Winter Flounder report

[Brewlugger]

I hit up Shark river early yesterday morning. There was a few guys trying but it wasn't happening. I then drove down to a spot by the Metedeconk, got a couple taps at first but didn't hookup. I tried Island Heights briefly nothing doing. This morning I hit up a spot by Bayhead and it was dead. It was good to get out at least and I met some nice fellow Fisherfolk. I'm gonna keep trying.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Thanks for the report Brew.... Those Fludies are worth the effort even at 2 fish per person, YUMMMM>

[ESFISH]

Looked at my old log book from March 12 1997 and had 32 keepers and ran out of sandworms (only had 3 dozen) off the dental works in Raritan Bay and the water temp. was 38 and it just got better after that until the bluefish showed up.Times have sure changed.

[Reel Class]

I hit up Shark river early yesterday morning. There was a few guys trying but it wasn't happening. I then drove down to a spot by the Metedeconk, got a couple taps at first but didn't hookup. I tried Island Heights briefly nothing doing. This morning I hit up a spot by Bayhead and it was dead. It was good to get out at least and I met some nice fellow Fisherfolk. I'm gonna keep trying.

The taps could've been perch

[Brewlugger]

I gave it another shot today. I fished for 4hrs near Mantoloking. Caught the skunk again, didn't get a touch. I'm hoping to try again next week. In response to those that responded. Gerry, your welcome I really appreciate the reports and sharing here and I'm looking forward to eating some fresh fish if I can catch some? ESFISH, sadly Flounder fishing isn't what it was. It seems to me the run is later and shorter now. When I was a kid my father wouldn't let me keep more than 40, now the limit is 2. Captain Allen, it may have been White Perch? No telling if you don't hook them. Thanks for the comeback guys.

[Duffman]

Even tho ya got the skunk.....cool as hell reading a WF report! Thanks.

[Merle31483]

They should start showing up in shark river shortly as long as this weather don't dive back down to the teens again and then it will be the start of warmer weather and the winter blues and cabin fever going away for the next 9 months

[Ice Cream Bill]

Guys:

If you ever get a chance, go fishing with Bruce (Brewlugger). He’s a great guy and very knowledgeable angler. Like me, he loves fishing for winter flounder.
I’ve had the opportunity to fish with him the past several years in the Glen Rock Fishing Club. Keep the reports coming.

Tight Lines Bruce!

Bill

[Capt Sal]

In 1998 did many charters in Raritan Bay for winter Flounder.Some outstanding catches of over 100 flounder for a six man charter. Twenty short years and look at what we have now!I am sure it was the hook and line that caused this not netting!Must have been the recs. that wiped out the whiting also.

[Capt.Yasar]

I'm hoping to try again next week.

I'm also planning for next Saturday morning if we can meet-up somewhere that would be awesome. Honestly... I've been waiting for some Winter Flounder reports; but have to get out now, wet a line and hopefully catch some delicious flatties :)

[kpfish]

I tried the Manasquan for almost two hours Sunday with no luck. Water was 43 degrees. Pretty clear. Decent amount of monkey snot. Windy conditions gusting to better than 20mph at times.

[rumster]

Going tomorrow. Will post how i make out.

[rumster]

Fished the Bayhead, Mantalokin area Tuesday for 5 hours without so much as a touch..... Used sands and bloods.

[rumster]

Tried Shark River today with similar results as yesterday. Fished the last 2 hours of the outgoing tide with bloods and sands along with 8 other guys and not one fish was caught.... Where are the floundas???

[porgylber]

Tried Shark River today with similar results as yesterday. Fished the last 2 hours of the outgoing tide with bloods and sands along with 8 other guys and not one fish was caught.... Where are the floundas???

They are hanging out with the whiting, and the ling, and the cod, and the weakfish, and the mackerel and the yellow fin tuna.

[WhaleFart]

I fish for flounder more in April, last year I caught bass, blackfish, fluke, all in April but not a single flounder in the spots I normally did well.

I notice that 3 days of sunny sky’s and warm temps get them going, last great flounder bite I had was back in 2010 where I caught probably 30 fish in a few hours, kept my 2, but on a freshwater rod it was awesome.

[AndyS]

No flounder, whiting, can't fish for sea bass. Tuna are scarce, fluke are moving north, stripers are ready to crash. I say bring on the saltwater license, at least we will have nice boat ramps.

[rumster]

In my opinion when it comes down to Shark River, I believe the poor fishing in the Spring is the result of the fyke net located in the southwest corner of the river. How in this day and age some jerkoff has the abilty to put that net there taking into consideration the fishery is sickening...They have been around in good numbers the last 4 years in the Fall, but there not many in the Spring.

[bulletbob]

This looks pretty bad.. Water should be in the lower 40's by this time, and if the weather is sunny, and the water clear, there is no reason there should not be some flounder being caught this late in March. Unless of course they just aren't there.
Granted, March is not usually a "hot" month for flounder, but its when it starts in earnest, or should start in earnest.. ... I used to do best from the first week or so of April until mid May, when the blues got thick, and the flounder headed for the deeper offshore water.. Very interested in how this plays out.. I have been hoping for a modest comeback for years, but it just never seems to happen... bob

..

[bassnblues]

I think sometimes we look at the good old days of flounder fishing with rose colored glasses. I remember quite a few days as a kid freezing my ass off in a tin boat on the navesink with my dad catching squat.

[bulletbob]

I think sometimes we look at the good old days of flounder fishing with rose colored glasses. I remember quite a few days as a kid freezing my ass off in a tin boat on the navesink with my dad catching squat.

Navesink never was as good as the Shrewsbury or Shark rivers for flounder, and they tended to bail out of there early... None of the river fisheries ever came close to Raritan Bay in my opinion , others might disagree... bob

[Gumada]

I remember the daggers scouring the rivers and bay all winter long pulling the flounder and anything else right out of the mud ! Kind of reminds me of the fluke offshore, no ?:mad:

[bassnblues]

Navesink never was as good as the Shrewsbury or Shark rivers for flounder, and they tended to bail out of there early... None of the river fisheries ever came close to Raritan Bay in my opinion , others might disagree... bob

Behind the quay restraunt was supposed to be the hotspot.

Round shoal was the place when they had a little resurgence in the 90s. Had a boat slipped in keyport then.

[hammer4reel]

shark river in a tin boat was a blast, and caught way more flounder than we should have back when it was good,
IMO only reason its not good now is the river is 95% silted in.


Did very well this time of year up until the 2 fish closure fishing keyport flats , then moving out to the cedars later in the season.


Been a decade already , thinking it could be good again, but few guys are going to spend what it costs to chum them up for 2 fish each.


.

[John D.]

I remember marine park in red bank was the best early season spot around st Patty’s day. Regulars used dog food and corn for chum at the pier. Then in mid April the parking lot at rum runner restaurant in the shrewsbury river. No joke, you had to throw the same weight as everyone....it was wall to wall over 70 yds and walk it down with the tide and usually you had a flattie by 50 yds. During slack, everyone was on quickly. 40 catch days were the norm when it wasn’t muddy. I miss those days and we did all take more than we should have back then. It seemed limitless.

[NoLimit]

It was limitless - decade after decade until the staggers found their offshore spots

[dakota560]

It was limitless - decade after decade until the draggers found their offshore spots

Bingo! Fished Shark River my entire life and even though it's more silted today then it was in the 60's / 70's there were flounder everywhere and should be today except for one reason.......they're gone. The fyke net, trawling for blue claw crabs and flounder aren't helping but believe that fyke net was there back in the day when the fishery was thriving. The biomass has been destroyed and not by recreational anglers. And it hasn't moved north because Quincy Ma. while showing signs of rebounding recently has tanked as well. We fished Shark River every year even throughout the winter and caught fish. Spring flounder fishing always marked the beginning of the year for salt like opening day trout does for fresh water. It was incredible fishing, fish of every size....the ultimate sign of a healthy fishery. Outgoing tide was the best but you caught fish on the colder incoming as well. Manasquan, Barnegat and Sandy Hook were all the same, massive amounts of flounder. It's over just like every other fishery targeted by commercials. Even with a large recreational harvest these fisheries thgrived. When commercials got involved with flounder with off shore harvest during the summer, it was done. Why, for the very same reason that destroys every fishery they target. Relentless netting of larger fish and killing reproduction to en extent the fishery is no longer sustainable. Year after year you could count on flounder, many have no idea how consistently good it was. And like weakfish, cod, whiting, ling, mackerel, herring, porgies until only recently, bluefish, fluke, stripers, sharks, tuna, tile fish etc. reckless harvest by foreign and domestic commercials operations destroyed every one. I remember buying fresh bunker once at Belford Co Op and going into the storage area to fill a cooler for chunking bass in the spring. There were tote after tote of the largest flounder you've ever seen. Any fishery that has year round pressure and a commercial proce on it's head is doomed in the absence of regulations to protect the resource and in particular the spawn. With a 2-fish minimum in place for all these years, flounder should be at all time highs but they're not. That's how exploited this fishery was. And even if it did rebound, a blood or sand worm would cost you $1.50 each to fish for them since they were commerciallly over harvested as well. Read up on elvers and what happened to that fishery by commercial netting and being sold overseas for enormous profits. Commercials have rights like recreational to harvest the ocean's resources but they shouldn't have greater rights or the right to destroy an entire ecosystem at everyone else's expense. Until fisheries managment grasp that concept, every species with commercial value is at risk. NJ had an 8 fish limit at 18" ten years ago and now were faced with 3 at 18", NMFS themselves say recruitment is down for the last six years when from a relative perspective in fact it's down for closer to 25 - 30 years compared to SSB. YET fisheries management gives commercials a 40% increase in catch quota for '19. Say no more.

[hammer4reel]

Tom, I think the reason there aren't fish in shark river is because its about 95% silted in.
The places we used to fish have less than a foot of water on them at high tide.
even the marinas are silted in . Parking lot dust brought in by all the mall storm drains
Wish they could do the right thing for the river and dredge it in entirety.
would be good for another hundred years.

all the unlimited fishing as well as the commercial fishing def hurt these fish .
Now their spawing grounds are totally destroyed.
centuries of fish going there , to now find a mud wall.

I would like to HOPE the fishery in the bay is rebuilding. as said its been a decade.
Only way to find out would be to spend a considerable amount of money on chum and give it a try.
.
Def miss those days of starting the season early spring.

.

[dakota560]

Tom, I think the reason there aren't fish in shark river is because its about 95% silted in.
The places we used to fish have less than a foot of water on them at high tide.
even the marinas are silted in . Parking lot dust brought in by all the mall storm drains
Wish they could do the right thing for the river and dredge it in entirety.
would be good for another hundred years.

all the unlimited fishing as well as the commercial fishing def hurt these fish .
Now their spawing grounds are totally destroyed.
centuries of fish going there , to now find a mud wall.

I would like to HOPE the fishery in the bay is rebuilding. as said its been a decade.
Only way to find out would be to spend a considerable amount of money on chum and give it a try.
.
Def miss those days of starting the season early spring.

.

Dan while I agree with you about Shark River being it's such a small body of water, I disagree with you about the health of the fishery up and down the coast and overall cause of the fisheries decline. Looks at the attached charts and it's the same problems hurting the summer flounder fishery.

There's two regions involved with winter flounder, Gulf of MAine (GOM) and Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) which is more our back yard. The attached chart represent SNE/MA, our immediate area.

First chart, look at the increase in commercial landings between 1976 and 1982. Approximately 7.5 million pounds to approximately 25 million pounds, an increase of 17.5 million pounds or over a 200% in a 6-yr time frame. This is when the fishery began it's collapse. Important to point out like summer flounder, winter flounder attain sexual maturity at age 3 but unlike summer flounder are smaller, slower growing and appproximately only 7"-9" in length at age 3. Once filleted probably not even marketable. So assume larger fish were being harvested like the ones I witnessed at the Belford Co-Op, all older sexually mature fish, breeders and the future of the fishery. Also notice the disproportionate relationship between recreational and commercial harvest (black versus yellow bars), in particular from 1990 through current. The 2 fish recreational limit was imposed in 2010 so today's harvest is for all practical purposes almost entirely commercial.

Second chart is a trend of Young of the Year "YOY" and age class fish 2 years old from Ct. It's an indictment on recruitment, both trends show recruitment and 2 year old fish have been annihalated over the last 30-yr period. In fact, they're both at historically low levels over the last 30-yr period.

Last chart almost identical to summer flounder trend, approximately 65,000,000 eggs produced in 1980 on a Spawning Stock Biomass "SSB" of almost 20,000 metric tons declining to approximately 5,000,000 eggs produced in 2010 relative to an SSB of approximately 7,000 metric tons. That translates to a decrease of approximately 92% in eggs produced or 60 million less eggs annually relative to an approximate 65% decrease in SSB. Larger fish being harvested, recruitment being destroyed and recreational catch limits being cut to a point where it's not worth the effort to fish for flounder any longer. EXACT cycle we're in with the summer flounder fishery.

Based on the above statistics, I would bet the fishery in the bay is not rebuilding since recruitment means everything to salt water fisheries and it's been destroyed. Just note the decrease in recruitment on the last chart. It's not possible for the fishery to rebuild without strong natural reproduction in spite of draconian cuts in catch levels. Sound familiar?

[hammer4reel]

Those charts show the crash , any current charts since we went to 2 fish and everyone stopped fishing for them ?’

As the last year we had the larger limit fishing was still pretty good in the bay .

.

[dakota560]

I'll look. My response was directed at the entire fishery, and if you look at the data for the Gulf of Maine the trend is the same. I took your post to be more directed to Shark River and the back bay conditions which I agree with, my reply was directed towards the state of the overall fishery and reasons for it's demise.

[John D.]

It doesn’t matter at this point. I am more curious if the stocks are rebuilding. Take shark river out as there are unique and specific reasons why that fishery is off in addition to the biomass.

Look, I know some try for flounder in raritan bay and the rivers. Without saying something stupid, can anyone say the action is getting better while theyfish for their 2 fish limit? It’s been quite a number of years since the limit was put in place...is it working?

[dakota560]

Those charts show the crash , any current charts since we went to 2 fish and everyone stopped fishing for them ?’

As the last year we had the larger limit fishing was still pretty good in the bay .

.

Dan based on the attached, it's gotten worse as I would expect. Yet we still allow commercial harvest while recreational harvest is a negligble number. Following information comes from Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2018 Winter Flounder Specifications published 2/6/18. Data runs through 2016, latest assessment information I was able to find.

First chart, SSB is lower in '16 than '10 and trending down.

Second chart illustrates SSB in the same light. Not sure what their definition of Exploitation is, I assume it means beyond some threshhold catch level, but it's trending in the wrong direction and can't be positive. What I find unusual about this chart is the caption upper left where it says "Stock is over fished" followed by "Overfishing is not occuring". What I take that to mean is the fishery has already been destroyed but with an Annual Catch Limit "ACL" set so low landings are coming in within quota which is extremely misleading. It's the equivalent of saying the fishery is closed and no overfishing is currently occurring.

Third chart illustrates the point of how far ACL has fallen, approximately 53,000,000 lbs. in 1981 versus approximately 3,000,000 lbs. in 2016 and since early 2000's almost all of it from commercial harvest. That's more than a 95% decrease in annual catch and SSB and recruitment continue declining just like what we're seeing with summer flounder. Why? Reproductive strength of SSB has been destroyed.

Last chart is the composition of ACL between commercial landings, commercial discards, recreational landings and recreational discards from 1981 - 2016. Look at the trend of recreational catch (orange) to commercial catch (blue) and how it changed over that 36-yr period. More important, notice the relationship of commercial discards to commercial catch in years 2009 - 2012. Commercial discards averaged 100% to commercial landings in '09 and '10 and were approximately 200% and 380% of landings in '11 and '12 respectively. The two years subsequent to recreational possession limits being reduced to 2 fish daily. Think about those percentages of discards and tell me how much of these valuable resources are being wasted offshore as a result of commercial harvest. This fishery has been mismanaged to the brink of collapse and is not coming back anytime soon. Large breeders were targeted, egg production and SSB were destroyed in the process and remedial measures were never adopted to address the obvious problem. Lot of science, lot of data but prudent decisions were never made for the health of the fishery. Fishery should be completely closed to everyone for five years until SSB and recruitment are rebuilt. As I've mentioned before, everyone has a right to harvest a resource BUT no singular group reserves that right at the expense of the resource itself. That's exactly whats happened here. Absolutely amazing statistics and tragic what's happened to this fishery because of power and greed.

[dakota560]

It doesn’t matter at this point. I am more curious if the stocks are rebuilding. Take shark river out as there are unique and specific reasons why that fishery is off in addition to the biomass.

Look, I know some try for flounder in raritan bay and the rivers. Without saying something stupid, can anyone say the action is getting better while theyfish for their 2 fish limit? It’s been quite a number of years since the limit was put in place...is it working?

John the 2-fish limit isn't working and no the biomass and recruitment isn't improving. Just posted the reasons why. Question for the site, recreational harvest didn't cause the problem, increase in commercial catch in the absolute and with larger sexually mature fish did. So how can adjusting the recreational possession limit improve matters if that's wasn't the issue creating the decline to begin with? That's a question NMFS should answer. It's like closing the fishery down and telling recreational we now have a 10 fish limit. Fail to understand the logic in many of their decisions.

[Capt Sal]

FYI the Belford Pirates use to drag Raritan Bay for winter flounder.It was illegal but way back when they got a slap on the wrist.Many nets were cut loose and are on the bottom of the bay.Like i have been saying for decades ''The two most useless things in Belford are a Library and a dentist office".

[stevelikes2fish]

Perhaps the flounder habitat is changing, much like so many others specia. Perhaps look around other areas for winter flounder, different time of the year, maybe out in the deep.........

[bowhunter]

I was at a tackle shop yesterday Sandworms were 9.99 a dozen and Bloods were 13.99. WOW

[Jigman13]

I was at a tackle shop yesterday Sandworms were 9.99 a dozen and Bloods were 13.99. WOW

That's crazy. Costs a lot to have them shipped here from Maine.

[John D.]

Dakota,

I am curious if there is better “action” in raritan bay and the rivers the past few years. Sure, most do not make the time, cost, effort commitment with a 2 fish limit but there are some that do....just curious if it has even gotten marginally better. These fish were being wiped out by the comms long beforethe early 1990s. People didn’t magically start loving flounder which increased the retail demand. The commercial netting interest has always existed, yet the species thrived.

[NoLimit]

It doesn’t matter at this point. I am more curious if the stocks are rebuilding. Take shark river out as there are unique and specific reasons why that fishery is off in addition to the biomass.

Look, I know some try for flounder in raritan bay and the rivers. Without saying something stupid, can anyone say the action is getting better while theyfish for their 2 fish limit? It’s been quite a number of years since the limit was put in place...is it working?

No it’s not

[hammer4reel]

Tom , I think between those charts , the fluke charts , striped bass charts it’s time everyone involved is fired , and replaced.

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

[teddysclaw]

Dakota,

I am curious if there is better “action” in raritan bay and the rivers the past few years. Sure, most do not make the time, cost, effort commitment with a 2 fish limit but there are some that do....just curious if it has even gotten marginally better. These fish were being wiped out by the comms long beforethe early 1990s. People didn’t magically start loving flounder which increased the retail demand. The commercial netting interest has always existed, yet the species thrived.

The technology behind netting fish has gotten significantly better and more efficient. And the number of draggers have increased. So better, stronger, faster equipment + more draggers = huge increase in harvested flundies and sad fishermen

[dakota560]

.LTom , I think between those charts , the fluke charts , striped bass charts it’s time everyone involved is fired , and replaced.

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

I know this will piss some people off but I've spent a considerable amount of personal time the last three years educating myself about various fisheries, understanding the process and fisheries management bureaucracy which is ultimately responsible for the health of every fishery and analyzed oceans of data published in an effort to identify trends which could lead to remedial measures nursing these fisheries back to health. I had what I now believe to be false hope that my work could and would have a positive impact on the various and many groups which depend on these fisheries and assist regulatory agencies and industry associations in that endeavor. What I've found instead is a process in my opinion so broken, disjointed with so many personal and political agendas among state and federal governments that it makes the health care system seem relatively simple and straight-forward.

Fishery management, as complicated as it is, has one primary goal and that's to manage fisheries to a level of health and sustainability. There's a lot of sub headings that fall under that statement but in the end that's what we expect from fisheries management and the governing Councils. I agree with Dan's comments that heads should roll which will stir the pot but the pot needs to be stirred otherwise nothing will change and Washington will continue focusing on "Commerce" at the public's expense "aka the recreational angler" and associated businesses dependent on them including party boats and for hire charter businesses. What's happened to the winter flounder fishery (which is the same thing happening to the summer flounder fishery) is nothing short of gross negligence, it's unconscionable how these two fisheries have been and continue to be mismanaged.

John D to your question look at the first chart attached regarding winter flounder harvest from 1960 - 2016. Notice the lbs. harvested in '81 in excess of 40 million lbs. as well as the amounts harvested during the '80 - '83 time-frame which coincided with the extreme drop off in Recruitment (egg production) and SSB (reference second chart). 80% of the harvest in '81 for the Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic "SNEMA" region represented commercial and 20% recreational. Page 35 of the "2018 Winter Flounder Specifications" document in the attached link illustrates that percentage.

http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2018WinterMeeting/WinterFlounderBoardPresentations.pdf

Also reference page 13 in particular Recruitment, Spawning Stock Biomass and Special Comments section of the Winter Flounder 52nd Stock Assessment Workshop[ (last graph) specifying weak recruitment levels and their comment "If the weak recruitment and low reproductive rate continues, productivity and rebuilding of the stock will be less than projected." This excerpt was written in 2017, recruitment has been declining since 1980 for winter flounder from ~63 million eggs in '81 to ~7 million in 2010. That's a 90% absolute decline in recruitment statistics over a 30-yr period and the best management can say is "IF". Almost 40 years later fisheries management still haven't figured it out, isn't any more well versed understanding it or have a well thought out comprehensive plan to address it. Their entire focus has been catch which to a large degree created the problem with on-going size limit increases and or over zealous catch quotas leading to the deterioration in recruitment. How is that remotely possible when we have multiple billion dollar industries futures hanging in the balance while the resources of the federal government in the case of both winter and summer flounder have done nothing remedial in the last 35-40 years to address the issue. Not only have they not addressed it, they've caused it. You can have all the models you want for Peer Review, but if they don't factor sex and length information into the equation I don't see how they can be useful guiding policy decisions in these fisheries. Egg production is a factor of age and sexual maturity, age and sexual maturity coincide with length yet as recruitment implodes in both winter and summer flounder stocks fisheries management simply continues increasing size limits for recreational and market prices continue increasing the harvest of larger fish for commercials to compensate for significant cuts over the years in catch quotas.

Review the third graph reflecting SNEMA landings and compare commercial landings and discards to recreational in general but in particular in '81, ~16,000,000 metric tons for commercial versus ~3 million metric tons for recreational. How's that for an equitable allocation of a shared resource.

Next review the fourth chart from Ct. DEP illustrating size and age of winter flounder.. Flounder reach sexual maturity around age 3-4 which per the chart are fish averaging 11"- 12". Age 1-2 year old fish average 5"- 8". How many fillets from 5"- 8" inch fish do you think are brought to market? They're killed in the tow and tossed back dead which should be the future of the fishery while mature breeders are being harvested.

Will leave you with these statistics from the SNEMA Stock Assessment. In 2013, Winter Flounder Catch for Assessment was published at 1,074 metric tons, 1,063 metric tons commercial, 11 recreational or ~1% of the overall regional harvest. In '15, catch was 749 metric tons, 737 commercial, 12 recreational. In '16, catch was published to be 678 metric tons, commercial 643, recreational 35. Again good thing our possession limit was changed in 2010 to a 2-fish daily limit since our sacrifices are giving way to once again an extremely equitable allocation of a shared resource between commercial and recreational interests.

The winter flounder biomass hasn't moved to areas unknown, it's moved to fish Co-Op's, Wegmans, Whole Foods, restaurants and Sushi markets. It's gone, SSB destroyed in the process taking recruitment with it yet we continue to allow commercial harvest without remedial measures being considered to protect the spawn and rebuild the biomass. Remember this all started in the early 80's so don't want to hear about global warming, fish moving north, environmental issues or predatory impacts since this happened quickly and for obvious reasons. This is a problem fisheries management should have seen coming a mile away but chose to ignore, take a passive approach and do nothing proactive to prevent it so now the fishery for all practical purposes is lost to recreational anglers, a shadow of what it used to be for commercial operators and will continue being so for the foreseeable future. Over 40 million pounds harvested in '81 and ~2.5 million pounds harvested in '16, an absolute debacle. For a species which primarily releases their eggs in estuaries and not off shore, after ~38 years of recruitment tanking for no one from NMFS, ASMFC or MAMFC to understand why or have proactively put measures in place to prevent it's extensive decline is why I agree wholesale changes need to occur at the management level of these fisheries. The process is beyond broken. I'm not sure whose at fault but collectively management of the winter and summer flounder fisheries has been a complete failure. 40% increase in harvest for commercials in '19 when the same problems lingers with summer flounder which appeared on the radar screen with winter flounder back in the 80's is inexcusable. Another fishery that's going to be lost if measures aren't implemented sooner than later to rebuild recruitment and circumvent the continued decline of SSB in both fisheries.

I'm absolutely disgusted. If this is going to fall on deaf ears, it's not worth the effort and a lot of businesses and people's livelihoods are going to unfortunately continue suffering the consequences of bad management while the people making the policy decisions causing the carnage feel no impact financially or economically. Where's the accountability in all this, data couldn't be any clearer, it's the decisions making process that's completely clouded.

[NoLimit]

.l

i know this will piss some people off but i've spent a considerable amount of personal time the last three years educating myself about various fisheries, understanding the process and fisheries management bureaucracy which is ultimately responsible for the health of every fishery and analyzed oceans of data published in an effort to identify trends which could lead to remedial measures nursing these fisheries back to health. I had what i now believe to be false hope that my work could and would have a positive impact on the various and many groups which depend on these fisheries and assist regulatory agencies and industry associations in that endeavor. What i've found instead is a process in my opinion so broken, disjointed with so many personal and political agendas among state and federal governments that it makes the health care system seem relatively simple and straight-forward.

Fishery management, as complicated as it is, has one primary goal and that's to manage fisheries to a level of health and sustainability. There's a lot of sub headings that fall under that statement but in the end that's what we expect from fisheries management and the governing councils. I agree with dan's comments that heads should roll which will stir the pot but the pot needs to be stirred otherwise nothing will change and washington will continue focusing on "commerce" at the public's expense "aka the recreational angler" and associated businesses dependent on them including party boats and for hire charter businesses. What's happened to the winter flounder fishery (which is the same thing happening to the summer flounder fishery) is nothing short of gross negligence, it's unconscionable how these two fisheries have been and continue to be mismanaged.

John d to your question look at the first chart attached regarding winter flounder harvest from 1960 - 2016. Notice the lbs. Harvested in '81 in excess of 40 million lbs. As well as the amounts harvested during the '80 - '83 time-frame which coincided with the extreme drop off in recruitment (egg production) and ssb (reference second chart). 80% of the harvest in '81 for the southern new england / mid-atlantic "snema" region represented commercial and 20% recreational. Page 35 of the "2018 winter flounder specifications" document in the attached link illustrates that percentage.

http://www.asmfc.org/files/meetings/2018wintermeeting/winterflounderboardpresentations.pdf

also reference page 13 in particular recruitment, spawning stock biomass and special comments section of the winter flounder 52nd stock assessment workshop[ (last graph) specifying weak recruitment levels and their comment "if the weak recruitment and low reproductive rate continues, productivity and rebuilding of the stock will be less than projected." this excerpt was written in 2017, recruitment has been declining since 1980 for winter flounder from ~63 million eggs in '81 to ~7 million in 2010. That's a 90% absolute decline in recruitment statistics over a 30-yr period and the best management can say is "if". Almost 40 years later fisheries management still haven't figured it out, isn't any more well versed understanding it or have a well thought out comprehensive plan to address it. Their entire focus has been catch which to a large degree created the problem with on-going size limit increases and or over zealous catch quotas leading to the deterioration in recruitment. how is that remotely possible when we have multiple billion dollar industries futures hanging in the balance while the resources of the federal government in the case of both winter and summer flounder have done nothing remedial in the last 35-40 years to address the issue. Not only have they not addressed it, they've caused it. You can have all the models you want for peer review, but if they don't factor sex and length information into the equation i don't see how they can be useful guiding policy decisions in these fisheries. Egg production is a factor of age and sexual maturity, age and sexual maturity coincide with length yet as recruitment implodes in both winter and summer flounder stocks fisheries management simply continues increasing size limits for recreational and market prices continue increasing the harvest of larger fish for commercials to compensate for significant cuts over the years in catch quotas.

Review the third graph reflecting snema landings and compare commercial landings and discards to recreational in general but in particular in '81, ~16,000,000 metric tons for commercial versus ~3 million metric tons for recreational. How's that for an equitable allocation of a shared resource.

Next review the fourth chart from ct. Dep illustrating size and age of winter flounder.. Flounder reach sexual maturity around age 3-4 which per the chart are fish averaging 11"- 12". Age 1-2 year old fish average 5"- 8". How many fillets from 5"- 8" inch fish do you think are brought to market? They're killed in the tow and tossed back dead which should be the future of the fishery while mature breeders are being harvested.

Will leave you with these statistics from the snema stock assessment. in 2013, winter flounder catch for assessment was published at 1,074 metric tons, 1,063 metric tons commercial, 11 recreational or ~1% of the overall regional harvest. In '15, catch was 749 metric tons, 737 commercial, 12 recreational. In '16, catch was published to be 678 metric tons, commercial 643, recreational 35. again good thing our possession limit was changed in 2010 to a 2-fish daily limit since our sacrifices are giving way to once again an extremely equitable allocation of a shared resource between commercial and recreational interests.

The winter flounder biomass hasn't moved to areas unknown, it's moved to fish co-op's, wegmans, whole foods, restaurants and sushi markets. it's gone, ssb destroyed in the process taking recruitment with it yet we continue to allow commercial harvest without remedial measures being considered to protect the spawn and rebuild the biomass. remember this all started in the early 80's so don't want to hear about global warming, fish moving north, environmental issues or predatory impacts since this happened quickly and for obvious reasons. This is a problem fisheries management should have seen coming a mile away but chose to ignore, take a passive approach and do nothing proactive to prevent it so now the fishery for all practical purposes is lost to recreational anglers, a shadow of what it used to be for commercial operators and will continue being so for the foreseeable future. Over 40 million pounds harvested in '81 and ~2.5 million pounds harvested in '16, an absolute debacle. For a species which primarily releases their eggs in estuaries and not off shore, after ~38 years of recruitment tanking for no one from nmfs, asmfc or mamfc to understand why or have proactively put measures in place to prevent it's extensive decline is why i agree wholesale changes need to occur at the management level of these fisheries. The process is beyond broken. I'm not sure whose at fault but collectively management of the winter and summer flounder fisheries has been a complete failure. 40% increase in harvest for commercials in '19 when the same problems lingers with summer flounder which appeared on the radar screen with winter flounder back in the 80's is inexcusable. Another fishery that's going to be lost if measures aren't implemented sooner than later to rebuild recruitment and circumvent the continued decline of ssb in both fisheries.

I'm absolutely disgusted. If this is going to fall on deaf ears, it's not worth the effort and a lot of businesses and people's livelihoods are going to unfortunately continue suffering the consequences of bad management while the people making the policy decisions causing the carnage feel no impact financially or economically. Where's the accountability in all this, data couldn't be any clearer, it's the decisions making process that's completely clouded.


worth repeating!!!!!! The commercial draggers have exterminated winter flounder. PS: Where are the environmentalists on this issue. Here is a proven fact - a whole species of fish exterminated on their watch.

[bulletbob]

sobering statistics.. Problem is this.. When people willingly pay $20-$25 for a single in the round flounder and fluke, or $18 for a 15 inch sea bass, or $8 for a plastic wrapped 2 pack of porgies so rotten and stinky that they are a dark grey color with milky blue eyes and dark brown gills, we will never see any changes.. The fish are too valuable these days... The nasty little half decomposed Sea Bass that are MAYBE 14-15 inches, cost the same or more than a 1 1/2 pound lobster.. Are you KIDDING me??.

things will never change I fear.. Just remember there are a lot of people that would be happy and would pay dearly for the privilege to catch and render into sushi the last known bluefin tuna in the ocean, or hunt, shoot and mount the last known grizzly bear in yellowstone.. Sadly its the way we are...bob

[reason162]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been shown that winter flounder are an extremely discrete species, and there is virtually no mixing between different inshore populations, let alone inshore/offshore populations?

From what I read...even if we listened to the biologists decades ago and imposed a flat moratorium, the recovery was in doubt. There simply weren't enough individuals to avoid inbreeding in the various habitats, and since they do not migrate on/offshore, there is no opportunity for increasing genetic material or any chance at rebuilding the stock. As it stands, the flounder we're seeing are pretty much the last of its kind, and when they're gone (say from shark river) they're gone for good.

[dakota560]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been shown that winter flounder are an extremely discrete species, and there is virtually no mixing between different inshore populations, let alone inshore/offshore populations?

From what I read...even if we listened to the biologists decades ago and imposed a flat moratorium, the recovery was in doubt. There simply weren't enough individuals to avoid inbreeding in the various habitats, and since they do not migrate on/offshore, there is no opportunity for increasing genetic material or any chance at rebuilding the stock. As it stands, the flounder we're seeing are pretty much the last of its kind, and when they're gone (say from shark river) they're gone for good.

Reason I'll be the first to admit I've never read or heard anything along the lines of your post. Please provide source. And I'm including in that all the material I've read from Winter Flounder Stock Assessments. The Winter Flounder fishery is broken into three separate regions, I initially posted two erroneously. There's Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Banks stock and our stock referred to as Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic or SNEMA and not one publication I've read mentions anything along the lines of what your post suggests. Like I said, please post your source.

Playing devil's advocate, if what you say is true why did the fishery thrive for years? There is an east / west or inshore / offshore migration which has been happening for decades if not centuries, not sure where you heard there's no migration. The fishery was over-harvested by commercials in the early 80's killing SSB and destroying recruitment. Look at the statistics. If the fishery is as sensitive as you suggest, why are commercials still allowed to essentially exclusively harvest it in the condition it's in? SSB down over 90%, egg production down even more and commercial harvest is still allowed.............why? Still allowed when recreational for all practical purposes was shut down in 2010 with the 2-fish possession limit.

This fishery like so many others when commercial pressure wasn't where it's at today and ex-vessel prices weren't close to where they are today thrived EVERY YEAR. This is a classic case of over-harvest by commercial operations of a resource and destroying the reproductive strength of the fishery in the process. No magic, no smoke and mirrors, this is failed fisheries management 101. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. In my opinion the group responsible for the decimation of the stock shouldn't be the only group still benefiting from it......why do you think that is? That's a question everyone would like the Council to answer. Almost 40 years ago SSB and R tanked, bottom fell out and in 2017 the powers to be are still trying to understand why. This is as tragic a story regarding the flaws in the current process as you could provide. In my opinion, the fishery should be shut down for as long as it takes until SSB and recruitment numbers return to where they were in the 70's and early 80's and the stock is considered stable. As my position has been all along, every one should have access to the resource but no one groups interest should be at the expense of all others. Well commercial harvest and fisheries mismanagement cost recreational anglers this resource no matter how you read the tea leaves.

When's the last time anyone went on a party boat for winter flounder? How many party boats today sail for winter flounder? It's probably sometime in the early 2000's. We're headed in exactly the same direction for exactly the same reasons with summer flounder and it's entirely because the fishery is being managed for commerce and not for the health of the fishery and all related interested parties. 1% of the '13 winter flounder harvest was recreational and 99% commercial. How is legislation passed where that is even remotely possible. That just brought the definition of "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" to an entirely new level.

Recreational and commercial need to come together for every fishery to survive in today's world of growing demand. If the above allocation of winter flounder is the definition of coming together then recreational anglers should figure out how to go out of compliance and shut the entire fishery down for commercial as well if that's what it's going to take for us to have a voice. I've seen too many fisheries in my life lost to mismanagement, greed, illicit fishing practices and failed political oversight to last a lifetime. Don't want to see two more added to that list. If this is the corner recreational anglers, party boats and for hire operators are being backed into, shut the fishery down until we have a seat at the table and a voice which is recognized.

[reason162]

Reason I'll be the first to admit I've never read or heard anything along the lines of your post. Please provide source.

Here's a couple of abstract links, I know I've read the full study years ago...maybe you could find it:

https://news.stonybrook.edu/newsroom/press-release/general/newstudyshowsinbreedingwinterflounderlongislandbay s/

https://you.stonybrook.edu/frisk/research/winter-flounder-ecology/

The stock assessment and what is apparently an isolated population distribution for winter flounder are not in conflict. The surveys are just counting fish...you can perform the survey assuming flounder are as "mixed" as most other saltwater species, but only genetic analysis can yield the data necessary to conclude inbreeding, and hence...extreme isolation in spawning populations.

The other interesting thing is (and again I don't have ready access to the paper but I trust my memory isn't failing), climate change is hypothesized to reverse the predator/prey balance re winter flounder vs crab/shrimp. A fraction of a few degrees cooler, and flounder eggs hatch first, and flounder larvae eats juvenile crustaceans. A few fractions of a degree warmer, and the arthropods hatch first, and they in turn prey on juvenile flounder.

This was a few years ago, not sure if they ever reached a conclusion in that study...but if true, it would be the ultimate FU to winter flounder from the universe.

In any case, I am all for restrictions on comm fishing, but it seems like in this case --- specifically re inshore flounder --- the story is more complicated than meets the eye. Unless there is some new-found enthusiasm for a stocking program...I wouldn't count on any kind of "rebound," even if they declare a moratorium tomorrow (or 20 years ago).

[NoLimit]

If they are seeing a couple hundred breeding flounder in a bay, that seems like plenty of genetic material to avoid inbreeding. As for Global warming changing the ocean temp a couple degrees and exterminating crustaceans or flounder, that is BS. Everyone knows that wind direction and run off will change water temps by a dozen degrees so predicting doom from a supposed change of a couple degrees due to "man made" issues is nonsense.

If there was an immediate ban on commercial landing of winter flounder, they would rebound nicely. Stripers disappeared until the commercial moratorium and they are back strong.

We should get word to Trump - his sons are very active in hunting and fishing. They are known to fish this area and it would be a tremendous boon for the local economy to get hundreds of boats back out in all the area rivers every St Patty's day.

[reason162]

If they are seeing a couple hundred breeding flounder in a bay, that seems like plenty of genetic material to avoid inbreeding. As for Global warming changing the ocean temp a couple degrees and exterminating crustaceans or flounder, that is BS. Everyone knows that wind direction and run off will change water temps by a dozen degrees so predicting doom from a supposed change of a couple degrees due to "man made" issues is nonsense.

If there was an immediate ban on commercial landing of winter flounder, they would rebound nicely. Stripers disappeared until the commercial moratorium and they are back strong.

We should get word to Trump - his sons are very active in hunting and fishing. They are known to fish this area and it would be a tremendous boon for the local economy to get hundreds of boats back out in all the area rivers every St Patty's day.

It's pretty remarkable how every single thing you wrote is just flat wrong.

[dakota560]

Here's a couple of abstract links, I know I've read the full study years ago...maybe you could find it:

https://news.stonybrook.edu/newsroom/press-release/general/newstudyshowsinbreedingwinterflounderlongislandbay s/

https://you.stonybrook.edu/frisk/research/winter-flounder-ecology/

The stock assessment and what is apparently an isolated population distribution for winter flounder are not in conflict. The surveys are just counting fish...you can perform the survey assuming flounder are as "mixed" as most other saltwater species, but only genetic analysis can yield the data necessary to conclude inbreeding, and hence...extreme isolation in spawning populations.

The other interesting thing is (and again I don't have ready access to the paper but I trust my memory isn't failing), climate change is hypothesized to reverse the predator/prey balance re winter flounder vs crab/shrimp. A fraction of a few degrees cooler, and flounder eggs hatch first, and flounder larvae eats juvenile crustaceans. A few fractions of a degree warmer, and the arthropods hatch first, and they in turn prey on juvenile flounder.

This was a few years ago, not sure if they ever reached a conclusion in that study...but if true, it would be the ultimate FU to winter flounder from the universe.

In any case, I am all for restrictions on comm fishing, but it seems like in this case --- specifically re inshore flounder --- the story is more complicated than meets the eye. Unless there is some new-found enthusiasm for a stocking program...I wouldn't count on any kind of "rebound," even if they declare a moratorium tomorrow (or 20 years ago).

Reason this is meant in a constructive manner. Here's the issues I have in general with science (which I respect and believe we need) and fisheries management philosophies in general and then I'll get to the two links you posted with articles you referenced. When a fishery declines, there ends up being hundreds of opposing reasons why while NOTHING changes. Speak with a hundred scientists. marine biologists, climatologists and fishery specialists etc. and you'll come back with a hundred different theories because everyone has to justify their existence and opinions. There's no historical reference in the case of the winter flounder fishery supporting their theories relative to the period of decline so no baseline has been established, therefore their findings are nothing more than commentary about the CURRENT state or make up of the fishery which sheds little to no light on why the fishery collapsed in the 80's, continued it's slide in the 90's and never rebounded. Rome burns, no one can get on the same age while the fishery dies on the vine.

Case in point, global warming, predation from crustaceans, predation from striped bass, urban development etc. All arguments about the destruction of SSB and Recruitment in the fishery without providing historical perspective so in essence these theories used as a reason for the stocks decline are speculative and guesses at best.

Follow this logic and facts, Winter Flounder SSB for our region declined between '81 to '91 from ~21,000 metric tons to ~6,000 metric tons. ~70% decline in 10 years. Recruitment for the same period declined from ~60,000,000 eggs to approximately 12,000,000, an 80% decline. During that same time frame documented ocean temperatures from EPA increased by .2 degrees Farhenheit and on average zero during that decade. Striped bass which have been theorized as a possible reason for decline were at an all time low over the last 35 years during that period, doesn't coincide with the drop in SSB and recruitment so discount that theory. Historically, every year historically when blues and stripers showed up and winter flounder headed for the deep, I'm sure the same holds true today. With no noticeable or absolute change in ocean temperatures during that decade, I think the predatory impact argument of crustaceans in general is unfounded. Could inshore water quality be a contributing factor, be foolish to believe it couldn't have some impact. Did it cause a coastal decline of this magnitude in a 10-yr period starting in '81, personally I don't believe so. If that were the case, why would the bass population which has a 100% inshore life cycle increased exponentially over the last 25 years and not be effected by the same issues if environmental or habitat were the cause? BUT everyone has to have a theory to justify their programs, credibility, funding and very existence so we wallow in theories and inaction while fishery after fishery fails.

The articles you referenced touched on the points of your previous post suggesting inbreeding, global warming and possible predatory impacts due to global warming from crustaceans. Both were written in 2013 and 2015. Since there's no historical studies or references made to inbreeding I don't know how any reliability can be placed on that theory. Both articles also point out the number of breeders found being remarkably low, which supports over harvest of the resource and the residual impact on egg production. What's more likely to be the cause of the decline. Significant over-harvest (historical highs in the 80's) of the resource, primarily comprised of commercial harvest, destroying the spawning biomass in a relatively short time frame and the reproductive strength of the biomass in the process or any of the theories contained within the two articles attached. I choose facts over theories with no historical perspectives or comparisons to relate to problems which occurred 40 years ago and have continued since.

You wrote "The stock assessment and what is apparently an isolated population distribution for winter flounder are not in conflict. The surveys are just counting fish" I couldn't disagree more this is an isolated problem, data doesn't support that at all. Surveys are just counting fish which is their intended purpose. As long as the data from those surveys drive regulatory decisions, conclusions drawn from them need to be sound. I've taken the position in past and still do, data collection as difficult as it might be is what it is. I believe the biggest fishery management issue we have is in the interpretation of that data or even worse it's being ignored for other reasons. Either way this fishery and the summer flounder fishery are and have been in a state of significant decline so we can hypothesize the reason why for 40 more years but personally I believe the answers are there for anyone to see who cares to take the time.

In salt water fisheries management, once the spawning population has been destroyed and recruitment damaged, it's game over until it's rebuilt which I believe it can be over a prolonged period of time. Until then the fishery should be closed down to commercial since as we know it's essentially already been closed to recreational since 2010 with the implementation of the 2-fish limit.

Just a closing comment on the attached striped bass chart. Notice the trend of recruitment from early 2000's to current. Fishery collapses in the 70's / 80's due to commercial fishing primarily in southern states during the spawn. Moratorium imposed and stock is successfully managed back to health. Fisheries management opens it back up to commercial harvest and adopts recreational legislation allowing the harvest of the large breeders and once again the biomass led by reduced recruitment numbers is in a state of serious decline. 300 million recruits in 2004 down to 100 million in 2017. Think about that every time you see the pictures of all the 30+ lb breeders being harvested. This isn't about science. Decisions are being made politically and not for the health of the fishery, a problem which will negatively impact every fishery until that mind set changes.

[reason162]

Reason this is meant in a constructive manner.

First let's talk about winter flounder distribution. There was an acoustical tagging study done about a decade ago, that demonstrated a large contingent of resident fish: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19425120.2011.603957

Salient:

Two distinct behavioral groups have historically been identified: an inshore contingent that is present in coastal bays year-round (i.e., “bay fish” or “resident fish”), and an offshore contingent of larger individuals that travel inshore during winter to spawn.

Further,

Based on year-round tag returns, suggested the existence of a resident population of winter flounder in Great South Bay and other south shore bays.

I don't know if there were any follow up tagging studies, but the separate genetic analysis studies indicating an extreme bottleneck of breeding WF seems to support a dwindling, isolated inshore population that is not being replenished by offshore (or other inshore) populations.

How do they know WF are inbreeding? The same way they know cheetahs in large swathes of sub-Saharan Africa are inbred: they perform genetic mapping through collected DNA samples.

As for climate change's part in predator/prey role reversals, I don't know the threshold that is being proposed. It could well be 0.2F average inshore temp change, but I read it as a hypothesis and I would be surprised if there are any species not impacted by climate change...but that's my opinion. There could well be winners and losers, but winter flounder doesn't seem like a winner at this point.

In any case, both those studies point in the same direction: isolated and diminishing pockets of WF, no mixing with offshore spawners, and no mixing with other inshore spawners. Add weak recruitment (climate change induced or pollution, w/e the case may be) and the picture painted is bleak, with or w/o any changes to rec/comm regs.

And please take the following as constructive criticism as well:

Scientific conclusions are based on data, and armchair science can only take you so far. Yes it is confusing, yes it is complicated, with scientists proposing multiple possibilities for every phenomenon. That's to be expected because many of these problems simply don't have easy solutions. The world is complex, ecosystems are complex.

For decades we thought winter flounder were a purely inshore/offshore migratory species. Now we have strong evidence that a good portion of them stay put inside our bays and estuaries. There is even talk of some of these isolated populations being a sub-species of seudopleuronectes americanus. But in any case, this new knowledge ought surely change your view of the problem.

[reason162]

Just a closing comment on the attached striped bass chart. Notice the trend of recruitment from early 2000's to current. Fishery collapses in the 70's / 80's due to commercial fishing primarily in southern states during the spawn. Moratorium imposed and stock is successfully managed back to health. Fisheries management opens it back up to commercial harvest and adopts recreational legislation allowing the harvest of the large breeders and once again the biomass led by reduced recruitment numbers is in a state of serious decline. 300 million recruits in 2004 down to 100 million in 2017. Think about that every time you see the pictures of all the 30+ lb breeders being harvested. This isn't about science. Decisions are being made politically and not for the health of the fishery, a problem which will negatively impact every fishery until that mind set changes.

The current striper situation is 100% a recreational angling problem.

You are correct that the science is ignored for political and economical reasons (often one and the same). If it were up to me, the fisheries biologists would have final say in regulations, period. The ASMFC is a political system that have failed time and time again bc they're allowed to factor in socio-economical impacts...and that wiggle room has proved devastating to a myriad of our gamefish species.

MD's representatives, backed by a fleet of for-hires have repeatedly thumbed its nose at scientific recommendations. NJ is probably second worst, a specialist at the "conservation equivalency" racket.

The state of tog is even more abysmal than stripers. The technical committee have recommended a 50% cut in both NY and NJ for years, yet our regulations haven't changed and won't change for years to come. In fact, NY inexplicably opened up a Spring tog season last year, and will continue to do so this year.

[dakota560]

I agree a much higher percentage of the striped bass problem is caused by recreational catch of large breeders since the regulations allow it and I believe 85% - 90% of the overall harvest comes from recreational. Commercial harvest of breeders in southern states prior to and during the spawn is a factor which shouldn't be ignored or overlooked. No fishery in decline should allow harvest during the spawn or period leading up to it, it defies all logic.

[Papasown]

WOW !! Didn't this thread take a left turn !!
Hey Brewlugger, How's the bite ??? Maybe we have to wait for a few more degrees in water temp. Been there for the last couple of weeks, but can't make the scene this week.... Best to you guys. .........Papa

[rumster]

How about them flounder..... Anyone catching em yet?

[dakota560]

For decades we thought winter flounder were a purely inshore/offshore migratory species. Now we have strong evidence that a good portion of them stay put inside our bays and estuaries. There is even talk of some of these isolated populations being a sub-species of seudopleuronectes americanus. But in any case, this new knowledge ought surely change your view of the problem.

This new knowledge actually makes me believe more than ever my view of the problem is on target. Strong evidence you say, let's review that evidence in the below attachment involving movement patterns of the relevant 40-fish study conducted in Shinnecock Bay. 11 of the 40 fish released were never detected so immediately discount 27.5% of the sample size. Bear in mind Shinnecock Bay is 100 miles east of NY and as a result contains colder water later into the spring and earlier in the fall than NJ. Even though the article says detection only counted when bottom temperatures exceeded 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit), a winter flounders water temperature tolerances are said to range between 50 - 65 degrees. There's maybe 8 fish of the 40 which appear to be detected during the summer months. Since the transmitters were surgically implanted in the peritoneal cavity of the fish (location where organs are located), and since the article mentions 100% retention of transmitters from first batch (13 of 40-fish sample size) with no transmitter related mortality but conveniently fails to comment on the second and third group of fish (27 of 30), what does that imply? 7 of the 13 fish implanted in the first group were part of the 11 fish mentioned earlier with zero detection so in the absence of any detection how can they unequivocally state there was no transmitter related mortality in the first group. 7 makes up more than 50% of that group. Comments are based on following two excerpts from article.

Data on winter flounder presence within the study area indicated variation in residency over the 20-month period of monitoring (Figure 2). Three groups of winter flounder were recognized based on time of deployment: (1) 13 fish that were deployed in summer–fall 2007 (fish numbers 1–13); (2) 10 fish that were deployed in winter–spring 2008 (fish numbers 14–23); and (3) 17 fish that were deployed in summer 2008 (fish numbers 24–40). Among the winter flounder from deployment group 1, six fish were detected.

Monitoring of fish from the first batch indicated 100% retention of transmitters and no transmitter-related mortality.

Since the article is silent towards the second and third wave of fish coupled with the fact the transmitters were implanted in the peritoneal cavity of the fish, what proof is there the fish detected in the summer months weren't caught and filleted during the winter / spring and the racks with transmitters were floating around the bay with the tidal changes during the summer.

If detection was supposedly reported only when bottom waters exceeded 59 degrees (solid fill on chart), how would you explain detection occurring in the months of November, December, January, February and March and even April when there's no way bottom temperatures exceeded 59 degrees that time of year.

You also conveniently failed to mention the following excerpt in the second paragraph of the article:

Declines in winter flounder stocks have impaired fisheries, especially in New York, where commercial catch is currently less than 9% of peak levels observed in the 1980s and recreational catch is less than 2% of peak levels (NMFS 2007; National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, personal communication).

That statement is the most relevant point made in the entire article. The problem with the winter flounder fishery was created by commercial over-harvest in the 80's and it's impact on SSB and future reproduction capacity. Over 38 million and 40 million pounds harvested in '80 and '81, more than 80% representing commercial harvest, and more than twice the average harvest levels of the 60's and 70's. That's all anyone needs to know, fate of the fishery was sealed and the powers to be who regulate this fishery sat by passively allowing it to happen.

PS I hope your arm chair science comment wasn't directed towards me. If it was, we can discuss off line.

[dakota560]

WOW !! Didn't this thread take a left turn !!
Hey Brewlugger, How's the bite ??? Maybe we have to wait for a few more degrees in water temp. Been there for the last couple of weeks, but can't make the scene this week.... Best to you guys. .........Papa

Hard to discuss flounder fishing without discussing how the fishery was destroyed. Knowledge is important, if you believe anything posted is irrelevant or inaccurate, your comments would be welcome. If you believe another fishery destroyed by regulatory ineptitude and recreational anglers being forced to settle once again for the crumbs left isn't worthy of discussion on the board, I'd disagree but would be more than happy to stop posting what I thought to be useful information and facts about the ruination of another fishery.

[reason162]

PS I hope your arm chair science comment wasn't directed towards me. If it was, we can discuss off line.

With all due respect, yes it was directed at you. Neither of us are scientists, neither of us "do" any science...but imo, you have a set of dogmas that cloud your view on the actual science being done. If a study runs against your preconceived notions...the study must be flawed. Fair enough, but that's not how science works or is supposed to work.

I assume the methodology in the acoustic tagging study held up to peer review. I also assume the genetic mapping study which indicated inbreeding also passed peer review. If you're not convinced that the WF species are divided into offshore and inshore groups...well, I suppose that's a point of view.

Also, I think it's evident that we are talking at cross purposes here...no argument from me that commercial fishing is the prime suspect for WF collapse, but yet another dogma oft parroted on these boards that "rec angling will never hurt a fishery" is obviously nonsense. Tog and stripers are 100% a rec issue.

But I digress: the point of the study isn't to confer blame, it's attempting to answer the question of why WF are not rebuilding, and may never rebuild. It's not a complete answer, there are gaps remaining to be filled (as always), but I find no reasons to doubt its conclusion, esp coupled with the genetic data. In fact, the gene mapping study is strong enough evidence in and of itself that WF are --- unique among saltwater species --- highly isolated and discreet.

[dakota560]

With all due respect, yes it was directed at you. Neither of us are scientists, neither of us "do" any science...but imo, you have a set of dogmas that cloud your view on the actual science being done. If a study runs against your preconceived notions...the study must be flawed. Fair enough, but that's not how science works or is supposed to work.


With all due respect? Please don't use words you don't understand the meaning of, it's insulting. Preconceived notions, every post I've made regarding the demise of the winter and summer flounder fishery I've tried supporting with attached data developed from the science you so vigorously defend. I've accepted the data, right or wrong, in forming my opinions and drawing my conclusions, not the opposite as you infer.

On the other hand, you post an article about a 40 fish study where 11 fish are completely unaccounted for from the sample and you label it "strong evidence". Please! I ask three very simple questions which you don't answer so as people in your position do, you attack credibility or deflect. Let's try one more time, maybe you can enlighten the board with an answer this time.

1. I've attached a monthly chart of Shinnecock average monthly water temperature readings. These are ocean readings which will have some variability to bay temperatures but considering these temperatures reflect surface and not bottom I'd assume the spring month numbers might be slightly understated and the fall month numbers slightly overstated. The article states detections were only recorded when bottom temperatures exceeded 15 degrees Celsius, explain then how the chart reflects any detections from January through May and possibly even June or November through December and possibly even October.

2. Transmitters were implanted in the peritoneal cavity of the fish, what proof is there the fish detected in the summer months weren't caught and filleted during the winter / spring and the racks with transmitters still intact is what was being detected. Shinnecock is known for heavy tides, wouldn't be difficult for racks to float around with the tides in the area if they were disposed of in the water.

3. The article mentions "Monitoring of fish from the first batch indicated 100% retention of transmitters and no transmitter-related mortality." Again how can you make that statement when 7 of the 11 fish in the first batch transmitted ZERO detections? Fish 1, 4-7 and 12-13. If they're really saying 100% retention and no mortality from the point the transmitters were installed to the point of release which was less than 30 minutes, the statement is completely misleading. Whose to say the transmitters didn't come out after release. And why no mention regarding the same issue with the second and third batch which represents ~70% of the sample size.

Either way I find it irresponsible to categorize a 40 fish sample with 11 fish having no detection and the water temperature and transmitter retention issue in question qualifying as strong evidence of any sort other than more baseless theories. And you accuse me of preconceived conclusions. If a 40 fish study of this nature was included in Peer Review but Rutgers Sex and Length Study was dismissed in this latest Peer Review over technicalities, than the situation is more hopeless than I imagined.

The science you defend so emphatically constitutes all the data I've based my opinions on. And that's with the realization that trying to quantify recreational catch is the equivalent of trying to grab air. MRIP was upgraded recently but is no less of a massive set of assumptions now than beforehand. Recreational anglers took a 40% reduction in quota for '19 as a result and commercial received a 40% increase, completely based on assumptions that were proven in the latest 66th SAW to be significantly different than the assumptions or reference points used in previous stock assessment models. But you would want us to believe based on your opinion of science the numbers being published which dictate regulations should be accepted without question. Changes in some cases which caused previously reported catch levels, SSB and recruitment numbers to change by as much as 40% but your position suggests we should simply accept these numbers face value since science only deals with data and facts and all these numbers were developed through models that passed peer review. That's a lot to ask from people who have been asked to make sacrifices, been made promises which never materialized and screwed repeatedly over the last twenty or more years. If it's a leap of faith you're suggesting here, we've passed that mile marker many years ago.

Recreational has it's impacts for sure. But to think striped bass and tog were not and are still not impacted by commercial netting of breeders in the southern states (as far as bass are concerned) and pots, rock hopper trawlers and illegal harvest of short fish being sold to Asian markets (as far as tog are concerned), I also disagree. Both recreational and commercial have contributed and are still contributing to the decline in each of these fisheries.

You and I will never agree on the cause of what I consider to be a complete collapse of one fishery which started almost 40 years ago and the eventual collapse of another which has all the same signs based on data from the scientific community you defend. The common thread here is destruction of reproduction capacity in two stocks based on over harvest with winter flounder and increases in size retention for summer flounder driven by regulatory increases for recreational and increase in average size fish being harvested by commercials to compensate for reductions in catch quotas. I suppose the harvest of almost exclusively sexually immature fish in the 80's and 90's with summer flounder versus the complete opposite the last two decades is something I made up to support my preconceived position. Again I never introduced third party data in any of my analysis, I used only whats been published by NMFS and ASMFC.

Obviously you disagree with my opinions or ability to read and analyze data. Obviously I disagree with many of your opinions regarding the issues effecting these fisheries. I've stated before, I don't blame the science for the data being developed even with the limitations and challenges involved. I blame the regulatory bodies involved with poor decisions based on that data and their failures involving the mismanagement of both these fisheries. The only focus they have is catch, there's been zero remedial measures taken to address recruitment declines over the last thirty or more years which is the root cause of the problem facing both these fisheries and it's not even being acknowledged.

[reason162]

With all due respect? Please don't use words you don't understand the meaning of, it's insulting.

Not my intention. I take it you're operating in good faith, and that you believe what you're saying...that's all I meant.

You most certainly have a narrative, one that involves ineptitude from scientists to regulators. I don't necessarily disagree with that narrative in all cases, but as you said...you've never heard of these studies that point to isolated inshore WF populations. I provided you links to these studies, and though they've passed peer review they don't pass muster with you.

Stony Brook has done a number of studies pertaining to winter flounder, because to trained scientists, the failure of WF to rebound is mysterious...even though there is hardly any rec or comm pressure on these fish for the past decade (I'm referring to the Southern stock). I will link them here, again:

https://you.stonybrook.edu/frisk/research/winter-flounder-ecology/

You can maybe direct your questions to the Frisk Lab re their methodology, it's certainly not my job to defend or clarify the study...I merely bring it to your attention. Personally, I'm surprised they found 40 flounder to tag lol.

I also didn't fail to notice that you've not mentioned the gene mapping study that showed inbreeding among different populations...which is exactly what you would expect from an isolated, localized breeding species, with a drastic reduction of genetic diversity due to fewer breeding individuals. These studies compliment each others' conclusions. This ought to give you some idea at the hopelessness of WF recovery, at least inshore.

Recreational has it's impacts for sure. But to think striped bass and tog were not and are still not impacted by commercial netting of breeders in the southern states (as far as bass are concerned) and pots, rock hopper trawlers and illegal harvest of short fish being sold to Asian markets (as far as tog are concerned), I also disagree.

90% of the current mortality on striped bass, across their entire distribution, comes from the rec sector. The stock was fully rebuilt after the last moratorium, and now we're completely in the shit bc of a few state's greed...driven by powerful rec sector lobbies.

Potting for tog is largely a LIS problem, yet NJ tog is equally being overfished (that's the official status, "overfished") yet the ASMFC ignored technical committee's recommendations for drastic cuts over and over again. I agree that they should ban commercial togging in all forms, but I also agree with the fisheries biologists' conclusion that rec landings need to be reduced by 50%. Where do you stand on tog regulations? Have you seen the data?

If a 40 fish study of this nature was included in Peer Review but Rutgers Sex and Length Study was dismissed in this latest Peer Review over technicalities, than the situation is more hopeless than I imagined.

Right. So if the sex ratio study doesn't pass peer review, the entire process is suspect. Because YOU already know the answer to the summer flounder question.

You and I will never agree on the cause of what I consider to be a complete collapse of one fishery which started almost 40 years ago and the eventual collapse of another which has all the same signs based on data from the scientific community you defend. The common thread here is destruction of reproduction capacity in two stocks based on over harvest with winter flounder and increases in size retention for summer flounder driven by regulatory increases for recreational and increase in average size fish being harvested by commercials to compensate for reductions in catch quotas. I suppose the harvest of almost exclusively sexually immature fish in the 80's and 90's with summer flounder versus the complete opposite the last two decades is something I made up to support my preconceived position. Again I never introduced third party data in any of my analysis, I used only whats been published by NMFS and ASMFC.

I can agree to anything given convincing data. What you're confusing with this sex ratio hypothesis is correlation vs causation. Again, as I've mentioned to you before...I reserve judgment until the study work its way through the peer review process, if it indeed passes muster.

Though I must say, it does seem like a pat solution doesn't it. If you're right, then we get to have our cake and eat it too: keep smaller slot fish, AND rebuild the biomass. I can see how such a conclusion is tempting to root for...and you'll be wrong to assume I don't root for it too.

[rumster]

The original thread started out as a Winter Flounder report.... As much I appreciate everyone's opinion.... Respectfully, going back and forth disputing statistics and the reason for the collapse of a fishery is getting old.... Anyone seeing any life with the flounders that are left?

[EddieG]

And the show has reached a new low! Guys just put your dicks on the table, measure them and call it a day so we can go back to fishing reports please.

[dakota560]

And the show has reached a new low! Guys just put your dicks on the table, measure them and call it a day so we can go back to fishing reports please.

Didn't mean to take up so much valuable time at the expense of all the flounder reports waiting to be posted. Cease and desist it is, was just answering questions which were asked earlier in the thread which escalated between Reason and me. Thought understanding of the facts and opposing opinions would be of interest to the board, bad assumption by me.

Gerry my apologies for causing any disruptions.

[hammer4reel]

Didn't mean to take up so much valuable time at the expense of all the flounder reports waiting to be posted. Cease and desist it is, was just answering questions which were asked earlier in the thread which escalated between Reason and me. Thought understanding of the facts and opposing opinions would be of interest to the board, bad assumption by me.

Gerry my apologies for causing any disruptions.

Tom was just a few pages.
a lot more posts about how bad fishing sucks by all those not willing to spend 5 minutes to try and understand why.

Just another time it shows Recreational fisherman will never do what it takes to make change happen.

Thanks for your efforts

[reason162]

Didn't mean to take up so much valuable time at the expense of all the flounder reports waiting to be posted.

Lol!

[dales529]

Yes the highjacking of a Winter Flounder "report" deserves a LOL. While maybe some of this could be in its own thread I will never understand the recreational reluctance to intelligent dialogue that was posted here by Tom Dakota, Dan Bias, and Roger Reason162. There needs to be much more of these discussions and interaction if any of you want to see recovery and /or better understanding of our fisheries future. If not than wait for your reports of the dead seas.
Thanks Tom, Dan and Roger for the posts.

I have been working with Tom to get his information higher up the food chain. Roger will send you a PM as information in this post appears frowned upon to get you in the mix if you are interested. We are trying as always to get the fisheries management and science community together for a better approach

[bulletbob]

Guys want "reports" here as usual, and then bitch when they aren't forthcoming. Just for shits and giggles, lets give this a go one more time...

When you click on Message Board, does this section say Fishing Reports?...
Or does it saY Salt Water Fishing?

here's what the site administrator has written concerning this sublect, its right at the top of this page-

"NJFishing.com Salt Water Fishing Use this board to post all general salt water fishing information. Please use the appropriate boards below for all other information". "


Get it?...

The gentlemen engaged in that robust debate, and remarkably in depth information dissemination are thanked and appreciated here, thats for certain...
I dunno, maybe we can ask Gerry for a " Fishing Reports Only" section for those that only want to hear where the fish are, not why they aren't where they should be..

This is a forum for information sharing, spirited debate, good conversation with like minded individuals, , techniques, fishing war stories, bitch sessions, and yes I suppose reports as well.. However a lot of us want to discuss fishing, fisheries management, fishing techniques as well as seeing
" all out slaughter today" followed by pics of bloody decks piled high with carcasses.
In all my years here, I have NEVER once seen Gerry bitch out anyone for posting any type of relevant fishing topic in any of the correct topic sections .. However I have seen members do it a bunch of times, especially when it comes to members not posting "reports' in this section..
again, this is the Salt Water Fishing section.
That entails a lot of diverse discussion options.. thanks:rolleyes:,,,, bob

[Brewlugger]

Didn't mean to take up so much valuable time at the expense of all the flounder reports waiting to be posted. Cease and desist it is, was just answering questions which were asked earlier in the thread which escalated between Reason and me. Thought understanding of the facts and opposing opinions would be of interest to the board, bad assumption by me.

Gerry my apologies for causing any disruptions. No apology needed here brother. Keep fighting the good fight. The Demise and mismanagement of fish stocks should be front and center.

[NoLimit]

The original thread started out as a Winter Flounder report.... As much I appreciate everyone's opinion.... Respectfully, going back and forth disputing statistics and the reason for the collapse of a fishery is getting old.... Anyone seeing any life with the flounders that are left?

Wtf you talking about?!

1). These stats are a very valuable report that predicts Fishing not only for this season but subsequent seasons if nothing is done about commercial decimation.

2) These stats are not “opinions”. They are facts

[dakota560]

Gentlemen I don't want this thread locked or put Gerry in a compromising decision of having to make that decision, he deserves better from us all and I include myself in "ALL". We should just take a breather and chill. The site is made up of many different people with divergent opinions, that's a good thing and to be expected. For the record, I have a lot of respect for Reason 162, (including his cooking skills and videos) and his opinions. Our views might be different involving certain aspects of fisheries management, the science backing it and I believe to a lesser degree how regulatory decisions are being made based on the data provided by that science. At times emotions come into play and there's nothing wrong with a little heat and discussions involving opposing views. In my case because of how important these fisheries have been in my life and my children's lives, I'll do what I can to help insure they're here for future generations to enjoy and harvest, both recreational and commercial. A little heat and healthy debate is always a prerequisite and necessity for change to occur. Dave (Dales) is right, might have been better served discussing regulations on a different thread but as I mentioned it started with me replying to a question and evolved from there. Didn't mean to derail the initial post about flounder reports.

Constructive dialogue and sharing information are good things for most but not everyone's cup of tea, I respect that. There's a tremendous amount of work being done behind the scenes many are unaware of and thought discussing why and where these fisheries are would help educate members what's happened and more important what we're dealing with.

If this isn't the forum to do it, all good. The effort will continue either way, incredible amount of hours many people are putting in of their personal time in the hope of improving the overall health of the fisheries and preserve our rights to access our fair share and quite frankly the fair share for the commercial sector as well. All so maybe we can actually see flounder reports again some time in the future.

Either way as previously mentioned, didn't mean to re-direct the thread and apologies to anyone offended by sharing historical facts intended to understand what happened to these stocks and more important what needs to change to rebuild them. In my humble opinion, that's more important than fishing reports, especially this time of year, but just my opinion and respect it might not be the majority opinion of the site.

Enough said, again let the flounder reports roll!

[reason162]

Gentlemen I don't want this thread locked or put Gerry in a compromising decision of having to make that decision

Tom, the respect is mutual. As for our discussion being off topic...I'll let Gerry decide, and anyone who doesn't like our exchange can skip over our posts (or voice their opinion, which they have).

I think it's rather evident that...had this thread stayed "on topic," it would've been a pretty short thread indeed :)