Anyone know the fluke options for 2019 yet

[Belmarguy]

Anyone know what the fluke options we have to pick from are for 2019 ?

[Gerry Zagorski]

No options on the table yet... They are running a little behind this year because f the Govt shutdown.....

[Rocky]

No options on the table yet... They are running a little behind this year because f the Govt shutdown.....

Every year they have a different excuse. If they don't have it figured out by now they never will. They will continue to feed us recreational fishermen bare bones and expect us to thank them for the scraps while others feed on the steak!

If you managed a thriving business into bankruptcy you would expect to be fired right?

[Capt Sal]

Here are the options--1 Get screwed 2Get screwed 3 Get crewed

[june181901]

A well paid, very capable lobbyist or lobbying firm can make a difference. Unfortunately the sport fishermen are just not organized.

[Irish Jigger]

2 at 24" with a 30 day season. 😁

[Detour66]

A well paid, very capable lobbyist or lobbying firm can make a difference. Unfortunately the sport fishermen are just not organized.
If local anglers and those involved in the commercial end of recreational fishing all kicked in to hire a capable lobbyist firm and it was run by a trustworthy saltwater fishing organization this would be the way to get it done! It's time we put our money where are mouths are and fight fire with fire. It can be done! No doubt!

[Scrubby]

If local anglers and those involved in the commercial end of recreational fishing all kicked in to hire a capable lobbyist firm and it was run by a trustworthy saltwater fishing organization this would be the way to get it done! It's time we put our money where are mouths are and fight fire with fire. It can be done! No doubt!

How much money would be needed for a lobbyist? and which organization would be best suited to manage?

[Jigman13]

How much money would be needed for a lobbyist? and which organization would be best suited to manage?

A lot. Keep in mind a "lobbyist" equates to multiple bodies putting in multiple hours harnessing various resources. Advocacy-focused PR and lobbying doesn't come cheap. Most results-driven things do not. Stumping on behalf of issues supporting one thing or another is one cog in the wheel. Swaying or connecting with public opinion starts at the grassroots level, channels through earned and paid media and eventually makes its way to the doorstep(s) of the right politicians, assembly folks, congress, etc.

I work with some of these organizations daily and it takes a lot of time and a lot of money to get results.

[AndyS]

I think we should rent buses and march on Washington DC, it worked before.

[Angler Paul]

The ASMFC and MAFMC had their joint meeting yesterday and voted for status quo measures. NJ submitted just one option that would allow us to open the season one day sooner and close it one day sooner than last year. Therefore our season will likely open on 5/24 and end on 9/21 with a 3 fish bag limit at 18". Also the same seasons and 3 at 17" for Delaware Bay and 2 at 16" for Island Beach. This won't become official until the NJMFC votes for it at their next meeting. Paul Haertel JCAA. Board Member

[hammer4reel]

was announced the commercial boats got a 40% increase.

so appears we got the shaft again .


so much for the getting the fourth fish we were supposed to get back .


.

[Rocky]

was announced the commercial boats got a 40% increase.

so appears we got the shaft again .


so much for the getting the fourth fish we were supposed to get back .


.

I don't have the details about this hammer but, if this is true you just kicked me in the nuts with this news.

[dales529]

was announced the commercial boats got a 40% increase.

so appears we got the shaft again .


so much for the getting the fourth fish we were supposed to get back .


.

I knew this was going to come up. The system is broken BUT here is my understanding of how it currently works.

The process is different for Commercial and recreational. We both got a 40% increase in quota.
In commercial they get a quota and they fish to a quota. Quota filled fishing STOPS

With recreational we get "measures" based on a quota which means we can over or under fish our quota given our season length. With the new MRIP estimates the biomass of fluke went up which is why quota was increased but our catch or harvest projections went up as well which is why we are at status quo Again.

Feds approved conservation equivalency again this year which means states / regions can make their own regulations as long as it meets the conservation goals of the fed. NJ remains our own region which is good

In Coastwide regulations the fed says 4 fish @19" and season from May 15 to Sept 15 i believe for ALL states which was not approved so thats maybe where you got a 4th fish from

Again NJ could set different regs increasing bag and or a slot if those measures meet conservation equivalency within our quota

IF a 4th fish or slot was on the table for NJ this year you would really be disappointed in the season length. See link below NJ Option presented for what 1 day change in season start -end means between wave 2 and wave 5 .
http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/JointASMFC_MAFMCmtgSuppMaterials_March2019.pdf
pages 2-3 for NJ but the rest is a good read also

A extra bag or slot could mean many weeks reduction in our season under the current guidelines.

Having said all that the process needs to change and SSFFF Science is the closest thing we have to make that change. I as many wish it was happening sooner but the reality is its not here for this year. There are groups like SSFF and RFA, United Boatman, JCAA and others that tirelessly work on this year in and out. It IS getting closer but the process and science changes are long.
Changing the breeder harvest by current regs is finally getting some attention!!

When the NJ meeting is posted to approve status quo with the 1 day shift in schedule by all means go there and fight for change as we all need to do so.

[hammer4reel]

I knew this was going to come up. The system is broken BUT here is my understanding of how it currently works.

The process is different for Commercial and recreational. We both got a 40% increase in quota.
In commercial they get a quota and they fish to a quota. Quota filled fishing STOPS

With recreational we get "measures" based on a quota which means we can over or under fish our quota given our season length. With the new MRIP estimates the biomass of fluke went up which is why quota was increased but our catch or harvest projections went up as well which is why we are at status quo Again.

Feds approved conservation equivalency again this year which means states / regions can make their own regulations as long as it meets the conservation goals of the fed. NJ remains our own region which is good

In Coastwide regulations the fed says 4 fish @19" and season from May 15 to Sept 15 i believe for ALL states which was not approved so thats maybe where you got a 4th fish from

Again NJ could set different regs increasing bag and or a slot if those measures meet conservation equivalency within our quota

IF a 4th fish or slot was on the table for NJ this year you would really be disappointed in the season length. See link below NJ Option presented for what 1 day change in season start -end means between wave 2 and wave 5 .
http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/JointASMFC_MAFMCmtgSuppMaterials_March2019.pdf
pages 2-3 for NJ but the rest is a good read also

A extra bag or slot could mean many weeks reduction in our season under the current guidelines.

Having said all that the process needs to change and SSFFF Science is the closest thing we have to make that change. I as many wish it was happening sooner but the reality is its not here for this year. There are groups like SSFF and RFA, United Boatman, JCAA and others that tirelessly work on this year in and out. It IS getting closer but the process and science changes are long.
Changing the breeder harvest by current regs is finally getting some attention!!

When the NJ meeting is posted to approve status quo with the 1 day shift in schedule by all means go there and fight for change as we all need to do so.

sorry Dave that's the line of shit they are giving us now.
Let me refresh the meeting of 2 years ago.
Kirby told us the bag limit reduction would last 1 season .
and we would be given 1 fish back to the bag limit
Then after we still underfished that season , last year they said lets be safe , and keep that bag limit an extra season .
well here we go again another season .
Its time to ask for either a slot fish and tell them to shove status quo .


we didn't over fish the last two seasons , what makes them think we will now.

Until now the regs reflected the same in increase or decrease between both recs and commercial.


now its apparent that is going to change this season .

The season should have either increased in length , or been given an increased bag limit,


.

[dales529]

sorry Dave that's the line of shit they are giving us now.
Let me refresh the meeting of 2 years ago.
Kirby told us the bag limit reduction would last 1 season .
and we would be given 1 fish back to the bag limit
Then after we still underfished that season , last year they said lets be safe , and keep that bag limit an extra season .
well here we go again another season .
Its time to ask for either a slot fish and tell them to shove status quo .


we didn't over fish the last two seasons , what makes them think we will now.

Until now the regs reflected the same in increase or decrease between both recs and commercial.


now its apparent that is going to change this season .

The season should have either increased in length , or been given an increased bag limit,


.

Dan No need to say sorry Dave. I am on yours / our side on this and agree with you 100%. I was just explaining the why but certainly don't agree with the how. The system / process is still broken. They can promise anything but if and when the process doesn't allow it then we are once again at status quo.
WE should go to NJ meeting once its scheduled to fight for a slot fish, extra bag or extended season. Given the NJ proposal to MAMFC i posted in the link it doesn't appear NJ feels the same way about fighting this but who knows.

Unfortunately changing the methodology and process of our summer flounder and seabass regulations is like changing the USA Constitution apparently. They are finally at least listening to slot fish and better data ideas but its really a slow go and again not this year.

See you soon
Also anyone that wants to discuss this more please visit the RFA Booth at the SW Fishing expo March 15-17. I will be there all day Sat March 16 but visit any day you wish

[Joey Dah Fish]

Yes commercial got 40% increase as did rec. . Ours was nullified by our catch estimates for the up coming season. The big difference is how commercial works compared to rec. Commercial catch is recorded pretty much daily . So when the reach their quota. They are shut down immediately. Season closed. As for us rec people. We have zero data on our actual catch and we don’t get shit down even if they consider us to be over our quota during the season. After they do their calculations and come up with their number it will either posively affect our next season or negatively effect it. Until the rec side can collect proper data on our actual catch this will continue.
I don’t have the answers but I have a few ideas. The only real way to solve this problem is with sacrifice, money and time.
1)Sacrifice, being willing to record and submit your data in a particular time frame. This mean all fisherman. So enforcement is required.
2) Money, fund an institution or organization that is already accredited to work up scientific methods of how to properly present that data to those that regulate.
Also doing studies on the mortality rate this is included in our annually catch.
Time, obviously this requires people’s time and time to do the studies , accumulate the data , submit and have it peer reviews.
Quite a daunting task as all can see. A worthy cause of course but, as I see it one way of changing the system.
I hope others can come up with alternate ways to change this system from with in the system. After some years of following this I see the only way to feasibly changing the system is through the actual system.
Hoping you all have a great season .

[AndyS]

You can contact my friend Ben Dover, he has the answers.

[dfish28]

options as I see this dilemma
1- traditional or electric fillet knife
2- skin left on while still fishing or not
3- cooler or fridge on boat
4- fried or blackened - tortillas and fixings optional

[Detour66]

I hope "The Modern Fishing Act" can somehow help us recreational fisherman out!

[Detour66]

How much money would be needed for a lobbyist? and which organization would be best suited to manage?

That is a good question! I wish one of the top pro saltwater fishing organizations would step up and look into it and propose a plan and see if fisherman would be into dishing out some cash to get things done in our favor! i mean all the money we spend on fishing already it would be worth it!

[dales529]

That is a good question! I wish one of the top pro saltwater fishing organizations would step up and look into it and propose a plan and see if fisherman would be into dishing out some cash to get things done in our favor! i mean all the money we spend on fishing already it would be worth it!

Great question Scrubby and to your point Detour. RFA has been / had a lobbyist for saltwater anglers for years.
https://www.joinrfa.org/jim-donofrio/

As the article states like him or not most will agree Jim has done more for recreational anglers all around the country than most and i know myself can ever dream of.

RFA lobbyist expenses are public knowledge, I can post a link but encourage you all do your own research.

No ONE including RFA is opposed to NJ Anglers looking into other options.
My guess is you are looking at anywhere from $50,000.00 annually to get started and up to $250,000 annually to get the real ball rolling. Times that by the years it may take to change policy.

To All wanting a Lobbyist please research the lobbyist options , vet them to be sure these lobbyist companies are actually aligned with our interests, get quotes for startup, reasonable expectations and some ideas as to the timeline to complete the task.

Once that is complete please advise your fundraising ideas to pay for it. Open to any / all suggestions and I will help if possible.

These times require aggressive action so your ideas are valid just get involved any way you can.

[Detour66]

Great question Scrubby and to your point Detour. RFA has been / had a lobbyist for saltwater anglers for years.
https://www.joinrfa.org/jim-donofrio/

As the article states like him or not most will agree Jim has done more for recreational anglers all around the country than most and i know myself can ever dream of.

RFA lobbyist expenses are public knowledge, I can post a link but encourage you all do your own research.

No ONE including RFA is opposed to NJ Anglers looking into other options.
My guess is you are looking at anywhere from $50,000.00 annually to get started and up to $250,000 annually to get the real ball rolling. Times that by the years it may take to change policy.

To All wanting a Lobbyist please research the lobbyist options , vet them to be sure these lobbyist companies are actually aligned with our interests, get quotes for startup, reasonable expectations and some ideas as to the timeline to complete the task.

Once that is complete please advise your fundraising ideas to pay for it. Open to any / all suggestions and I will help if possible.

These times require aggressive action so your ideas are valid just get involved any way you can.
If Jim and the RFA targeted the cause directly for lobbying for Fluke fisherman costing $300,000 it would cost 10,000 fisherman $30 a piece. To me it's a bargain if we see real results! A Go-fund-me put together by the RFA could be one of the ways to get the money needed. I am sure there are more than 10000 Fluke fisherman out there that would be willing to kick in. Just a thought! Tight lines!

[Capt Sal]

If Jim and the RFA targeted the cause directly for lobbying for Fluke fisherman costing $300,000 it would cost 10,000 fisherman $30 a piece. To me it's a bargain if we see real results! A Go-fund-me put together by the RFA could be one of the ways to get the money needed. I am sure there are more than 10000 Fluke fisherman out there that would be willing to kick in. Just a thought! Tight lines!

Too bad more fishermen don't feel this way.It is not only fluke my friend it is about salt water fishing in general and it is nation wide.

[dales529]

If Jim and the RFA targeted the cause directly for lobbying for Fluke fisherman costing $300,000 it would cost 10,000 fisherman $30 a piece. To me it's a bargain if we see real results! A Go-fund-me put together by the RFA could be one of the ways to get the money needed. I am sure there are more than 10000 Fluke fisherman out there that would be willing to kick in. Just a thought! Tight lines!

Thanks for responding Detour. Shows involvement. If you are going to the saltwater show in Edison this weekend please stop by the RFA booth to discuss in more detail.

[dakota560]

Been reading the comments on a few of these threads and researching information released from the joint Council / Commission meeting in Virginia last week discussing the 66th Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) and '19 options among other things. Lot to think about to say the least.

First when it comes to a saltwater license, a few thoughts. Read an article that NOAA in 2011 mandated the saltwater registry so they could use that database to support conversion to a different method of determining recreational catch using the MRIP system (Marine Recreational Information Program). I always thought the registry was intended to determine the number of recreational anglers in the event a salt water license was implemented so the state could determine the amount of revenue generated. I'm sure that's a secondary benefit but doesn't appear to be the primary reason for the registry being implemented. And because of this new method, which is again at best still an estimate of recreational catch, recreational community gets status quo for '19 while the commercial sector gets a 40% increase. We transitioned from one system filled with a host of assumptions intended to quantify recreational catch to another system / process / means of collecting data filled with just as many assumptions / unknowns and in the process took a hit in the form of an offset to our 40% increase. All because we're supposed to believe this new process is correct when the old process we were told for the last 20 years was "data based on best available science" is no longer representative. That term which is thrown out religiously is just another way of saying "We have no idea if the data we're publishing and basing regulatory decisions on is accurate". Yet we pay the price.

As far as salt water licenses, excise taxes, funding for greater enforcement and or fishing facilities how about this approach. Recreational anglers fish for pleasure, commercial harvest the resource to make money and provide a living. Completely different reasons. Compare 2008 to 2017. Recreational landings per 66th SAW and MRIP we're 5,597 metric tons of summer flounder in 2008. In 2017 we landed 4,565 metric tons, an ~20% decrease in landings. Possession limit in 2008 for NJ was 8 @ 18", today it is and will remain at 3 @ 18" in '19 with a good chance of it staying that way for '20 thru '21. At the same time, commercial landings in '08 were 4,179 metric tons compared to 2,644 metric tons in '17. BUT, ex-vessel catch (catch value to commercial operators at the dock) increased from ~$21.6 million in '08 to $24.7M in '17, an ~15% increase in catch value even with significantly reduced landings. Why, because of ex-vessel market prices (supply and demand) and the harvest of larger fish in general from the 80's and 90's. Yet commercial receives a 40% increase in '19 which will increase their '19 revenue by ~$10 million based on todays average ex-vessel price per lb. while recreational anglers once again are left begging for scraps.

There's no equity in what's happened in this fishery over the last twenty years. We were asked to make sacrifices which we made and are still being asked to pay for others mistakes and I don't mean the commercial sector, I mean fisheries management in it's entirety. If commercial revenues are going to receive a 40% boost next year, the state might consider enforcement funds coming out of that pot since the people benefitting the most should subsidize the enforcement supporting the resource generating that level of revenue. Why should recreational anglers pay the tab when we make no money from the resource, spend tons of money supporting the economy yet we take hits every year in possession and size limits, overall catch quotas and season lengths. Or ask equipment manufacturers like Berkley which the recreational community keeps in business to contribute, they make ~$800 million a year pretax so they should be able to assist the funding of lobbying efforts if that's what's needed. We have a resource being taken away, are feeling the biggest impact and we're talking about paying for enforcement when the commercial harvest alone when you consider ex-vessel to market will be generating over $100 million in revenues next year. Enforcement, public access funding should be paid for by the revenues generated from the resource itself, not paid for from the pockets of the recreational angler spending insane amounts of money already to enjoy that resource and if lucky in the case of summer flounder keep three fish a day.

Sad part about last few week's webinars which has my head spinning is not one thing was discusseed at the fishery council meeting in Va. that addressed the overall health of the fishery. Most discussion centered around everyone positioning for a larger piece of the pie. NMFS still believe recruitment is down only over the last six years when it's actually been down when viewed relative to the spawning stock biomass since the mid nineties and the answer when asked is an emphatic "We don't know why". Very simple answer involving two reasons both relating to size increases and cuts in catch regulations. For commercials as their catch quotas have been cut, they've targeted larger fish with higher ex-vessel value to compensate which simultaneously increases dead discard. Have spoken to a few commercial guys (deckhands) no longer in the business who will tell you the amount of fish shoveled overboard dead will make you sick if you witnessed the carnage that takes place at sea. Recreational on the other hand have increased size limits because the regulations dictate it, we have no choice. Commercials can keep smaller fish at 14" but that's not where the value is so those size fish go back dead. This proposed 40% increase to commercials and status quo with recreational size and possession limits will do nothing but further hurt the fishery, in particulare recruitment and SSB which should be the primary point of focus.

In the 80's and 90's, more than 90% of commercial and recreational catch consisted of fish under 2 years old, predominantly sexually immature fish that had zero impact on recruitment (egg production) and therefore not part of SSB. It's a large reason SSB grew 600% exponentially between 1989 and 2002. Today, the annual harvest is almost the exact opposite, ~90 - 95% of total annual catch represents fish 3 years and older, all sexually mature and all being removed from the relative recruitment strength of SSB. Commercial weight of fish harvested on average has doubled over the last two decades compared to the 80's and 90's, recreational has tripled all due to regulations and fisheries managment philosophies of managing catch through size increases. It all started around 1996 and we're continuing down the same path that led us to the mess we're experiencing today. The regulations are killing this fishery and the frustration is the lack of acknowledgment or priority to fix it. We can raise money and lobby but we need other states to do the same and every state that makes up the Mid-Atlantic region seems to have their own agenda. These rules are made by the Federal government and the states for the most part just choose between options. Unless changes are made in Washington under Secretary of Commerce / NOAA / NMFS and at the state level, learn to accept the phrase "status quo". Maybe the most disappointing comment I heard listening to the March 6th and 7th webinar between MAFMC and ASMFC was when the Chair asked the individual presenting the 66th SAW if he considered SSB and recruitment stable at this point. The answer very carefully worded was something along the lines of "Hard to say but moving in the right direction". That answer couldn't be further from the truth based on what the data reflects. Size regulations and a 150% to 200% percent increase in the weight of fish being harvested over the last two decades has destroyed recruitment and mortally wounded the reproductive strength of SSB. '19 thru '20 regulations will only make that situation worse.

Sorry for the diatribe but if we don't start protecting the harvest of larger fish, both females and males, this fishery will never rebound which in the end is what we should all be most concerned about, for both recreational and commercial interests as well as the health of the many dependent on it. If we maintained the same regulations we had in the late nineties and early 2000's, the trajectory of SSB and recruitment would have continued and this resource would be in a much different and better place than it is today. With '19's proposed regulations and increase in quota to commercial harvest, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

[hammer4reel]

Tom here are some things for you to research.

Excise tax has already been paid by everyone on every piece of tackle we buy.
That tax comes back into the fishery once you meet it's guidelines.
They give examples of how that money can be used .


As far as manufacture such as Berkley they have way more skin in the game than recs ever will.
All manufactures who are at ICast are members of The American sportfishi ng association.
The ASA is also given a percentage of the sales of every item sold to promote and protect fishing .
That is the organisation each manufacture donates to instead of a thousand different groups asking for money such as SSFFF .
Groups like SSFFF have to ask the ASA for help in those matters .Not each individual tackle maker .

Look at their website and you can find tons of info .

[bender]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dakota...best synopsis of the current situation I have read yet.
AND it will surely only get worse before/if it gets better.
At what point do we individually do what is right for the conservation of the resource? All data suggests immediate change of course, yet status quo is eminent....

[Detour66]

Thanks for responding Detour. Shows involvement. If you are going to the saltwater show in Edison this weekend please stop by the RFA booth to discuss in more detail. Please PM Dales.

[dakota560]

Tom here are some things for you to research.

Excise tax has already been paid by everyone on every piece of tackle we buy.
That tax comes back into the fishery once you meet it's guidelines.
They give examples of how that money can be used .


As far as manufacture such as Berkley they have way more skin in the game than recs ever will.
All manufactures who are at ICast are members of The American sportfishi ng association.
The ASA is also given a percentage of the sales of every item sold to promote and protect fishing .
That is the organisation each manufacture donates to instead of a thousand different groups asking for money such as SSFFF .
Groups like SSFFF have to ask the ASA for help in those matters .Not each individual tackle maker .

Look at their website and you can find tons of info .

Dan.....thanks! I'll do just that to better understand the process as it relates to the excise tax funds and state availability as well as ASA. My reference to Berkley was meant in more of a general sense. We need funding for beefed up enforcement and we need funding apparently to have a better lobbying effort for summer flounder and other species for evryone's benefit. My opinion in general stands, the funding of that effort should follow the parties benefitting the most economically from the harvest of those resources. Assuming funds can be raised, next question is how that money is best spent. My biggest issue with how the summer flounder fishery is being mananged is it's not based on the data and NMFS and ASMFC act as if it is.

In fresh water, stocking programs more than anything determine fishery health along with catch levels being managed and protecting the spawn for species which do experience natural reproduction. Salt water is different, most important aspect of fisheries management is making sure natural reproduction outdistances catch every year because the health of every fishery is dependent on it. Purest definition of a sustainable fishery. Yet in the case of summer flounder, we don't protect the spawn even though it's been declining relative to SSB for over 25 years which in my opinion is a major flaw in the philosophy of fisheries management.

First chart is the relationship of egg production to Spawning Stock Biomass "SSB". For ease of reading the green highlighted area is positive, red is not. You can see through around 1997 the relationship changed and started to deteriorate ever since. Meanng we were getting significantly less eggs produced from a higher SSB and that trend has continued from 1997 through today.

Second chart is a different way of looking at the same information. Bars represent egg production or R (recruitment), solid line represents SSB. 1982 thru ~'97 / '98 recruitment was higher than the SSB bar every year, subsequent to '97 / '98 lower every year. It appears on every chart and is a result of what I mentioned in my earlier posts. Size regulations and reduced catch quotas are hurting the fishery, NMFS isn't acknowledging much less addressing the problem (in fact they're '19 regs as mentioned will exacerbate the problem) while Dr. Mark Terceiro, Supervisor, Research Fishery Biologist NMFS insists the problem with recruitment is a six-year recent anomaly when in fact it's a 25-yr declining trend if not longer no one is addressing.

Third and fourth charts support that 25-yr. decline comparing the ratio of egg production to SSB as well as the decline in the average egg production per metric ton of SSB relative to increased size limits imposed by NMFS. Look at the cross over points, it all changed around '96 / '97 and has been declining since with increase size limits being imposed every year along with the harvest of larger fish by commercial operators and recreational anglers. You can't sustain a fishery where a substantial percentage (probably 95% today) of the annual catch consists of larger sexually mature breeder females and sexually mature larger males, it's not possible in any fishery.

How to get anyone to listen to and acknowledge this is the million dollar question. Instead the Council and Commission says the fishery is stable which couldn't be further from the truth. As soon as we started harvesting more 3 year and older fish and the associated motality accompanying that management philosophy, the bottom dropped out of the fishery by weakening the recruitment strength of SSB.

It's that simple and until addressed.........status quo in regulations is what we can expect as the best case scenario.

[hammer4reel]

Tom as you know we brought this info right into that original meeting when I said to Kirby if we had to rely on his estimates as the only available science .
Their own data proved their increase in size limit was what was hurting the fishery .
If their data was correct all your charts show it again ten fold .

But let’s look at it a few other ways .
Their numbers on catches on recreational side are estimates, not factual.
Their trawl studies are compounded estimates, ( what proof is there they were getting an accurate trawl study ?)

Only REAL data we have is commercial harvest.
Actual count .(historical data)

IMO that is more accurate data than estimates .
Commercial guys I know that have fished our area for over 30 years have 30 years of actual landings .

Up until four seasons ago their fluking season had them fishing from BI TO FIRE ISLAND to meet their quotas.
In the last four seasons they are catching their quota within 10 miles of port .
And in other seasons they can’t get away from the fluke while working other species.
More fluke than ever in their careers .

How can NMFS numbers be accurate based on that .

Now what is the actual break down on TOTAL fluke in the ocean .
Are 50% less than 18” and 50% larger than 18”
Or are 85% under 18” and 15% over 18”

IMO the 18” limit was the magic number to have us fishing for a smaller body of fish .
If the limit was 16 1/2” right now everyone would be saying it’s the best fluke fishing ever as LOTS of guys are catching boat loads of 17-17 1/2” fish .

Very possibly the same amount of fish caught as in the 90’s . Just less keepers

What is the actual breakdown of fluke fry, are they 50/50 or are their naturally more female fry .
A great deal of real research needs to be done either scenario . It’s time a more accurate understanding of what’s really going on is done .

As in either scenario the 18” limit is a mistake .

But it needs to be done using real data , not estimates...
.

[dakota560]

Tom as you know we brought this info right into that original meeting when I said to Kirby if we had to rely on his estimates as the only available science .
Their own data proved their increase in size limit was what was hurting the fishery .
If their data was correct all your charts show it again ten fold .

But let’s look at it a few other ways .
Their numbers on catches on recreational side are estimates, not factual.
Their trawl studies are compounded estimates, ( what proof is there they were getting an accurate trawl study ?)
No matter what system is used trying to quantify recreational catch as I mentioned will be based on estimates at best and subject to scrutiny which is why the new MRIP is as arbitrary as the old system used and why recreational should never have been penalized 40%. In my opinion, and I know we disagree on this, last years fluking in the ocean was the worst in many years. May, June, July were horrible and only August through the September close were respectable. My son and I had three fluke charters cancelled because the fluking was so bad. I know you put a lot of effort into fluking, know commercial guys with information and have a strong network so I wouldn't base the average year for most on your results. Most people would agree '18 was a down year fluking yet with the new MRIP we get penalized 40%.

Only REAL data we have is commercial harvest.
Relative to recreational I agree commercial has a process, in and of itself as far as how accurate that process is I couldn't disagree more. We know what's counted, we don't know what's not. Remember it ONLY took 30 years for F&G to find out Carlos Raphael aka "Codfather" under reported 800,000 lbs of fish over a three year period and had been doing so for over 30 years. Only reason F&G found out is because IRS brought them in under a money laundering sting operation when he was attempting to sell his business. Commercial catch I would argue with dead discards and unreported catches is less accurate than recreational because that's where the money is and it's almost entirely on the honor system with limited enforcement resources.
Actual count .(historical data)

IMO that is more accurate data than estimates .
Commercial guys I know that have fished our area for over 30 years have 30 years of actual landings.

So do a lot of recreational guys. Commercial harvest limits went from a high of ~22.2 million fish in 1988 to ~2.6 million in 2017, last year of data in 66th SAW. And as mentioned in the assessment, the biomass is more heavily concentrated than ever in our own back yard so your comments support the data in the assessment.

Up until four seasons ago their fluking season had them fishing from BI TO FIRE ISLAND to meet their quotas.
In the last four seasons they are catching their quota within 10 miles of port. In the last four years their quotas have been slashed significantly by as much as 50% as have recreational, don't forget that point. BUT as I mentioned, the ex-vessel price has increased so much their catch values are greater today even based on reduced catch. It's called supply and demand elasticty pricing. Check out the attached chart.

And in other seasons they can’t get away from the fluke while working other species. More fluke than ever in their careers.

Same answer as above

How can NMFS numbers be accurate based on that.
I actually believe NMFS numbers support your arguments. Question for you, how can any fishery go from overall catch of 90% of sexually immature fish to in excess of 95% of sexually mature fish and sustain itself with most of those fish per the Rutgers Sex and Length Study known to be female breeders. Only one answer.....it can't. There's ~650 commercial boats targeting fluke in the 13 major ports making up the Mid-Atlantic region, tell me what impact the commercial harvest that size fleet is having on a highly concentrated biomass of fish during it's primary spawn. When someone can answer that question with data and facts, I'll stop bringing up the 90% decline in relative recruitment strength and the long term impact it's having on reproduction and this fishery.

Now what is the actual break down on TOTAL fluke in the ocean.
Are 50% less than 18” and 50% larger than 18”
Or are 85% under 18” and 15% over 18”

Have no idea but common sense a harvest consisting of ~95% sexually mature fish, with a substantial amount of that catch being females and the remainder larger males will not sustain any fishery with the pressure this one has on it. Based on what you catch, they're all 27" females. Based on what everyone else catches, they're all 17 7/8" and 75%/25% females / males.

IMO the 18” limit was the magic number to have us fishing for a smaller body of fish .
If the limit was 16 1/2” right now everyone would be saying it’s the best fluke fishing ever as LOTS of guys are catching boat loads of 17-17 1/2” fish.

I agree, as with everything NMFS related, the 18" size was a means of managing catch and nothing else. There's been no remedial measures I'm aware of ever taken other than catch management through reduced quotas, shortened seasons, increased size limits and decreased possession limits. What else has been done.....nothing.

Very possibly the same amount of fish caught as in the 90’s . Just less keepers

What is the actual breakdown of fluke fry, are they 50/50 or are their naturally more female fry.
A great deal of real research needs to be done either scenario. It’s time a more accurate understanding of what’s really going on is done.
I disagree. What basis would there be to believe the mix of egg production between males and females has changed since SSB exploded higher between '89 and 2002? None. Nature will find a way if we stop
$?@#&*! with it.


As in either scenario the 18” limit is a mistake.

Couldn't agree more.

But it needs to be done using real data, not estimates.

We have a proven track record of what works over a 13-yr period, '89 - 2002. That's all we need. We will NEVER have acurate recreational catch data and as mentioned while I have faith in commercial catch that's counted, it's what's not counted that no one can quantify. It all comes down to recruitment and properly managing catch through trial and error. We have the answer but for some reason opted to ignore and deviate from it in the early 2000's. We need to work our way back thoughtfully to the regulations we had in place then around a 14 - 15.50 size with more liberal possession limits. Not suggesting we immediately go back to the same catch quotas from those years, we should assess impact on recruitment and adjust once we see SSB increasing. We should also close commercial harvest commensurate with recreational's season end in September through late October or preferably late November for a few years until the 25-year collapse in R relative to SSB has been corrected. Not doing so is negligent management on NMFS and ASMFC's behalf. How they can say recruitment is down for six years, don't know why and simultaneously propose a 40% increase in commercials harvest in '19 is unconscienable. Sorry I'm not going to play politics, the fact that's being proposed is disconcerting.

[hammer4reel]

Here’s why actual catches say different .
Recs claim bad seasons , commercial guys claim lots of fish around .

What changed WE THROW ALL FISH UNDER 18” BACK 100%.
They still can keep that size fish as their size limit didn’t change.
All fish we used to keep are now there for them to catch .
A mixed catch of some females and ALL the males .

While we fish for the smallest piece of the pie , that is also being targeted by the commercial fleet .
The whole pie.


What every scenario agrees on is 18” is the wrong size for the fishery.
It doesn’t equally split the harvest between commercial and recreational fisherman.
18” makes us keep too many females while having a large mortality charged on throwbacks .

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results .

IMO all three scenarios show the size limit should be reduced to 17”

Been saying that for 3 years and it falls on deaf ears .


As far as fluking last year . We had another great season, as did many of our friends .
Ask Jerry if he thinks there are no fish around , as you know it’s a daily crush for guys working that find the body of fish .
His catches daily showed there were plenty of fish around.

.

[Capt Sal]

Here’s why actual catches say different .
Recs claim bad seasons , commercial guys claim lots of fish around .

What changed WE THROW ALL FISH UNDER 18” BACK 100%.
They still can keep that size fish as their size limit didn’t change.
All fish we used to keep are now there for them to catch .
A mixed catch of some females and ALL the males .

While we fish for the smallest piece of the pie , that is also being targeted by the commercial fleet .
The whole pie.


What every scenario agrees on is 18” is the wrong size for the fishery.
It doesn’t equally split the harvest between commercial and recreational fisherman.
18” makes us keep too many females while having a large mortality charged on throwbacks .

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results .

IMO all three scenarios show the size limit should be reduced to 17”

Been saying that for 3 years and it falls on deaf ears .


As far as fluking last year . We had another great season, as did many of our friends .
Ask Jerry if he thinks there are no fish around , as you know it’s a daily crush for guys working to find the body of fish .

.
I think the mortality rate is very high. It is a shame to release 17'' fluke that swallowed the hook and you know they won't make it.

[dakota560]

Here’s why actual catches say different .
Recs claim bad seasons , commercial guys claim lots of fish around .

What changed WE THROW ALL FISH UNDER 18” BACK 100%.
They still can keep that size fish as their size limit didn’t change.
All fish we used to keep are now there for them to catch .
A mixed catch of some females and ALL the males .

While we fish for the smallest piece of the pie , that is also being targeted by the commercial fleet .
The whole pie.


What every scenario agrees on is 18” is the wrong size for the fishery.
It doesn’t equally split the harvest between commercial and recreational fisherman.
18” makes us keep too many females while having a large mortality charged on throwbacks .

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results .

IMO all three scenarios show the size limit should be reduced to 17”

Been saying that for 3 years and it falls on deaf ears .


As far as fluking last year . We had another great season, as did many of our friends .
Ask Jerry if he thinks there are no fish around , as you know it’s a daily crush for guys working that find the body of fish .
His catches daily showed there were plenty of fish around.

.

GZ or JP? If you meant Gerry Z, I should ask Joey since he says he always catches more fish and is Mom's favorite. Asking JP is senseless since he catches 1,000 fish every trip not matter what the species. Have nothing but respect for him and his operation but he has too have sold his soul to the devil to post the numbers he does and is certainly not representative of an average angler's daily catch. Again most anglers (and please chime in here) in my opinion would say '18 was a tough season only bailed out with the fosh that came in during August and the stub period we had in September. Like I said, we had three fluke charters cancelled with reputable charters cancelled because the fishing was that bad.

I agree with everything stated above other than 17" size. Based on Rutgers study, that size translates to about a 70/30 ratio females to males, still way too high. And remember these are minimum sizes, size harvested is always greater. At 15.5" in Rutgers study, ratio of males to females was basically 50/50. A 15.5" male is about a 4 year old fish and sexually mature, a 15.5" female about 3 years old since they grow faster and also sexually mature. We need to get the harvest back to younger fish either sexually immature or with substantially less egg production capacity to jump start recruitment and get SSB tredning back in the right direction. The population of larger breeders (both males but especially females) who have maintained this fishery for years has to be rebuilt before anything changes. Again '19 proposed regulations are digging the hole deeper.

[dales529]

I think the mortality rate is very high. It is a shame to release 17'' fluke that swallowed the hook and you know they won't make it.

Capt Sal as an experienced Charter guy I will take you at your word but WHY in todays age of tackle would a 17" fish have to swallow a hook. I fish on many Charters ans PB boats and ALL fish released swim to live another day.
Now if you are saying that an occasional 17" fish swallowed a hook well thats different story but not the dead discard NOAA says at 33%

[hammer4reel]

According to this article were getting screwed for a 3 year period this time.

Betting the Overfishing is the mortality rate they charge us with throwing back shorts, at what they claim is 33%..


https://www.app.com/story/sports/outdoors/fishing/hook-line-and-sinker/2019/03/14/summer-flounder-big-quota-bump-wont-mean-more-fish-anglers/3153388002/


.
think its time for a few hundred to show up at another council meeting , and push for a slot fish as we suggested 3 seasons ago .

>

[dakota560]

Slot is one of many things which needs to be presented and discussed and we need data to support our arguments otherwise as before they'll simply be viewed as opinions and fall on deaf ears. Believe me when I tell you this, the proposed regs we were just handed will further hurt this fishery, that's the primary fact we need to speak to. Not just for recreationals, not just for commercials (even if they benefitted from a 40% increase), not for Party and or For Hire Charters but for returning this fishery to a healthy sustainable stock for everyone. We need to organize and not just show up and I'd be happy to work with the powers to be to coordinate that effort. If collectively we don't change our focus from a short term year over year to a long term remediation plan to rebuild this fishery back to health, we're simply going through the motions and becoming more and more frustrated each passing season.

[hammer4reel]

Slot is one of many things which needs to be presented and discussed and we need data to support our arguments otherwise as before they'll simply be viewed as opinions and fall on deaf ears. Believe me when I tell you this, the proposed regs we were just handed will further hurt this fishery, that's the primary fact we need to speak to. Not just for recreationals, not just for commercials (even if they benefitted from a 40% increase), not for Party and or For Hire Charters but for returning this fishery to a healthy sustainable stock for everyone. We need to organize and not just show up and I'd be happy to work with the powers to be to coordinate that effort. If collectively we don't change our focus from a short term year over year to a long term remediation plan to rebuild this fishery back to health, we're simply going through the motions and becoming more and more frustrated each passing season.

Totally agree .
Imo all available info no matter which they want to look at show the 18" size limit is only going to continue to hurt this fishery .
Being given a 33 % mortality on throwbacks makes no sense to continue throwing back fish for Zero gain .

.
.

[Capt Sal]

Capt Sal as an experienced Charter guy I will take you at your word but WHY in todays age of tackle would a 17" fish have to swallow a hook. I fish on many Charters ans PB boats and ALL fish released swim to live another day.
Now if you are saying that an occasional 17" fish swallowed a hook well thats different story but not the dead discard NOAA says at 33%
Not all 17'' fluke swallow the hook. Not every angler uses a large bucktail or a bigger hook with Gulp.There are many novice anglers on private,party,and charter boats. Many people fish Raritan Bay and the preferred bait are killies on a kalin hook.I agree a larger hook should be used.It ia proven fact that 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. Not every boat owner has the ability to fish the ''sticky stuff'' with bucktails.It is the same on a head boat.Lot of snags and many anglers do not buck tail. Most PB capts do not even cary small kalin -off set English hooks.It is the same for stripers.Once you have a limit it should be all circle hooks.