Fluke and Sea Bass Returns

[Billfish715]

Do you remember those 16 & 17 inch fluke you had to toss back last season? How about those sea bass that made their way from the inshore reefs to deeper offshore waters? Well, they have made their way back inshore to where you can now keep them. A bit sarcastic? Well, yeah, I guess I was. Here's the point. Look at the prices customers are paying for them at the counter. Those 16-17 inch fluke that the trawlers bring back to the market make perfect sized fillets for a consumer.

If you laid out $100 for a half day on the water and never caught a legal fluke to fillet, you can take that same $100 and go to the fish market and get 5 pounds of prime fluke fillets. Do you see where this is going? If you go fishing with the intention of bringing some fillets home for dinner, you could spend the same money and go to the market and buy the same fish you would have to release if you were on a boat.

It's a good thing most fishermen don't look at fishing in that way or the party and charter business would be done. There is something more rewarding when the fish you eat are the fish you caught. They might even taste better knowing that they are yours.

Here's a novel idea........one that will never fly.........a guaranteed one fish limt for every paying customer. Everyone on a party boat will be allowed to keep one of the fish they caught regardless of its size. Of course you can keep the legal-sized fish and established limits. If you are going to pay a store owner, who paid a commercial fisherman for the fish you had to throw back, why not just let part of the fare you paid to the captain, pay for at least one fish that might end up on ice in the market anyhow.?

It's thinking out of the box and would be shot down for being too extreme and perhaps for starting to let some of the water out of the swamp. That kind of thinking goes over very well with the populace but not with the establishment. The establishment sees the change as a major attack on their livelihood and gets their blood boiling. We all know the reaction to the last person who tried to drain some of bogged-down sections of the government.

We all know it's about money yet no one wants to compromise. The government agencies exist because of the money they get directly or indirectly from us. We just want a little bang for our buck. Throw us a bone. Let us deduct our fishing expenses from our taxes. Food, fuel, tackle, bait, protective gear, tolls..........yada, yada, yada all cost money and include taxes. All we want is a fish to eat.

This pandemic has told us to follow the science. The marine fisheries agencies also tell us to follow their science. How is all of that working?

[Gerry Zagorski]

I think it would be great if people were allowed to keep 1 slot Fluke say between 16 and 18. Problem is the way that would get figured into our regs. I would think plugging a slot fish into their calculations would increase assumed landings against our quota which would likely lead to a shorter season.

As for me and I think most, we want the longest season possible so we have the ability to fish as many days as possible.

[Detour66]

The bottom of the ocean is paved with gold. And they don't want us to have it!
Like they say "follow the money"! Tight lines!

[Stanton327]

Fluke more expensive than tuna!!! Jesus Holy Christ on a POGO stick!!!

[hammer4reel]

I think it would be great if people were allowed to keep 1 slot Fluke say between 16 and 18. Problem is the way that would get figured into our regs. I would think plugging a slot fish into their calculations would increase assumed landings against our quota which would likely lead to a shorter season.

As for me and I think most, we want the longest season possible so we have the ability to fish as many days as possible.


When everyone wanted status quo (which we knew was a pipe dream)
We should have asked for a slot fish then .
They would have been more willing at that time with all the BS going on .

It’s my understanding after talking to some people in FG that a slot is something they are now looking into .

Our quota are done by tonnage , smaller fish weigh less .
When explained to them that guys catching 10 shorts are getting held accountable for 4 fish dying on release.
it makes no sense to not change to allow some of those smaller fish to actually ho home with the angler
.
Make once a limit is reached fishing for them stops .

Many more guys would go home happier, and less fish would be lost to release mortality charged against our quota .

Will see how this plays out in the next few weeks .

Problem is it turns into saving the fishing industry instead of the fishery .

Reg makers don’t give 2 shits about the industry , so save the fishery so we can at least fish , the rest will come .

Having a long season when there is nothing to keep just is foolish .
Being able to actually keep some fish will get more people out fishing .

.

[hartattack]

ASMFC meeting next week to review NJ options. Dial in, send comments, use chatbox during meeting to express yourself. http://www.asmfc.org/calendar/02/2021/NJ-Public-Hearing-Webinar-on-Commercial-and-Recreational-Allocation-Amendment-/1667

Hope to see other njfers there ...

[frugalfisherman]

Quit whining just poach.

[Billfish715]

I think it would be great if people were allowed to keep 1 slot Fluke say between 16 and 18. Problem is the way that would get figured into our regs. I would think plugging a slot fish into their calculations would increase assumed landings against our quota which would likely lead to a shorter season

.

I wonder how many people (including those on the ASMFC) actually understand how the figures are input into the algorithm. Everyone, however, understands the final numbers. Just how those numbers were crunched is a mystery, at best. It is part of the science that we are supposed to accept. The science is still just a bunch of numbers, the outcome of which, is determined by what data is plugged in and what variables are not!

How will the slot fish enter into the quota? That's a good question You used the word "assumed" landings. I think that is an accurate description. Assumed is the key word. My "guess" is that the figures that are currently used are far from accurate and have always been that.

Quite a few fluke were caught last year. Quite a few were released. Quite a few died after being released; and of course there were those that were boxed and filleted. Still, those numbers are only conjecture since there are no accurate records of the number of fluke that were taken, released or died. There has to be a way to input the "assumed" numbers of slot fish to offset the "assumed" mortality rate.

Someone, from the recreational fishing community should be given access to the algorithm's data and challenge the findings of the ASMFC by adding additional variables that might have been missing.

My guess for the upcoming report about last year's totals is that we overfished our quota but we will be given a "stay" for the coming year. For the time being, I don't think much will change. The party boat numbers were down due to the pandemic restrictions. Fishing participation, in general, was down. Lots of fluke were still caught, but how would anyone, no less the scientists ever know?

[Capt Sal]

I wonder how many people (including those on the ASMFC) actually understand how the figures are input into the algorithm. Everyone, however, understands the final numbers. Just how those numbers were crunched is a mystery, at best. It is part of the science that we are supposed to accept. The science is still just a bunch of numbers, the outcome of which, is determined by what data is plugged in and what variables are not!

How will the slot fish enter into the quota? That's a good question You used the word "assumed" landings. I think that is an accurate description. Assumed is the key word. My "guess" is that the figures that are currently used are far from accurate and have always been that.

Quite a few fluke were caught last year. Quite a few were released. Quite a few died after being released; and of course there were those that were boxed and filleted. Still, those numbers are only conjecture since there are no accurate records of the number of fluke that were taken, released or died. There has to be a way to input the "assumed" numbers of slot fish to offset the "assumed" mortality rate.

Someone, from the recreational fishing community should be given access to the algorithm's data and challenge the findings of the ASMFC by adding additional variables that might have been missing.

My guess for the upcoming report about last year's totals is that we overfished our quota but we will be given a "stay" for the coming year. For the time being, I don't think much will change. The party boat numbers were down due to the pandemic restrictions. Fishing participation, in general, was down. Lots of fluke were still caught, but how would anyone, no less the scientists ever know?

Key word is GUESS, It is all a guess nation wide.In Florida there are so many Red Snapper they are a nuisance because there is a 1 day season on the Atlantic side. GOVERNMENT CONTOL !!!

[Foul Hook]

Quit whining just poach.
🙄👍🏻
Im with this guy!!

[aruvio]

Take what you want, its there for the taking.

[dales529]

Do we really need to go through this every year? Until MRIP and the general basis of "landings" or "catch" formulas are changed its a FEDERAL thing NOT a NJ State thing. Under the current FEDERAL options to our state of NJ a Slot fish would most likely reduce our season to 31 days. If I am not mistaken MRIP stated 1 million fluke were caught shore based last year. What? Now you want to add more shore based or back bay or 16" limits to this crazy catch method.

RFA and many others are still working towards an end goal but its US the public that gave up due to fear and perceived notions so we don't have the funds to compete.

RFA-NJ hired a lobbyist, you asked you got!

Tom dakota spent hours / days / weeks posting here on the formulas and no one cared here

We had a fishing regulation forum but it got so frustrating it got shut down and the Tony Bogans and others of the world stopped contributing because of the same questions years in and years out.

Most of all the information you need is on the internet. Read, research, absorb and understand

[dales529]

bump

[bunker dunker]

go north young fluke fishermen,go north.the hell with jersey,give your money
to state that respects the fishing community.

[Billfish715]

[QUOTE=dales529;556767]

RFA and many others are still working towards an end goal but its US the public that gave up due to fear and perceived notions so we don't have the funds to compete.

RFA-NJ hired a lobbyist, you asked you got!

Tom dakota spent hours / days / weeks posting here on the formulas and no one cared here

It’s not fishermen don’t care, we do. There is a level of frustration that has set in because everyone is worn down after trying to convince a small committee of government representatives to make any concessions. There is no referendum on the ballot to change things. It’s our government at its worst.

We do care but we can only go through the system that is in place. The agencies are so focused on the future that they somehow are blind to the present. It seems to be a fundamental element of governance. This concern for the future has been going on for years, and yet, the future never gets any closer. Without a date for when the stocks will be fully restored, this carnival ride will never end. Limits will still be restrictive and our grandchildren’s fishing experiences will still be handcuffed.

It seems to me that the regulations that have been in place for DECADES are not working. Is there no better reason why fishermen are getting frustrated? The system is in drastic need for repair or replacement. Unfortunately, it is supported by bureaucrats who have their own agendas.

I’ve said it before, “The future is now.” If the price of fluke is almost $20 per pound in today, what will it cost in the bureaucratic future?

[dakota560]

I think it would be great if people were allowed to keep 1 slot Fluke say between 16 and 18. Problem is the way that would get figured into our regs. I would think plugging a slot fish into their calculations would increase assumed landings against our quota which would likely lead to a shorter season.

As for me and I think most, we want the longest season possible so we have the ability to fish as many days as possible.

Problem is with the current regulations and options on the table, the recreational sector is boxed in. Introduction of a slot, the recreational sector is penalized for additional landings with no consideration given to the benefits associated with harvesting proportionately more males than females, positive impact of lower discard mortality rates a slot would insure and most importantly the positive impact it will have on annual recruitment levels. Additionally, the Committee and Counsel has to come to grips with the commercial sector harvesting during the spawn. If you extend the season, even by only three days, the sector will be penalized for increased fishing effort. Don't think for a second that won't be factored into the 2022 regulations.

I also believe that 10% to 20% of anglers fill a vast majority of the recreational harvest quota. A large majority of recreational anglers, especially party boat patrons and shore based anglers, I'd venture to bet would prefer a slot and be able to take home a meal after spending $200 to $300 for a day of fishing only to go home with an empty cooler as opposed to an extended season.

Until fisheries management starts taking into consideration gender composition of the annual harvest (precisely what SSFFF was trying to accomplish), this fishery will continue it's decline. There's no reason whatsoever to think otherwise. Managing a fishery simply by cutting catch and not addressing the devastating 20 year decline in recruitment levels is no different than trying to manage a business with a revenue problem by cutting costs every year. It's not a long-term strategy to remediate this fishery.

If they introduced a slot for the striper fishery, there's absolutely no reason why they can't introduce a slot for the fluke fishery for exactly the same reasons. Protect young of the year, harvest select age groups with a more proportionate gender composition while providing protection for the breeders. Not a difficult concept to understand, one common sense should tell you without the need for science. It's politics and a separate agenda that's driving this fishery, not the data.

[hammer4reel]

Do we really need to go through this every year? Until MRIP and the general basis of "landings" or "catch" formulas are changed its a FEDERAL thing NOT a NJ State thing. Under the current FEDERAL options to our state of NJ a Slot fish would most likely reduce our season to 31 days. If I am not mistaken MRIP stated 1 million fluke were caught shore based last year. What? Now you want to add more shore based or back bay or 16" limits to this crazy catch method.

RFA and many others are still working towards an end goal but its US the public that gave up due to fear and perceived notions so we don't have the funds to compete.

RFA-NJ hired a lobbyist, you asked you got!

Tom dakota spent hours / days / weeks posting here on the formulas and no one cared here

We had a fishing regulation forum but it got so frustrating it got shut down and the Tony Bogans and others of the world stopped contributing because of the same questions years in and years out.

Most of all the information you need is on the internet. Read, research, absorb and understand

Based on poundage your already being charged for a High mortality of shorts .
Keeping a slot fish would reduce those fish returned and lower that portion of the quota.
Talking to FG people involved with setting seasons etc , they said they had never been approached for a statewide slot .
And crunching the numbers of releases not having a slot really hurts our season in two ways .
.
Reason nothing is changing each year is their really haven’t been different approaches given , and those changes need to reach decision makers long before the public meetings are held .
Waiting until the day of doesn’t allow ideas and information to sink in. , and they are running under time constraints .

INSANITY. Is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results .
While the parties you mentioned have tried hard they are just as stuck on it’s only their way or no way .
So you wonder why it’s a yearly argument that never changes ?????????

[dakota560]

Do we really need to go through this every year? Until MRIP and the general basis of "landings" or "catch" formulas are changed its a FEDERAL thing NOT a NJ State thing. Under the current FEDERAL options to our state of NJ a Slot fish would most likely reduce our season to 31 days. If I am not mistaken MRIP stated 1 million fluke were caught shore based last year. What? Now you want to add more shore based or back bay or 16" limits to this crazy catch method.


Dave every call I had with Dustin Learning and Kiley Dancy involving introducing a slot and the associated benefits immediately turned into how much of the season would the recreational sector be willing to give up for that accommodation. The problem with the system is no one is factoring the benefits of harvesting younger age classes with a more balanced gender mix into the equation and completely ignoring the impacts on improved recruitment of that change in this fishery.

What I find to be a complete inequity between the sectors is as most know commercial can retain any fish 14" or larger. So commercial can harvest 14", 15" or 16" fish year round with no impact whatsoever to their quota or fishing access but that's not the case with the recreational sector. If the recreational sector wants to harvest those age classes, we're expected to sacrifice more than we have already in spite of the obvious benefits to the fishery.

If the recreational quota allows 3 fish per day per angler to be harvested, why would the harvest of 3 fish at 18" be acceptable yet the harvest of 3 fish at 16" not be if quotas are all weight driven. Someone help me understand the point of a daily possession limit if the above were not true.

The answer is those daily possession limits are theoretical and essentially meaningless. If recreational anglers on average came close to harvesting those levels daily, the recreational sector would overfish their quota by probably 100% to 200%. The regulations the following year would be slashed. In 2018, 92% of trips resulted in slightly over one fish caught per angler. And that number excludes trips resulting in no fish landed. Think about how far we've fallen with this fishery. With the current size and daily position limits in place, in 2018 the average fluke retained per angler trip was less than one fish! And since the regulations in place today are essentially the same, I would expect the same to hold true today.

What all this should mean to each of you is that the federal and state governments have essentially manipulated the regulations to have the recreational angler on average harvest less than one fish per trip. That's the reality of where this fishery is at whether you realize it or not. Size minimums are being used to regulate harvest, daily possession limits are essentially irrelevant. Case in point, how many fish do you think you'd retain each trip if you had a 10 fish daily possession limit but the size minimum was increased to 30".

Until fisheries management realizes this fishery needs to be managed based on size and gender of fish harvested and not weight, the fishery will continue its struggles. No different than the conditions that caused the recent change in regulations with the striped bass fishery. Introduce a slot, protect the very young age classes, promote harvest of the middle age classes, protect the breeders and larger females while improving recruitment. In the process, reduce discard mortality which is a huge issue recreationally due to the regulations and commercially due to selective harvest. Not all that hard to understand and completely supportable based on fishery management's own data. The hard part is finding someone to listen to basic common sense and stop playing politics with an incredibly vital public resource.

[dales529]

Based on poundage your already being charged for a High mortality of shorts .
Keeping a slot fish would reduce those fish returned and lower that portion of the quota.
Talking to FG people involved with setting seasons etc , they said they had never been approached for a statewide slot .
And crunching the numbers of releases not having a slot really hurts our season in two ways .
.
Reason nothing is changing each year is their really haven’t been different approaches given , and those changes need to reach decision makers long before the public meetings are held .
Waiting until the day of doesn’t allow ideas and information to sink in. , and they are running under time constraints .

INSANITY. Is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results .
While the parties you mentioned have tried hard they are just as stuck on it’s only their way or no way .
So you wonder why it’s a yearly argument that never changes ?????????

Dan
Let me be clear: I am in full support of a slot fish for many reasons and the ones you mention. Having said that the discussions, meetings, briefs, presentations presented are ongoing ALL year long and for as long as i have been involved which is 13 years but probably 8 years since we have been presenting data on the benefits of a Slot Fish. ALL fisheries clubs, management groups and private public people like Tom Smith have presented different options, data, briefs etc to little or no attention when it matters. I will leave it at that.
Talk about banging your head against the wall!.

The Feds give NJ an option package, the NJ DEP has a little wiggle room to adjust those options but typically its season start / end date (length) to meet what the feds consider our quota allocation.

TO DATE: A slot fish would reduce our season dramatically based on MRIP.
Once we go there the current season would get shut down and the next year reduced.

Again the NJ DEP sets the regs based on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council advisements which are limited by the MAMFC and ASMFC options Federally.

Why anyone at FG would need to be approached about a slot fish is either its not achievable, or another way to pass blame with little accountability. Every faction of our marine fisheries councils have been and should be well informed on any / all of this every year.

[dales529]

Dave every call I had with Dustin Learning and Kiley Dancy involving introducing a slot and the associated benefits immediately turned into how much of the season would the recreational sector be willing to give up for that accommodation. The problem with the system is no one is factoring the benefits of harvesting younger age classes with a more balanced gender mix into the equation and completely ignoring the impacts on improved recruitment of that change in this fishery.

What I find to be a complete inequity between the sectors is as most know commercial can retain any fish 14" or larger. So commercial can harvest 14", 15" or 16" fish year round with no impact whatsoever to their quota or fishing access but that's not the case with the recreational sector. If the recreational sector wants to harvest those age classes, we're expected to sacrifice more than we have already in spite of the obvious benefits to the fishery.

If the recreational quota allows 3 fish per day per angler to be harvested, why would the harvest of 3 fish at 18" be acceptable yet the harvest of 3 fish at 16" not be if quotas are all weight driven. Someone help me understand the point of a daily possession limit if the above were not true.

The answer is those daily possession limits are theoretical and essentially meaningless. If recreational anglers on average came close to harvesting those levels daily, the recreational sector would overfish their quota by probably 100% to 200%. The regulations the following year would be slashed. In 2018, 92% of trips resulted in slightly over one fish caught per angler. And that number excludes trips resulting in no fish landed. Think about how far we've fallen with this fishery. With the current size and daily position limits in place, in 2018 the average fluke retained per angler trip was less than one fish! And since the regulations in place today are essentially the same, I would expect the same to hold true today.

What all this should mean to each of you is that the federal and state governments have essentially manipulated the regulations to have the recreational angler on average harvest less than one fish per trip. That's the reality of where this fishery is at whether you realize it or not. Size minimums are being used to regulate harvest, daily possession limits are essentially irrelevant. Case in point, how many fish do you think you'd retain each trip if you had a 10 fish daily possession limit but the size minimum was increased to 30".

Until fisheries management realizes this fishery needs to be managed based on size and gender of fish harvested and not weight, the fishery will continue its struggles. No different than the conditions that caused the recent change in regulations with the striped bass fishery. Introduce a slot, protect the very young age classes, promote harvest of the middle age classes, protect the breeders and larger females while improving recruitment. In the process, reduce discard mortality which is a huge issue recreationally due to the regulations and commercially due to selective harvest. Not all that hard to understand and completely supportable based on fishery management's own data. The hard part is finding someone to listen to basic common sense and stop playing politics with an incredibly vital public resource.

Tom
You know through many of our conversations where I stand on this. Magnason reform, MRIP reform etc all has to happen before anything along these lines move forward and you are well aware of the hold up.

[Billfish715]

Dakota, I have always been awed by your devotion to the issues facing the fluke fishing community and appreciative for all you continue to do to convince the bureaucrats of the need to think outside the box. So, I know you can answer my very elementary question. Do we need the permission of a particular agency to fish for fluke or can we go it alone? What happens if N.J. decides to be non-compliant with the regulations set forth by the various agencies? Will we not be allowed to fish for fluke?

[tautog]

Massive and open civil disobedience is the only true solution.

[dakota560]

Dakota, I have always been awed by your devotion to the issues facing the fluke fishing community and appreciative for all you continue to do to convince the bureaucrats of the need to think outside the box. So, I know you can answer my very elementary question. Do we need the permission of a particular agency to fish for fluke or can we go it alone? What happens if N.J. decides to be non-compliant with the regulations set forth by the various agencies? Will we not be allowed to fish for fluke?

Billfish I'll venture to answer your question but there's others more well-versed than I am with all the provisions of Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA". Dave, "Dales529", being one who's been at it a lot longer than I have and having a much more comprehensive understanding of all the regulations.

That being said, I believe if a state is deemed to be non-compliant, Emergency Measures per MSA kick in. Consider it to be the stick that MSA provides the Federal government to use if states vote to be out of compliance. My recollection when this was discussed in 2018 is it imposes upon the state a mandatory size and possession limit that I believe was something along the lines of two fish at 22" and a significantly shortened season. When I say shortened season, I believe it was only about a month and might be the 31 days that Dave alluded to in his earlier post. I believe MSA may also potentially allow a complete closure of both the recreational and commercial industry within the state and I thought I recalled something stating that closure might not just be for summer flounder but encompass other stocks as well. In other words, you definitely do not want to be non-compliant because the penalties would be so severe.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Billfish I'll venture to answer your question but there's others more well-versed than I am with all the provisions of Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA". Dave, "Dales529", being one who's been at it a lot longer than I have and having a much more comprehensive understanding of all the regulations.

That being said, I believe if a state is deemed to be non-compliant, Emergency Measures per MSA kick in. Consider it to be the stick that MSA provides the Federal government to use if states vote to be out of compliance. My recollection when this was discussed in 2018 is that imposes upon the state a mandatory size and possession limit that I believe was something along the lines of two fish at 22" and a significantly shortened season. When I say shortened season, I believe it was only about a month and might be the 31 days that Dave alluded to in his earlier post. I believe MSA may also potentially allow a complete closure of both the recreational and commercial industry within the state and I thought I recalled something stating that closure might not just be for summer flounder but encompass other stocks as well. In other words, you definitely do not want to be non-compliant because the penalties would be so severe.

If I remember correctly, the last time NJ fought back and decided to be out of compliance also meant that federally licensed commercial and recreational fishing vessels in NJ could have been shut down.

The other wild card in this whole thing is the administrations in place back then was a lot more fishermen friendly. Christie was on board as was the NJDEP. It got escalated to the the Feds and the then Sec of Commerce Wilbur Ross told the ASMFC, figure something out, in other words make some sort of compromise with NJ...

Not sure that would have happened with our current governor or Sec of Commerce. This is likely the reason we're being told pick one of the options, rather then roll the dice and go out of compliance again.

You don't have to like that answer but it is what it is.

[bunker dunker]

we can get to Mars.we can manufacture a vaccine for a flu strain we have never
seen not heard about in 8 months.we have houses that accept verbal commands
but we can't figure out how to regulate fluke or sea bass?????

[Billfish715]

but we can't figure out how to regulate fluke or sea bass?????

I can see a need for some regulations but it seems we are overly regulated and worse, OUR interests seem to be ignored. We are all shareholders in this and yet those who have the greatest interest in it have the least effect on the outcome. That is perhaps the biggest insult and what is at the base of all of our gripes.

In all of my many, many years of fishing for fluke, never was there a time when there were no fluke to catch. I can remember a time when fishermen who lived through the Depression and WWII and the Korean Conflict went subsistence fishing. If it had fins, and could fit between two pieces of bread to make a meal, it went into a bag or bucket or cooler and was taken home for lunch or dinner for the family. There were no limits, only those set by the individual fisherman. Sure, there were lots of small fish caught and kept. Sure, the fish never got too big , yet most of the fishing was done along the beaches for fluke. No one ventured too far out off the beach where we know moat of the bigger fish are today.

There were always fluke and enough fluke for people who wanted them for dinner or lunch. And then, came the regulations. So much has happened during that time. Beaches have been "improved" by the Army Corps of Engineers and a noticeable change came about in the fishing techniques and fishing locations of the private and party boats. No one fishes along the beach anymore. There may be a correlation between the replenishment and the change in fishing along the beaches but that's a topic for another discussion.

I've been through many, many years of fishing for fluke. I'm still excited every time I drop a baited line to the bottom while waiting for a fluke to bite. I've been at this for a long time and still, the fluke keep coming. My biggest complaint and what upsets me the most is that a small group of people who apparently have no interest in me, have the audacity to instill in me, their values about how I choose to fish.

[bunker dunker]

we hear everyday now the phase"follow the science",why don't we?????so if
"science" says that 78%{+ or -} of all fluke over 18 inches are female then why would we have a keeper size of 18"??? i have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but i can tell you that if if there are no hens there will be no eggs.maybe its just me but if the feds really wanted a solution wouldn't they at
least try something new rather than travel a road that keeps getting worse.

[dakota560]

We hear everyday the phase "follow the science", why don't we????? So if
"science" says that 78%{+ or -} of all fluke over 18 inches are female then why would we have a keeper size of 18"??? i have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but i can tell you that if if there are no hens there will be no eggs. maybe its just me but if the feds really wanted a solution wouldn't they at
least try something new rather than travel a road that keeps getting worse.

Bunker / Billfish,
There's no logic in how this fishery is being managed. Pick your poison of why basic concepts are ignored. MSA, incompetence, alternate agenda, credibility (failure to admit mismanagement of fishery), power, money, greed, arrogance, politics etc. My opinion, a combination of all the above.

Basic problems, other than MSA, of why this fishery continues to fail. Assumption in models, right or wrong, has 25% mortality every year from natural causes. Natural meaning predation (cormorants, dog fish, stripers, sea bass etc.) and sickness. In addition, discard mortality rates are assumed at approximately 2% annually of the total biomass or slightly over 30% of landings. Combined, natural and discard mortality run at about 28% of the biomass per year. A key reason in my opinion why this methodology for managing the fishery will never work. Almost 90% of landings in today's fishery consists of age classes 3-yrs. and above. For comparison sake, in the 80’s and 90’s those age groups made up less than 15% of yearly landings. We're harvesting the wrong age classes today, all sexually mature fish and a proportionately higher percentage female. Recreational size minimums are at the center of that change in the fishery both recreationally and commercially. It's interesting to note that the increased size fish harvested commercially bears a direct relationship to the increase in size minimums over the years to the recreational angling community. In other words the fish that the recreational community are being forced to release are subsequently being harvested by commercial operators for their higher market value. Increased size minimums to the recreational sector has been a very ingenious means of fisheries management removing access to a significant portion of the biomass from the recreational sector for the benefit of the commercial sector resulting in exclusive access for that sector to all fish in the biomass ranging between 14" to 18" - 19". Recruitment has declined over the last 15 years to historical and unprecedented lows and scientists scratch their heads and wonder why.

Do the math. Assume this year’s recruitment class is 100 fish. First year we lose 28% to mortality or 28 fish. Second year starts with 72 fish, lose another 28% or 20 fish bringing that age class to 52 fish remaining after 2 years. Third year we lose another 28% or 15 fish bringing the population to 37 fish after 3 years. We essentially lose around 63% of every recruitment class by age 3 before those fish begin to be harvested. What other fishery is managed this way AND allows commercial harvest during the spawn when recruitment has literally imploded over the last two decades with no pre-emptive efforts to address that decline. Not only are there trillions of eggs destroyed in that process every year but Marine fisheries has absolutely no sense on what impact commercial harvest is having on the overall efficacy of the spawn. It's unconscionable management at both the Federal and State level hang their hats on MSA legislation and compliance yet insist on regulations that have absolutely destroyed the spawning biomass, devastated recruitment levels, shifted substantial access rights between sectors and allow unabated netting in September and October providing no protection whatsoever to the spawn. That's the leadership mentality we've been governed by far too long.

We went from harvest the young and protect the breeders to let the younger age classes succumb to natural and discard mortality while harvesting almost exclusively the mega breeders. Doesn’t paint a pretty picture. I’m concerned about the future of this fishery. Almost every year this past decade, annual recruitment fell short of natural and fishing mortality meaning there were more fish removed from the biomass than additions. Under those circumstances, it's a statistical impossibility for the fishery to recover and we can thank current regulations for that after 25 years of sacrifice. Haven't read where MSA or the subsequent reauthorization mentions anything about continuing with failed management practices to the detriment of the fishery. I wouldn't get too up in arms or excited about Option 1 or 2, in the big picture they don't really matter. We're squabbling over crumbs.

Fisheries management would rather ignore the facts and keep their heads in the sand as opposed to acknowledging and rectifying their poor decisions. Nothing will change and we'll be having these same discussions every year until a completely different methodology is employed managing this stock.

[bunker dunker]

look i have total respect for those on this site that are doing all the work trying to change this on going disaster but lets call a rock a rock. if the feds really
wanted to help us they would.the numbers will never get better until they start to try different things.common sense would say lets lower the size limit 15 inches so maybe we are not killing as many females which would mean a better
spawning number.this has been going on way to long.think about all the has
happened in the last 20 years as far as technology and we can't manage fish
limits.look i am not telling anyone to give up or stop but at 60 years old i for one
am not wasting another minute on it.

[dakota560]

BD I completely agree. If Marine fisheries, the Commission and Council haven't changed their approach to this fishery in 25 years, it's foolhearted to think they will going forward. The winter flounder stock was destroyed years ago by commercial dragging, what's left for all practical purposes is exclusively a commercial fishery. That's where Summer Flounder is headed. Commercial practices of selectively harvesting larger age classes, predominantly females, killing smaller fish in the process and wreaking havoc on the spawn has caught up with this fishery. And the regulations not only support that behavior, they promote it.

To give an idea of how significant discard mortality is in the commercial trawling practice, there's years on observed trawls dead discard mortalty was reported in excess of 100% of landings with a high of 140% one year. Translated they're killing more tonnage then what's being brought back to the docks and to make matters worse the fish they're killing are the fish the recreational sector are being forced to release. Every year the discard amounts reported on vessel trip reports have been significantly lower than amounts reported by the observers on board which are unconscionably the numbers used by Fisheries Management quantifying commercial catch. Someone can help me understand what the point is of having observers on board if the data they collect is ignored.

Honor system which obviously is under reporting the carnage taking place offshore. The graph illustrating this in the 57th stock assessment was so atrocious, the federal government conveniently removed the chart in the 66th stock assessment for obvious reasons.

Secretary of Commerce, Marine Fisheries, and leadership or lack of on the Commission and Council have failed this fishery and failed the recreational sector and the businesses, party boat / for hire operators and anglers dependent on it who have shouldered the brunt of the sacrifices made over the last 25 years. So in turn, we can lose 6 days in May but have September 26th 27th and 28th to fish when the majority of the biomass will be offshore being pounded by draggers during their annual spawn.

[Capt Sal]

we hear everyday now the phase"follow the science",why don't we?????so if
"science" says that 78%{+ or -} of all fluke over 18 inches are female then why would we have a keeper size of 18"??? i have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but i can tell you that if if there are no hens there will be no eggs.maybe its just me but if the feds really wanted a solution wouldn't they at
least try something new rather than travel a road that keeps getting worse.

BECAUSE IT AIN'T "WE" IT IS "THEM". We did our part with proving the science. We are controlled by the Federal Government in more ways than just Fishing and fish stocks.

[dakota560]

BECAUSE IT AIN'T "WE" IT IS "THEM". We did our part with proving the science. We are controlled by the Federal Government in more ways than just Fishing and fish stocks.

Capt. Sal....that pretty much sums it up. Marine fisheries controls the data, controls the models they use, controls the states, has all the leverage and has legislation written in such a manner that the scales of justice weigh heavily in their favor. If this were a fresh water fishery regulated by states with no commercial value, this resource would be managed for the benefit of the fishery and general public. Introduce industry, Secretary of Commerce, hundreds of millions of dollars economic impact in a year round fishery for the commercial sector and everything changes.

This fishery has been ripped away from the general public and recreational angler and handed to the commercial sector. Can only imagine what degree of horse trading goes on behind closed doors. Lot of money changing hands funded from the public's sacrifices. Wouldn't surprise me if size minimums in five years were 22" so commercial essentially has the entire biomass to harvest themselves. Remember when NY went to 2 fish @21" in 2010 and what we all felt. Well we're not far behind.

Don't get me wrong, the commercial sector should have access rights just as well as the recreational sector to the resource but the allocation of this resource, and I'm not talking about the 60 / 40 split, couldn't be any more inequitable than it is with the regulations in place. 3 more days in a season.....please. What ever happened to "Enough is Enough"? Year round fishery for commercial, 150 odd days recreational. 14" fish size minimum to commercial, 18" for NJ and 19" for NY and Ct. Those size minimums based on the stock assessments mean length by sex and age classes means recreational at 18" don't start harvesting females until age 4 and males since they have a slower and shorter growth rate won't be harvested until age 6. Age 6 with a 25% yearly natural mortality factor! 83% of the male age class will succumb to natural predation by the time our 18" size minimum allows those fish to be harvested recreationally. And that's before factoring in the impacts of discard mortality and commercial harvest of those age classes! And marine fisheries disputes recreational is harvesting 90% - 95% females. Commercial as a result of the size minimum differential has based on my calculations between 40 - 50 million more fish available for harvest than recreational, a staggering discrepancy between sectors. Someone please refer me to the provision in MSA that allows for that type of inconsistency in the allocation of this stock to exist.

[bunker dunker]

dakota best of luck and i hope and pray that someday the feds will call you and ask you to help with this disaster.give & take works in all other states,why not where?.
take & take has always and will always destroy no matter what situation.they never did any studies they just kept taking.started with 13 or 14 inches and kept going up and as long as we put up with it they kept raising it.they don't care about science,quota,studies or us,they just care about the bottom line that takes up space in their pockets.

[dakota560]

dakota best of luck and i hope and pray that someday the feds will call you and ask you to help with this disaster.give & take works in all other states,why not where?.
take & take has always and will always destroy no matter what situation.they never did any studies they just kept taking.started with 13 or 14 inches and kept going up and as long as we put up with it they kept raising it.they don't care about science,quota,studies or us,they just care about the bottom line that takes up space in their pockets.

Didn't wait for the feds to call me, I called them. They have my material and quite frankly could care less. In '19 and '20, I had probably a dozen calls with high level people and arguably 40 - 50 email exchanges with the Commission, Council, North East Science Center "NESC" Woods Hole, Technical Committee and Advisory Panel Members including the lead scientist overseeing this fishery. Names aren't important but state representatives were included from every state in the Mid-Atlantic and the highest ranking Members of Marine Fisheries, the Commission and Council were included in all correspondence. End result is it all falls on deaf ears.

Our problem as a sector is we have limited voice. It takes money and resources for change to happen. Many don't know the commercial sector over the years has successfully sued the federal government regarding increased quotas. If your interested in a good read, search for "The Summer Flounder Chronicles: Science, Politics and Litigation 1975 - 2000 written by Mark Terceiro, lead scientist at NMFS, NESC.

If we're hanging our hats on MSA and MRIP reform, I think we're going to be disappointed in what the future holds. If MSA and subsequent reauthorizations haven't helped in almost 50 years, I'm not holding out hope they will in the near future. Also don't believe Washington will allow their multi-million investment in MRIP go by the wayside. I do however believe there's potential room arguing NMFS and the Commerce Department are in violation of MSA National Standards 4 – “Allocations” as well as FMP 9.2.1.4 (A), (B) and (C) “regarding non-discriminatory measures between fisherman of all states”, “fair and equitable allocation of the resources” “carried out in such a manner not to prejudice any individual, corporation or other entity acquiring excessive shares of such privileges”.

Problem we have starting that fight, funding. My opinion, parties benefiting from recreational spend should fund such a campaign. If the recreational sector can't figure out a way to organize as commercial has and litigate current legislation on the books to get our fair share of the resource, I'm afraid we're destined to the same fate of getting the proverbial short end of the stick going forward. Don't mean to be the wet blanket in all this or throw in the towel but we're David fighting Goliath without the benefit of a sling shot this time around.

[hammer4reel]

Didn't wait for the feds to call me, I called them. They have my material and quite frankly could care less. In '19 and '20, I had probably a dozen calls with high level people and arguably 40 - 50 email exchanges with the Commission, Council, North East Science Center "NESC" Woods Hole, Technical Committee and Advisory Panel Members including the lead scientist overseeing this fishery. Names aren't important but state representatives were included from every state in the Mid-Atlantic and the highest ranking Members of Marine Fisheries, the Commission and Council were included in all correspondence. End result is it all falls on deaf ears.

Our problem as a sector is we have no voice. Recreational is fragmented, not organized, and no funding or true lobbying effort. It takes money, commitment, resources for change to happen. Many don't know the commercial sector over the years has successfully sued the federal government regarding increased quotas. If your interested in a good read, search for "The Summer Flounder Chronicles: Science, Politics and Litigation 1975 - 2000 written by Mark Terceiro, lead scientist at NMFS, NESC.

If we're hanging our hats on MSA and MRIP reform, I think we're going to be disappointed in what the future holds. If MSA and subsequent reauthorizations haven't helped in almost 50 years, I'm not holding out hope they will in the near future. Also don't believe Washington will allow their multi-million investment in MRIP go by the wayside. I do however believe there's potential room arguing NMFS and the Commerce Department are in violation of MSA National Standards 4 – “Allocations” as well as FMP 9.2.1.4 (A), (B) and (C) “regarding non-discriminatory measures between fisherman of all states”, “fair and equitable allocation of the resources” “carried out in such a manner not to prejudice any individual, corporation or other entity acquiring excessive shares of such privileges”.

Problem we have starting that fight, funding. My opinion, the parties benefiting from recreational spend should be approached to fund such a campaign. Bait and tackle industry, rod and reel manufacturers, boat dealers or manufacturers etc. Sycamore Partners who owns Pure Fishing who owns Berkley should fund the initiative alone based on the profits they make in one year from Gulp. If they refuse, don't use their product and I'm sure we'd have their attention. If the recreational sector can't figure out a way to organize as commercial has and litigate current legislation on the books to get our fair share of the resource, than I'm afraid we're destined to the same fate of getting the proverbial short end of the stick from here on out. Don't mean to be the wet blanket in all this or throw in the towel but we're David fighting Goliath and we don't even have the benefit of a sling shot this time around.

Every manufacture gives a ton of money to the ASA to fight for fisherman’s rights .
I believe it’s actually a decent percentage of all net sales .
It’s up to groups to approach the ASA for funding for lawsuits .


.

[dakota560]

Every manufacture gives a ton of money to the ASA to fight for fisherman’s rights .
I believe it’s actually a decent percentage of all net sales .
It’s up to groups to approach the ASA for funding for lawsuits .


.

One last post I'd like to leave the board with and it'll be my last regarding regulations. The use of increased size minimums to handicap the recreational sector is at the center of all that's wrong with this fishery. It creates a huge disparity in the harvest rights of the biomass which I'll illustrate. Its the cause of significantly more females being harvested proportionately both recreationally and commercially which is a contributing factor of why recruitment levels have tanked and discard mortality levels have gone through the roof. That's not to say I agree with all the data, but it is the data being used to make policy decisions and regulate this fishery.

The last reported biomass in 2018 was 121 million fish. Of that, ~70 million were age groups 0 (new recruits / eggs) or 1 year old fish and under the 14" threshold for the commercial sector as well. Age two exceeds the 14" threshold so commercial had ~51 million fish to harvest from the biomass. Conversely, an 18" fish (NJ size minimum) allows for 4 yr old females and 6 year old males to begin being harvested. Based on the biomass population by age that gives NJ recreational anglers ~13 million fish to harvest, an almost 40 million difference in the number of fish available between sectors. Use NY and Ct. at 19". the disparity is even greater.

So the question. If size minimums create a 40 - 45 million disparity in fish eligible to be harvested by sector and if the funding is there to support a law suit against marine fisheries, why haven't those funds been used to argue a 4" to 5" size minimum difference between commercial and recreational is a violation of MSA National Standards 4 addressing fair allocation of the resource. It seems to me from reading the legislation, that standard was enacted to prevent precisely the unfair allocation size minimums have created between sectors. There's no guarantee a lawsuit would be successful but based on the complete inequity size minimum differentials have caused in this fishery along with the negative impacts to the stock itself, why not at least try. Curious what others opinions are.

[reason162]

You are aware that the 14" min size limit was imposed on comms to curb high grading?

[dakota560]

You are aware that the 14" min size limit was imposed on comms to curb high grading?

As acutely aware as I am it didn't accomplish it's intended purpose. All you need to do is track the average commercial landings weights over the last 20 years and the age classes harvested over that same time frame. Sector went from harvesting predominantly age classes 1-3 to predominantly 3-5 age groups. Average landings weight doubled and discard rates soared due to selective harvest. How many younger age class fish do you think survive an hour and a half tow. Just about every fish coming up in a plugged net will go back belly up.

[reason162]

As acutely aware as I am it didn't accomplish it's intended purpose. All you need to do is track the average commercial landings weights over the last 20 years and the age classes harvested over that same time frame. Sector went from harvesting predominantly age classes 1-3 to predominantly 3-5 age groups. Average landings weight doubled and discard rates soared due to selective harvest. How many younger age class fish do you think survive an hour and a half tow. Just about every fish coming up in a plugged net will go back belly up.

How does forcing comms to take 14" fluke lead to more selective harvesting?

They don't want to take 14" fluke. Smaller fish are worth less per lb. They are forced to take 14" fluke bc otherwise they discard and high grade to bigger fish which are worth more.

I assume you know that the comms fought tooth and nail over the 14" limit. It was imposed upon them by fishery managers.

[dakota560]

How does forcing comms to take 14" fluke lead to more selective harvesting?

They don't want to take 14" fluke. Smaller fish are worth less per lb. They are forced to take 14" fluke bc otherwise they discard and high grade to bigger fish which are worth more.

I assume you know that the comms fought tooth and nail over the 14" limit. It was imposed upon them by fishery managers.

I'm trying to be nice but truthfully I'm shocked at your question. Your position is basically if commercial had an 8" minimum size, they would be forced to harvest 8" fish. Not true.
They target and harvest fish that bring the higher market prices. That will always be larger fish than 14". Minimumm size that is four to five inches lower than recreational is not an imposition at all, it provides flexibility to the commercial sector if they choose to harvest smaller fish for whatever reason. Reality is they're not, you seem to think they are. If that were true, why have commercial landings by age gone from harvesting predominantly 2-3 year-old fish twenty years ago to predominantly 3-5 year old fish today? 3 to 5-year-old fish, male or female, are not 14". Landing weights over the last 20 years subsequent to the 14" minimum being put in place have doubled for commercial. So if you think of 14" fish on average weighs 2 1/2 lbs., you need to let me know where you're fishing. Commercial operators are harvesting larger age class fish because that's where the higher market value is. Why do you think ex- vessel values have increased even though quotas have been cut. 14" fish are collateral damage in the commercial fishery. All you need to do is reference the dead discard levels in the 57th stock assessment I referenced earlier on observed commercial trawls and it'll illustrate the carnage taking place from commercial operations. Because commercial concerns choose to harvest older age groups in spite of the 14" minimum they have, that's called selective harvest. Select to retain the larger fish and select to toss the smaller less valuable fish back dead. Nobody is forcing them to keep the smaller fish and I assure you they're not.

[reason162]

I'm trying to be nice but truthfully I'm shocked at your question. Your position is basically if commercial had an 8" minimum size, they would be forced to harvest 8" fish.

No.

My point is - if they drag up a 14" fish, they are forced to keep it and count it towards their quota. That's why they opposed the smaller size limit.

Nothing else you're claiming has anything to do with the 14" comm limit. If draggers are catching larger fish it's not bc there's a smaller size limit - that defies all logic. Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof.

I'm not sure if you're confused about this or just using the 14" comm limit cynically to whip up support for your dubious narrative. IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste.

[dakota560]

No.

My point is - if they drag up a 14" fish, they are forced to keep it and count it towards their quota. That's why they opposed the smaller size limit.

Nothing else you're claiming has anything to do with the 14" comm limit. If draggers are catching larger fish it's not bc there's a smaller size limit - that defies all logic. Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof.

I'm not sure if you're confused about this or just using the 14" comm limit cynically to whip up support for your dubious narrative. IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste.

I'll put this in terms a 3-yr old can understand just for your benefit. Difference in size minimums between NJ (18"), NY and CT (19") and the commercial size minimum of 14" gives the commercial sector approximately 40 to 45 million more fish to harvest than recreational anglers. That's a fact based on the data from science you so vehemently defend.

There is a significant difference in market prices between small, medium, large and jumbo fish. Commercial operators will harvest larger fish with higher market values and discard smaller fish. If you believe they're throwing back higher market value fish and keeping lesser market value smaller fish of 14", you should consider counseling. Look at the attached chart from the 57th assessment and see how commercial discard mortality as a percentage of landings exploded when commercial operators starting selectively targeting larger higher market value fish. Those percentages are nothing less than tragic. If you need help finding that information since I know you struggle with this, those tables are on pages 124, 125, 128 and 129 of the 66th SAW. Almost 100% in 2001, 85% in 2006, 140% in 2007, approxmately 100% in 2008 and 60% in 2009. Those statistics come from official observers on board vessels. In 2007 alone on observed trips, if the commercial sector harvested1,000,000 lbs, they killed an additional 1,400,000 lbs of smaller fish and tossed them overboard in the process. And you would ask us to believe they kept smaller fish fetching maybe $1.25 a lb. back at the docks and discarded larger fish at maybe $5. a lb. because they are bound by a 14" size minimum. And you call my narrative dubious.

I never said commercial are targeting larger fish because of the 14". I said they're targeting them because of higher market values which for the third time is called SELECTIVE HARVEST. And they're able to do so because recreational are forced to release those same fish due to bloated minimums which in turn commercial harvest to maximize catch values. Unless of course you want us to believe they're actually trying to minimize catch values by retaining smaller fish. Because recreational has no choice but to release them, it's not referred to as SELECTIVE HARVEST.

If per your argument 14' fish were forced on commercials to reduce hygrading and discards, which is laughable, why not force it on recreational anglers to cause the same result. It's called a slot and the recreational community has been asking for one for years. A request that has fallen on deaf ears for all those years. We can catch 3 fish at 18" per day but not 3 fish at 16", reduce the insane 10 to 1 discard ratio we're currently operating at and save a million or more female breeders in the process but that's not plausible because of these moronic regulations.

Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof. Or maybe they're simply destroying another stock. Nets have no conscience. Do yourself a favor, before opining on any of this talk to guys who've worked on commercial boats and ask them how this all works and how much waste is involved in the commercial fishery. Then do yourself a favor and research what happens with discard mortality when SELECTIVE HARVEST is involved. Then come back and we can have an intellectual fact based debate.

IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste. You couldn't be more wrong about limiting waste. The attached graph completely blows your statement out of the water. Dead discard mortality percentages are at record highs so I guess per you federal observers data must be dubious as well.

[reason162]

I'll put this in terms a 3-yr old can understand just for your benefit.

Lol look, I understand that you are used to a chorus of agreement here on njfishing - please don't get too upset when someone looks at your tenuous claims and isn't convinced.

If comms are high grading 14"+ fluke, they are violating the law. If you think that's happening then the issue is enforcement, not the 14" minimum.

Your goal is to lower the rec limit, roping in the comm limit adds nothing to your argument except pad the illusion that us rec anglers are getting ****ed from all corners. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the rec limit should be based on best avail science, but it has nothing to do with the comm size limit. Just pointing that out.

[Billfish715]

This started out with my reaction (picture) of the posted prices for fluke and seabass at a local, well-respected fish market. The fluke fillets that I saw for sale were from average sized (market sized ) fish in the 14-18 inch range. The current commercial limit for fluke for each trip is 200 pounds. Do the math. Even if the fluke weigh 1lb. that means once they catch 200 fish, they are done. There is no doubt that the smaller fish bring in smaller dollars, so, where do you think they go if there are larger fish in the trawl; especially if the larger fish bring in bigger dollars? Two hundred pounds is still the same, but two hundred pounds of fish that bring in more money per pound is what brings the temptation to discard the smaller fish. I think it's more about the discards that causes the ire of recreational fishermen. Maybe Dakota know more about how the commercial discards (just like the rec's mortality rates) are figured into the commercial quotas. Or are they?

If smaller fluke are fetching $20 per pound at the market, how much will the fillets from a 5 or 6 pound fish bring?

[Capt Sal]

Lol look, I understand that you are used to a chorus of agreement here on njfishing - please don't get too upset when someone looks at your tenuous claims and isn't convinced.

If comms are high grading 14"+ fluke, they are violating the law. If you think that's happening then the issue is enforcement, not the 14" minimum.

Your goal is to lower the rec limit, roping in the comm limit adds nothing to your argument except pad the illusion that us rec anglers are getting ****ed from all corners. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the rec limit should be based on best avail science, but it has nothing to do with the comm size limit. Just pointing that out.

I find your comments to be insulting to a person that has helped the recreational fisherman for a long time. Maybe you should listen to what he says and learn something.

[Billfish715]

Well said, Captain Sal. This more for me and less for thee attitude has to stop. Rules are rules and are set to provide limits to people’s greed. It sounds as if Reason wants it all. I’m not sure what his rules are or are not. Unless rules are changed and made more equitable for everyone, we are stuck with what we have. Facts and figures are all we have as ammunition in seeking any changes.we have a knowledgeable and supportive friend and NJF.com member who devotes his time for us. Give him the respect that he’s due.

Wasteful management programs are our nemesis. Until they are balanced, this controversy will continue. We need the facts and figures and we need friends like Dakota.

[dakota560]

Lol look, I understand that you are used to a chorus of agreement here on njfishing - please don't get too upset when someone looks at your tenuous claims and isn't convinced.

If comms are high grading 14"+ fluke, they are violating the law. If you think that's happening then the issue is enforcement, not the 14" minimum.

Your goal is to lower the rec limit, roping in the comm limit adds nothing to your argument except pad the illusion that us rec anglers are getting ****ed from all corners. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the rec limit should be based on best avail science, but it has nothing to do with the comm size limit. Just pointing that out.

You can criticize my work all you wish as your entitled to your opinion, but I’d ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Once again, I never said the 14" size minimum commercially is the driving force for commercial operators harvesting larger fish. To the contrary I’ve repeatedly said significantly higher market prices for larger older age class fish based on market demand created that opportunity. I’ve stated and believe size increases to the recreational sector have been implemented as a means of managing catch to facilitate those age classes being inaccessible to the recreational sector and available exclusively for harvest by the commercial sector due to the size disparity between sectors. You can disagree all you wish with the intent of management, but the result is 40 – 45 million older age classes in the biomass have become the exclusive property of the commercial sector and not available to the general public for harvest. The recreational community can catch them, be assessed a 30% discard penalty further reducing the portion of their RHL quota for harvest, but they can’t harvest them. Personally I call that an egregious disparity in the regulations between sectors and what I believe is a violation, as stated, of Standard 4 of MSA. Recreational has become the stocking arm so to speak for the commercial fishery in the sense the fish we’re forced to release are subsequently targeted by commercial operations for their higher prices. Review the attached graph trending commercial landings weights, ex-vessel values and wholesale price per lb. for the period 1994 through 2018, source page 7 of the “MAFMC Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document” dated August 2019. If you need a copy, I’d be happy to provide it. Annual landing weights have been cut in half, while simultaneously ex-vessel values (catch values) have tripled and the price per lb. has quadrupled. I guess based on your argument, you would want us to believe that’s being driven by all the 14” fish being retained because of the commercial minimum size limit. If you do, stop here because truthfully there’s no sense continuing.

My goal is not and never has been to lower recreational limits or increase commercial size limits. My focus from day one has been and continues to be understanding what's happened and is happening in this fishery leading to a 70 million fish or 40% decline in the population between 2009 and 2017, a 40 - 45 million decline in the female component, why recruitment levels have precipitously declined this past decade by 200 million from the preceding decade, why every age class has undergone a significant decline in gender composition and why discard rates have approached levels never before seen. Discard rates which I believe are under-reported in the commercial sector based on unbiased reports from federally mandated observers reflected in the attachment. Those percentages are a disgrace. For the 5-yrs I referenced in my previous post, '01, '06, '07, '08 and '09, commercial discards averaged close to 100% of landings those years. I want to quantify that statement so everyone understands what that means. For those five years, commercial landings were slightly in excess of 55 million pounds. So the commercial sector harvested 55 million lbs. of older age classes and in the process based on onboard observers killed 55 million pounds of lesser market value younger age classes to promote higher ex-vessel values. At the time, commercial harvested weights averaged roughly 2.25 lbs. per fish and discard weights averaged 1.25 lbs. consisting almost entirely of age classes 0 to 2. Older age classes harvested, younger age classes killed. If you don’t believe my analysis, I strongly suggest you read pages 58 and 59 of the 57th SAW under “Commercial Discard Estimates at Age”. 55 million pounds at an average of 1.25 lbs. means in those 5 years 44 million fish were killed in the process of harvesting the equivalent weight of older age class higher market value fish. Want to repeat that, 44 MILLION fish were killed in the process of harvesting the same weight of older age class higher market value fish. That’s 36% of the last reported biomass, too unreal to imagine but the graph I posted yesterday which I’ll include again with this post doesn’t suggest it, it validates it. To further put it in perspective, the recreational harvest limit for 2019 – 2021 is 7.69 million lbs. a year in comparison.

I’ve been vocal regarding my concerns about the commercial harvest being allowed during the spawn on the most concentrated biomass in the history of this fishery. With today’s technology, highly concentrated biomass and a complete lack of understanding what impacts that practice has on the efficacy of the spawn, it’s impossible to quantify the effects this is having on the health of the fishery. 64% of the 2018 commercial catch came from three regions right in our backyard. Areas 537, 613 and 616. View the attached graph “Summer Flounder Catch” from the same “Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document” referenced above. And then tell me trillions of eggs being destroyed harvesting a highly concentrated and materially gender impaired spawning stock isn’t hurting this fishery. The season should be shut down during September / October and the 10% – 15% of the commercial quota being harvested in those months re-allocated to other months of the year. Don’t take away quota, reallocate so as not to coincide with the spawn. 200,000,000 less new fish recruited into the stock decade over decade and management does nothing to address the problem and even worse indicates after a decade or more of declining recruitment they have no idea what the cause is. Any fishery with below average recruitment already has one foot in the grave. This fishery is no different and while management hypothesizes about ocean acidification, global warming, climate change, density differential, predation etc. the problem worsens with no remedial action taken. Many fisheries have regulations, closed seasons, closed regions, catch and release to protect the spawn and the spawning biomass, not sure why this fishery is any different.

Billfish to answer your question, it's my understanding the basis for commercial discards come from data provided on Vessel Trip Reports "VTR's" which operators are required to submit each trip. It's strictly an honor system, they can have 100% discards on a trip and report 20% and no one would know otherwise. There isn't enforcement at sea when it comes to discards. Look at the graph I posted yesterday and again with this post today and note the glaring differences in percentages reported between observers and operators on VTR's (blue and black bars in the first attached chart). In the video you posted, which I'm well aware of, does anyone honestly believe those large fish were tossed overboard and 14" fish retained. Please, at some point in these discussion common sense has to be applied.

The fishery needs to come first and management has been operating under the same flawed management philosophy for the last 15 - 20 years while the fishery is failing. If the above statistics in your opinion don't paint the picture of a failing fishery, you and I have a different definition of failing. Commercial operations over all these years and through all these cuts have increased ex-vessel prices due to elevated market prices of their catch, the most critical metric for commercial operators. In the meantime, recreational has sacrificed ridiculous decreases in possession limits and increases in size minimums, been forced to endure shortened seasons and lost harvest rights to 40 - 45 million fish. In 2018, 67% of angler trips ended up with one fish landed, 24% ended up with two fish. And that excludes trips were no fish were harvested. Reference attached graph. The sacrifices in this fishery have fallen squarely on the recreational sector and we’re still at risk of further cuts if recruitment continues its decline which is pretty much a statistical certainty.

All these problems are created in my opinion and based on what the data is telling us for two reasons. You can't harvest a resource twelve months out of the year, pound them during their spawn, target older age classes selectively or due to regulatory mandates and think you can have a sustainable fishery. It is precisely those reasons the stock crashed in 1988 and the biomass population declined to 78 million fish of which age groups 0 - 2 accounted for 75 million of that population. Meaning the older age classes were wiped out. We’re doing exactly the same thing today. Kill the breeders, kill younger age classes in the process, destroy the strength of the spawning stock, recruitment is decimated and the cycle continues.

Your comments don’t concern me based on who they’re coming from. I’ve done more analysis, research, communicated with marine fisheries, the Commission and Counsel more in the last three years than you will in your lifetime. All my comments, interpretations and conclusions are based on data developed by the science you so adamantly espouse. You show complete lack of respect for the members on this site and provide no tangible contribution to the issues plaguing this fishery. My efforts have been to focus attention on what the data is telling us are the problems. I have no concerns about my approach yet you dismiss them as dubious and tenuous for reasons only known to you and reasons truthfully I could care less about. My efforts and fight are for the recreational angling community, the commercial sector, future generations and upmost the fishery itself. It's being grossly mismanaged and the time has more than come for fisheries management to be held accountable.

I’ll finish by asking three questions I’d like you to answer for the site and its members since you seem to have such great insight into this fishery. First, I’ve never come across language in MSA, state regulations or any material which said commercial operators are required to retain any fish over 14”. All the language I’ve seen basically says “commercial operators will not be allowed to harvest or be in possession of fish under 14”. I’d be interested where that language exists. Second if my interpretations and conclusions are wrong, I’d be interested in your theory as to why the biomass declined by 70 million fish or 40% of its population between 2009 and 2017, what caused 40 - 45 million decline in the female composition, why recruitment levels have tanked this past decade by 200 million from the preceding decade, why every age class has undergone a material and significant decline in gender composition and why discard rates have approached levels never before seen. Please address each of those five issues. And lastly, I know what my efforts have been these last three years fighting for the fishery and the rights of both the commercial and recreational sector. Regardless of the outcome, I can sleep soundly at night knowing I tried making a difference. The same way the RFA, SSFFF and many others have given their time willingly to fight for the fishery and our collective rights to access it. Without them, we'd have no voice and no representation whatsoever and this fight would be over. I know what I’ve done or tried to do, would appreciate hearing what your contributions have been for the same. Remember “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.

[shrimpman steve]

Thanks for your tireless work tom!

[Capt Sal]

Thanks for your tireless work tom!

That is for sure!

[june181901]

Dakota 560: I too appreciate your efforts and respect your thoughts. Please continue until your goals are met.

[reason162]

There are huge gaping holes in fisheries management, we can all agree on that, but which parts are missing is up for debate.

Here's a good place to dig in on these complex issues if people are actually interested in another, dare I say, more scientifically literate point of view - http://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/

Or by all means, carry on in this echo chamber and feel personally insulted if someone disagrees with the consensus.

[AndyS]

In November, CPO Tomlin and Recruit Szelc began reviewing commercial fishing vessel trip reports for the port of Cape May. The officers discovered a summer flounder landing that exceeded the allowable daily landing limit by 2000 pounds. The discovery prompted further investigation by CPOs Raker, Tomlin, and Recruit Szelc. Through a course of interviews, it was determined there was a miscommunication between the dealer and the vessel which led to the vessel bringing in over the trip
limit. Summonses for landing over the daily trip limit and accepting summer flounder in excess of the trip limit were issued to both the vessel and the dealer. CPOs in Cape May have been busy with the implementation of the new possession in excess of daily limit vessel license. This license allows vessels to enter port and offload catch while retaining summer
flounder and black sea bass onboard that is bound for another state. On December 13, 2020, CPO Tomlin and Recruit Szelc conducted an inspection of a commercial fishing vessel in Cape May. The vessel operator claimed to be landing scup and summer flounder under New Jersey daily landing limits and had black sea bass on board bound for Virginia. The vessel, which did not have a New Jersey black sea bass landing permit, had failed to notify the department of any landing. This is an essential requirement in the law which allows enforcement to monitor the excess fish which are being landing in New Jersey. CPO Tomlin and Recruit Szelc issued the appropriate summonses for failing to call in for 9 the possession in excess of a daily limit landing, failing to call in for a directed summer flounder landing, and exceeding the bycatch limit of black sea bass.
District 8 CPOs have been actively inspecting party fishing vessels in Atlantic and Cape May counties stemming from large quantities of undersized/over the limit fish being found in early November. On November 28, 2020, CPOs Tomlin, Meyer, Sloan and Recruit Szelc inspected two Cape May party
boats returning from black sea bass fishing trips. The officers inspected patrons as they departed the vessels and recovered approximately seventy-five illegal black sea bass. A total of eleven summonses were issued primarily for possession of over the daily limit of black sea bass. This increased
inspection frequency of party fishing vessels in Cape May and Atlantic Counties has had a noticeable impact on the violation rate of patrons as more recent inspections have resulted in minor, if any

[pectoralfin]

dakota560 In all the reading I do about the summer flounder situation, I've never had it explained the way you did. Thank you

[dakota560]

There are huge gaping holes in fisheries management, we can all agree on that, but which parts are missing is up for debate.

Here's a good place to dig in on these complex issues if people are actually interested in another, dare I say, more scientifically literate point of view - http://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/

Or by all means, carry on in this echo chamber and feel personally insulted if someone disagrees with the consensus.

An echo chamber by definition is an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

You were given multiple opportunities to answer three simple questions and share your opinions but didn't or couldn't. Instead you refer people to Charles Witek's blog. Alternate ideas can only be considered and discussed if they're presented which yours weren't. I've often read Mr. Witek's blog, even he would agree stocks need protection during their spawn. We probably agree on just as much as we disagree. That's what makes for healthy debates.

More scientific? How much more scientific could something be than analysis using marine fisheries own data prepared by their scientists. I wouldn't think to test my legal skills against a Corporate Attorney like Mr. Witek. And in turn, I wouldn't think a Corporate Attorney would test his analytical skills against a Chief Financial Officer of over 30 years.

Again if your goal here is to stir the pot and simply criticize opinions and posts of others while not sharing your own, there's no constructive point in that. If you want opposing views to be discussed constructively, you need to share those views first for that to happen. Balls in your court.