comment will be allowed during the meeting at designated times, at the discretion of staff.
10:00 a.m. Summer Flounder 2019-2021 ACLs and ACTs
• Review stock status, staff recommendations, and SSC recommendations based on the recent benchmark stock assessment. Recommend annual ACLs, ACTs, and resulting commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits for 2019 (revised) and 2020-2021.
12:00 p.m. Break for lunch
1:00 p.m. Summer Flounder 2019 Recreational Measures
• Review recent recreational data for summer flounder, and recommend the use of either conservation equivalency or coastwide measures for 2019. If conservation equivalency is recommended, non-preferred coastwide and precautionary default measures must be identified; if coastwide measures are recommended, the Committee should identify coastwide measures that would constrain harvest to the Monitoring Committee-recommended recreational harvest limit (RHL).
• Progress update on summer flounder recreational Management Strategy Evaluation contract (J. McNamee)
2:40 p.m. Update on Scup and Black Sea Bass 2020 Specifications Timeline
3:00 p.m. Adjourn

[dakota560]

Larry thanks for the heads up. Will try listening in on the webinar. Look at updated graphs through 2017 on pages 21 and 23 of the 66th SAW, they illustrate the ENTIRE problem the summer flounder fishery is experiencing due to the flawed policy decisions and ideologies NMFS has utilized. I find it interesting they refer to recruitment statistics in the graph on page 23 as relative survival as opposed to relative overall egg production, two entirely different meanings. Not sure if that's intended to mean egg reproduction is occuring but the eggs are not surviving causing the precipitous decline or if overall egg reproduction is down because of the number of eggs being produced is far less due to too many females being harvested and other factors. Two different issues all together. In my opinion, the cause is the later due to large females being harvested both recreationally and commercially and increased harvest by commercials of larger females with greater egg production capacity. As I've said too many times already, if that problem and the trajectory it's been on for over twenty years isn't better understood and corrected, this fishery will continue its slide. Absolutely no reason for that to have to be the outcome here. We have history and regulations from 1989 through 2002 which had a definitive and highly positive impact on SSB at much greater catch levels (tonnage), significantly higher possession limits, significantly lower size limits than today but NMFS and ASMFC for some reason choose to ignore that tried and proven approach to managing the fishery. Just don't understand their logic with or without the constraints of MSA being considered.

As I've stated before, NMFS / ASMFC are doing nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with their management philosophy towards this fishery.

[dakota560]

Interesting if you review the same chart comparing SSB and Recruitment statistics between 1982 to present from Addendum XXVlll (top graph) and 66th SAW (bottom graph), the data is directionally and relatively the same but the numbers on the Y axis are completely different regarding SSB (mt, metric tons) and recruitment (age 0, 000's). I can understand thresh hold target levels changing but how does historical metric tons of SSB and recruitment statistics change, it's the same chart just updated from 2015 to 2017.

Example, solid black line is SSB. Top chart has it reaching it's highest level around 2002 at ~50,000 metric tons. Updated chart in the 66th SAW (bottom chart) has it at ~70,000 metric tons in 2002. The entire scale on both Y axis has changed between versions which I believe not to be possible.

Doesn't change the fact that recruitment has been completely destroyed, just pointing out numbers which in my opinion should be identical to previously published numbers have changed in this latest release.

A more global view of the attached charts to support my theories. The vertical bars represent egg production. The solid black line is SSB. When the bars exceed the black line, we're getting more egg production out of the biomass. When the bars drop below the solid line, we're getting less overall relative egg production. Every year before 2002 egg production exceeded the SSB line. Every year after 2002, egg production was under the SSB line meaning weaker egg production relative to the biomass and the gap has widened from 2003 to current. The crossover point in 2002 was when the size limit was increased to 16.5" in NJ and 17" in NY and Ct. Recruitment continued to weaken as size limit increases continued almost every year to where they are today. Doesn't take a genius to see the fishery responded adversely to the regulations adopted between 2003 and current while SSB grew exponentially (600%) with the regulations in place between 1989 and 2002. There's a saying we're all very familiar with "Never leave fish to find fish". Same principle applies here. Why change regulations that proved successful for a 13-yr period ranging from 1989 to 2002 to regulations which have failed the fishery for the past 16 years since. Senseless.

[Ry609]

My god I hope you are making it to the March 7 meeting and not just posting this stuff on a forum where guys stop reading after the first sentence! Good to have you on our side, now let's hope the powers that be will listen before it's too late.

[hartattack]

The 7-March NJ Marine Fisheries Council is at the Stafford Twp. Municipal Building, 260 East Bay Avenue, Manahawkin, NJ 08050. They will discuss the guidelines that MAFMC proposes today and hopefully propose/vote on the NJ 2019 regs - would be nice to see a good turnout on 7-March :) (5pm start time sucks)

Here is agenda for 7-March NJ meeting: https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2019/minutes/mfc_agenda03-07-19.pdf

[AndyS]

The "scientists" recently stated that the ENTIRE bio-mass of summer flounder has shifted North.:confused:

[dakota560]

The "scientists" recently stated that the ENTIRE bio-mass of summer flounder has shifted North.:confused:

Andy my theory which I mentioned earlier is since harvest sizes have increased, we're obviously harvesting larger fish but the average size fish in the biomass has also increased. What every angler knows who fishes for summer flounder or almost any species of fish, larger fish seek out cooler water then smaller ones. In my opinion based on that fact alone, the biomass moved further north for that reason, not global warming. Not saying global warming isn't occuring, I think we'd be very wrong taking that position. Just my opinion with this fishery and a modest .5 temperature increase over the last 30 years I don't believe that's why the biomass is now heavily concentrated at points further north. It's that concentration which also makes the biomass more vulnerable to commercial harvest and the potential impacts the Fall / Winter commercial fishery potentially is having on the spawning process.

[dakota560]

Larry just sent you a pm......shortest message I ever posted!

[Ry609]

Sounds like status quo being recommended, and they cut off the guy who was asking too many questions that made sense of why it shouldn't be status quo! Question came up about what is status quo doing for the health of the fishery, and there was some bs answer followed by a lecture by the moderator to keep questions short. Ugh

Update: Must've been you Dakota560 :D

[dakota560]

Sounds like status quo being recommended, and they cut off the guy who was asking too many questions that made sense of why it shouldn't be status quo! Question came up about what is status quo doing for the health of the fishery, and there was some bs answer followed by a lecture by the moderator to keep questions short. Ugh

Ry609, that would be me asking those questions which were highly ignored.

[Ry609]

Ry609, that would be me asking those questions which were highly ignored.

I figured as much as I re-read through this thread. Thanks for getting it on the record!

[dakota560]

Sounds like 16% liberalization in '19 might be off the table. Still on the call, should be wrapping up shortly.

[hartattack]

Sounds like 16% liberalization in '19 might be off the table. Still on the call, should be wrapping up shortly.

New MRIP numbers, old MRIP numbers - doesn't matter, Status Quo is the mindset :( You represented NJ well Tom - I hope they document and act on what you brought to their attention. It was gr8 that you posted them in the Chat Box so it could be part of the Public Comments.

When you asked that they please consider a commercial Fluke ban during spawning season, I shuddered in fright at the reply. That the chairperson didn't know when Fluke spawn is inexcusable. The male/female keeper imbalance using their own numbers was also ignored. No wonder the Biomass is at risk.

Since MAFMC dictates what NJ can consider in 2019 I am not optimistic about the options we'll be facing at the 7-March meeting. A strong showing there can't hurt but will it help ? Hopefully more than a handful can make the 5pm meeting, it's in-person only - I'm sure gonna try to attend . . .

[Capt. Lou]

It's unfortunate but unless anglers storm the meeting , they are going to do what they want to do ! No,opposition not a chance of change for the anglers !
I remember attending tuna meetings year back in LB , the anglers were out numbered by the govt people ! What do you think happened not a dam thing , at that time we fished under a closed day approach . You guessed it many rough days were fishing days !

[dakota560]

New MRIP numbers, old MRIP numbers - doesn't matter, Status Quo is the mindset :( You represented NJ well Tom - I hope they document and act on what you brought to their attention. It was gr8 that you posted them in the Chat Box so it could be part of the Public Comments.

When you asked that they please consider a commercial Fluke ban during spawning season, I shuddered in fright at the reply. That the chairperson didn't know when Fluke spawn is inexcusable. The male/female keeper imbalance using their own numbers was also ignored. No wonder the Biomass is at risk.

Since MAFMC dictates what NJ can consider in 2019 I am not optimistic about the options we'll be facing at the 7-March meeting. A strong showing there can't hurt but will it help ? Hopefully more than a handful can make the 5pm meeting, it's in-person only - I'm sure gonna try to attend . . .

Too many people involved and everyone has their own agenda. You are correct, the Chair not having any idea of the spawn timeframe and her answer involving no study ever done determining the impact of commercial netting on the efficacy of the spawn is essentially negligence and completely irresponsible. Dr Mark Terceiro's (Supervisor: Research Fishery Biologist for NOAA) comment disputing the 80 - 90% decrease in recruitment statistics which per his own admission are his own numbers was even more frustrating. Attached graph in 66th SAW on page 23 is based on that data. It compares R (recruitment or egg production to SSB) from 1982 to 2017. Tell me this doesn't illustrate an 80 - 90% decline over an extended period of time which he characterized as a recent anomaly over the past six years, a complete fabrication of the truth. If there's only one thing people reading my posts take away and remember it's this fact. 80% - 90% drop in egg production relative to Spawning Stock Biomass over the last 25-years........that's a startling statistic lost in this entire process. He was obviously upset when I mentioned he was misinterpreting his own data but it's the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach. And Kiley's comment (Chair) was they don't yet understand the reason for the decline in recruitment which has only been happening for the better part of 25-years. If the light bulb hasn't gone on after 25-years, good chance it never will. Complete lack of vision and these are the decision makers determining ours and commercial operators access to a public resource. Again they are completely fixated on one thing and one thing only....managing catch. Catch through increased size limits, reduced possession limits and shorter seasons. None of that addresses recruitment so we're in the same black hole for the foreseeable future.

[Rocky]

Too many people involved and everyone has their own agenda. You are correct, the Chair not having any idea of the spawn timeframe and her answer involving no study ever done determining the impact of commercial netting on the efficacy of the spawn is essentially negligence and completely irresponsible. Dr Mark Terceiro's (Supervisor: Research Fishery Biologist for NOAA) comment disputing the 80 - 90% decrease in recruitment statistics which per his own admission are his own numbers was even more frustrating. Attached graph in 66th SAW on page 23 is based on that data. It compares R (recruitment or egg production to SSB) from 1982 to 2017. Tell me this doesn't illustrate an 80 - 90% decline over an extended period of time which he characterized as a recent anomaly over the past six years, a complete fabrication of the truth. If there's only one thing people reading my posts take away and remember it's this fact. 80% - 90% drop in egg production relative to Spawning Stock Biomass over the last 25-years........that's a startling statistic lost in this entire process. He was obviously upset when I mentioned he was misinterpreting his own data but it's the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach. And Kiley's comment (Chair) was they don't yet understand the reason for the decline in recruitment which has only been happening for the better part of 25-years. If the light bulb hasn't gone on after 25-years, good chance it never will. Complete lack of vision and these are the decision makers determining ours and commercial operators access to a public resource. Again they are completely fixated on one thing and one thing only....managing catch. Catch through increased size limits, reduced possession limits and shorter seasons. None of that addresses recruitment so we're in the same black hole for the foreseeable future.


Whenever I read your post Dakota they are very informative and I thank you for that sir. However they remind me that we are screwed with these fools who are setting the regs.

[dakota560]

Whenever I read your post Dakota they are very informative and I thank you for that sir. However they remind me that we are screwed with these fools who are setting the regs.

Rocky this is the process we have to go through. It's slow and tedious and were fighting town hall and other factors but progress is being made. Keep the faith, it's all we can do and eventually I have confidence the correct means of managing this resource will rise to the surface and the powers to be will have no choice but to embrace it. Might take ten years but not fighting seals our fate. We'll get there my friend. Hope to meet some day, appreciate your posts as well very much.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Dakota thanks for all your time and efforts. You are pretty spot on in my opinion. The only way to make any progress is to push back and get or stay involved in the process. In addition you are one of the few that understands that using their data or lack there of against them is the best way to make progress. I appreciate your time and efforts

[dales529]

Dakota thanks for all your time and efforts. You are pretty spot on in my opinion. The only way to make any progress is to push back and get or stay involved in the process. In addition you are one of the few that understands that using their data or lack there of against them is the best way to make progress. I appreciate your time and efforts

X2 what JDF said above. Listened to the whole meeting this morning. Great Job Tom and as we discussed keep up the pressure. As frustrating as it is its the only path forward. Thanks for your efforts!!
Always amazing how a "recommendations" meeting has no flexibility to introduce / act on "recommendations"

[dakota560]

Dakota thanks for all your time and efforts. You are pretty spot on in my opinion. The only way to make any progress is to push back and get or stay involved in the process. In addition you are one of the few that understands that using their data or lack there of against them is the best way to make progress. I appreciate your time and efforts

Thanks Joe it's an interesting but very frustrating process. Options are BOHICA (for those who don't know what that means you can google it) or put your head down and try making a difference. An unenviable task when battling the federal government but doing nothing guarantees a worse fate. Lot of people behind the scenes battling to improve the health of the fishery or at least improve the harvest of the resource and it's going to take a series of factors for that to happen.

Review the attached graph. The data in the spreadsheet I extracted from Table A4, page 136 of 57th SAW representing commercial harvest for Me. thru Va., excluding NC for some reason. Number are fish (000's) so 1,441 is actually 1,441,000 fish not pounds.

From the early 80's through the nineties, ~90% of commercial and recreational harvest consisted of sexually immature fish, fish ages 0 - 2 years old, with ZERO contribution to recruitment, therefore not part of the SSB composition. Conversely, today's harvest consists of ~90% - 95% of sexually mature fish with a high percentage of those fish not only being females but larger females with greater egg production capacity. Significant hit to gender composition of SSB and devastating impact on egg reproduction but the council's position is they can't figure out why recruitment is declining and believe it to be declining only for the last 6 years. It's been declining relative to SSB for the last 25-30 years. That's the primary problem with the fishery but getting anyone at NMFS or ASMFC to acknowledge that is like trying to get your children to eat their vegetables.....only more difficult. Can't tell council members to go to their room or they don't get dessert.

The problems are clear, the resolution is still blocked by provisions from the Magnuson Stevens Act legislated on 1976, 43-yrs ago. Gives you an idea of the obstacles involved. Facts and interpretation of those facts aren't as important as legislation from 1976. have to question the logic in that reasoning. It's nothing more in my opinion than a reason for them to do what they wish without fear of being accountable for the outcomes of those decisions. I wish I could approach work every day with that edict, would make life a whole lot easier.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Like many people involved in this fight, Tom is a tireless voice for the interests of recreational fishing... Not just the fishermen but for the overall health of the fishery. There are those outside our recreational fishing community that think we're just a bunch of neanderthals who want to kill everything that swims. Nothing could be further then the truth... I think I speak for most that our first concern is not about how many fish we can take, it's about our responsibility to protect and sustain the fishery so that we and future generations can enjoy this great sport of ours.

Just thinking back a few years ago when he attended one of the Galloway meetings... I watched as Tom's head practically exploded when he saw the data presented. The Fluke fishery was on a downward spiral and there was a direct correlation with the regulations... Each year the size of fish we could keep was increased forcing us to target the larger fish we needed for reproduction and the stocks decreased. Tom was on to something here and after many late night discussions on how best to boil down and present this information, we got him plugged into others who were involved...

I've always contended you're either part of the problem or part of the solution... Apathy is the enemy here as many feel helpless and wonder to themselves what can I do about it so they do nothing.

Point here is I don't care who you are, you can get involved... Not everyone has the analytical skills like Tom, I sure don't but there are other ways to use what you do have.... It could be volunteering your time, writing a letter, attending a meeting or a march or you can financially support the groups that support your interests.... What you shouldn't do is roll over because if you do, they've won.

There's 2 ways to fight, politically and scientifically... We need to change the laws which govern our fisheries and the science used to manage them and we've made some great strides in each area... On the political side the recent passage of the The Modern Fishing Act. On the Science side the Size/Sex study which gives us the information needed to manage the resource with better science.

We still have a long way to go but none of this would have been possible without the individual and collective efforts of every day people like you and me who got involved and refused to roll over.

If you're interested in helping the fight on political side stop by the RFA booth 3/15 - 3/17 at the Saltwater Fishing show in Edison or visit https://www.joinrfa.org/

On the Science side please visit http://www.ssfff.org/

Or get plugged into a fishing group like http://www.jcaa.org/ who will also be at the Edison show.

Thanks for listening to my rant and hope you consider getting involved.