Petition to Change Summer Flounder Regulations

[dakota560]

Started an on-line petition using Change.org to send a message to Washington that the current regulations in place intended to safeguard and grow the stock are in fact based on their own data causing the stock to decline substantially. If we want this fishery to survive and be available to future generations as its been to us, I'd ask every Member of this site along with Sponsors to please take a minute to sign. The link is as follows:

https://chng.it/JVwdktvr

As previously mentioned, I'll have a document ready to send in about a week to Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce with copy to NOAA, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, all state members of the Commission and Council as well as State and Congressional Representatives associated with the shore based districts for states of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regions who share in this fishery and have the most to lose if this fishery continues it's decline.

The current regulations are killing this fishery. Size minimums went too far causing substantial declines in the spawning stock population, mature female population, recruitment statistics accompanied by levels of discard mortality never before seen. We're harvesting the wrong age classes, killing younger age classes in the process and without changes to the regulations this fishery will in fact continue declining.

If donations to groups fighting to preserve access rights and protect this extremely important fishery isn't your thing, I can understand that. I'm asking everyone to take 5 minutes of your time to sign an on-line petition which can be sent to Washington and our elected officials to demonstrate our resolve and send a clear and unequivocal message voicing our concerns about how this fishery is being managed and the immediate need to change todays regulations back to the regulations in place in the nineties that promoted unprecedented growth in this stock.

I appreciate your understanding and support in advance. We need to get the word out and get as many people as possible to sign this petition. We're at the time of year when 2022 regulations will be discussed and decided on so now is the time to act. To sign, simply click on the above link and go to the bottom of the page and fill in reason for signing and then hit post. Example of reason for posting can be "Population has declined by over 70 million fish in a ten year span due to the current regulations. We're harvesting exclusively fish comprising the spawning stock, killing younger age class fish in the process, killing a disproportionate number of females causing a 50% decline in the female population which in turn has decimated yearly recruitment". Or simply" Fisheries management replaced regulations which promoted the most explosive growth in the fishery during the nineties with higher recreational size minimums causing the stock to decline every year over the last decade." NMFS replaced regulations which worked with regulation that don't, they need to change otherwise there will continue to be catastrophic social and economic consequences to small businesses, the commercial and recreational sectors, the fishery itself and the economies of shore based communities as well as the many businesses dependent on the health of this stock.

Gerry I'd appreciate it if you pin this to the top of the saltwater forum. It needs everyone's immediate attention.

[tjd24]

Done

[Skolmann]

Signed & shared

[Quin T Rex]

Done

[dakota560]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for those who have signed and for those who've posted they signed on this thread. Would like a hundred more signatures by end of day and thousands of signatures within a few weeks to send a message to Washington. Truthfully with the amount of people engaged in this fishery and businesses dependent on it's health, the number of signatures should be substantial.

I'm not doing this for my health, I'm doing it because I care about this fishery and all fisheries and have seen too many disappear in my lifetime. I care about the small businesses dependent on the survival of these fisheries, the sponsors here who depend on the same health to support their livelihoods and I care about the commercial sector that carves a living, a very difficult living, from the seas resources. I want my kids and their children to experience the same pleasure fishing for fluke I experienced with my parents and family growing up.

I'm asking everyone to sign not just for this stock but all stocks and to demonstrate we can be unified in our efforts and have a common voice. We all said, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" and I believed it then and still do today. Time to show it by taking 5 minutes to sign the petition. Between this, the analysis I've spent four years of my life developing which is headed to Washington and efforts by organization like RFA, we have a honest chance in my opinion to contribute to and influence policy decisions for the good of the fishery and everyone involved. Please don't take that opportunity for granted, we're better than that and the fishery and all it's constituents deserve better than that.

If people belong to other fishing clubs, send them my post and link. Talk to your friends and ask them to join NJF and show their support by signing. Post the link on other web sites if necessary.
Gerry and Dave, I'd ask each of you to get RFA on board. If every member from RFA and NJF signed, imagine how many names would be on the petition. Politicians and the management of this fishery would be hard pressed not to listen and acknowledge the current regulations are harming the fishery. This isn't just for recreational anglers or commercial operators, this is a situation where if one loses, we all lose. The stock lost 70 million fish between 2010 and 2017 based on the latest stock assessment. 50% or more than 36 million mature females were removed from the fishery over the same time frame. If the regulations governing this fishery don't change by promoting or causing changes in harvest composition, bolstering recruitment levels and reducing absurd levels of discard mortality, this fishery will disappear. We can collectively prevent that and NOW is the time to act.

[dales529]

Done

[krob8979]

Done

[dakota560]

Thanks to everyone who has already signed the online petition. Just changed the name of the link to something more in line with the cause.

https://www.change.org/SafeguardSummerFlounder

The new link or original link posted will both take you to the same online petition.

In a few short hours, we've managed over 60 signatures with a lot more work to do. The biggest contribution all of us can make at this time is getting the word out and letting people know there's a platform available to voice their displeasure and concerns with the management of this fishery which will only take a few minutes of time to sign.

The analysis has been done, the problems facing the fishery are documented and indisputable and what's needed most is your voice to deliver the message. Every one on this site has the ability to contribute to changes we've long been asking for to nurse this fishery back to health and insure it's future. Please take advantage of that opportunity before further regulatory decisions are made at the expense of the fishery.

[hartattack]

Done, thx Tom

[Jim C]

Done

[hammer4reel]

Signed and shared

[dakota560]

Keep the signatures coming gentlemen and ladies. At 99 for one day so far, a good start but far from where I personally believe the number can go.

Dan can we talk tomorrow about ideas of how to expand our audience and get this in front of the much larger fishing community. Anyone else with ideas about the use of social media or any other ideas, I'd appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Both sectors have made considerable sacrifices as asked or mandated in this fishery only to end up with a stock in worse shape today than it was 20 years ago. There's nothing on the horizon giving hope to reaping the benefits of those sacrifices until the reasons causing the stocks decline have been addressed and changed.

[Fishfulthinkin]

Done, thanks for getting this started Tom.

[hartattack]

Just posted this on NYAngler.com, will ping their Fisheries Management guru and reach out to other passionate members there...

[dakota560]

Just posted this on NYAngler.com, will ping their Fisheries Management guru and reach out to other passionate members there...

Larry thanks so much! Word of mouth and getting this on as many sites as possible or have people come here to NJF will make all the difference in amount of signatures we receive.

Appreciate your efforts my friend! Hope retirement is treating you well.

[Jigman13]

Signed and shared, Tom.

[dakota560]

Jeremy thanks, very much appreciated!

[dakota560]

Over 200 signatures today, great start! Thanks for those who took the time to be part of this process and make a difference. For anyone who reached out to other sites, please relay my appreciation. Most of all, this is a very good start, but we need to keep the momentum going. Everyone knows a few people they fish with who love the salt and enjoy summer flounder fishing. Please reach out to them, send the link and ask for their help signing the petition. It takes one email or phone call to spread this to another fishing club or organization or network of anglers to make this petition relevant.

Again great start and much thanks for those who took the time to sign and be part of the solution. Now let's all work together to keep it going!

[dakota560]

Gerry any chance of pinning this thread so it gets the exposure we need and the attention the fishery needs and deserves?

[splitshotbb]

Done

[Dclark2]

DONE

[dakota560]

Gerry left you a pm, would appreciate a reply when you have time. Thanks!

[hammer4reel]

250 signatures on something that should have thousands by now.
Pretty sad all the guys bitch and whine about not catching enough keeper fluke

Tom has created the link to make it as simple as it can be .

Time to defend the fisheries before there isn’t anything for your kids or grand kids to fish for.
Or don’t waste your time crying later.









.

[shrimpman steve]

Done.

[hammer4reel]

Done.


See that even Florida fisherman get it .
Wish more NJ guys did .

Thanks Steve

[dakota560]

Done.

Steve can always count on you, thanks my friend!

[AndyS]

A petition ??? What happened to the RFA and SSSF ????

I got an idea, we can charter buses and go to Washington D.C. and hold rallies down the shore by the party boats !

[dales529]

250 signatures on something that should have thousands by now.
Pretty sad all the guys bitch and whine about not catching enough keeper fluke

Tom has created the link to make it as simple as it can be .

Time to defend the fisheries before there isn’t anything for your kids or grand kids to fish for.
Or don’t waste your time crying later.


Exactly Dan! been saying the same for years

[dales529]

A petition ??? What happened to the RFA and SSSF ????

I got an idea, we can charter buses and go to Washington D.C. and hold rallies down the shore by the party boats !

Andy, RFA and SSFFF are still in the mix and none of this is easy. Tom trying another path which is never a bad thing and he is certainly dedicated to his work on this.
With all due respect which I have for you exactly how is your post helpful?
It really just diminishes many peoples hard work. Since you contribute your time and effort in a lot of areas to help the fishing community I am surprised by your lack of respect for the work of others! Just saying

[AndyS]

I'm not a hater and you know that, BUT I have been watching this go on for years, how will it be resolved ?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Gerry any chance of pinning this thread so it gets the exposure we need and the attention the fishery needs and deserves?

Just pinned it and it’s been shared on our group Facebook page as well Tom

[dakota560]

Just pinned it and it’s been shared on our group Facebook page as well Tom

Gerry thanks so much,. Efforts and gestures like yours and everyone else who signs is what's going to give us collectively a chance to nurse this fishery back to health for the benefit of both sectors and the many people whose businesses, livelihoods and recreational enjoyment depends on it.

Thanks so much for your involvement and contribution!

[AndyS]

So what is this all about ??
Has anyone who signed the petition ever attend a Marine Fisheries Council meeting ???

https://www.njfishandwildlife.com/marcncl.htm

[Detour66]

Done!

[dakota560]

So what is this all about ??
Has anyone who signed the petition ever attend a Marine Fisheries Council meeting ???

https://www.njfishandwildlife.com/marcncl.htm

I've been to many meetings and listened in on too many webinars. Listened to the same rhetoric for too long with the only thing changing is the fishery continues to struggle, shrink, fail under the current regulations.

What is all this about? Have you read the petition? The stock has lost 70 million in population between 2010 and 2017. 70 million or approximately 40% of the overall population. Mature female population has declined by more than 35 million fish or 50% over the same period. Recruitment levels, the future of every stock, are lower than they were in the 80's. Discard rates are near all time highs because of asinine regulations. In three years around 2010, the recreational sector caught approximately 157 million fish in order to harvest 11 million because of insane increased size minimums. Add insult to injury, 30% of the recreational harvest limit is subsequently lost to release mortality because they're forced to release fish which for decades were eligible for harvest.

4 million less angler trips from 2013 to today because quite frankly people are not going to continue spending the kind of money to catch and release 20 shorts and not be afforded the opportunity to take a few home for the family. 7 million angler trips in 2018 resulted in zero fish retained because of size minimums. 7 MILLION ANGLER TRIPS! Quotas, both commercial and recreational, have been cut between 70% - 80% over the last two decades and still the stock is declining at a ridiculous rate.

The regulations are killing this fishery and if changes aren't made the fishery will be lost. That's what this is all about. We had regulations in place in the nineties the promoted the most explosive growth in the fishery ever and for who knows what reasons they were changed and the stock has been struggling since and both sectors have taken it on the chin with the promise that sacrifices made over the last two decades would result in more liberalized regulations in the future. Well the futures now and the fishery is crashing and more liberalized regulations don't appear to be happening anytime soon. Name one fishery that mandates or promotes the harvest of mature breeders, implements regulations that promote killing younger age classes and allows a commercial harvest during the spawn and I'll show you another fishery that more likely than not is failing. The regulations governing this stock are absolutely absurd and have to be changed before we lose the fishery.

It's time to stop listening to the rhetorical bullshit we listen to every year at public meeting and in webinars and try to save this fishery. Would appreciate you signing the petition but if you believe things are fine then sit back and wait until non-preferred or emergency measures kick in and the summer flounder coastal season consists of 2 fish at 20" with an open season of maybe 6 weeks because that exactly where this fishery is headed. Can't continue with any fishery killing the spawning stock exclusively while already depleted younger age classes become collateral damage.

Landings over the last two decades have declined by 75% - 80 % and still the stock declines. We're harvesting the wrong age classes and in a fishery with an assigned 25% natural mortality rate if the spawning stock isn't protected, if the spawn isn't protected, recruitment will continue crashing and in any fishery if you have poor recruitment classes you have one foot already in the grave.

That's what this is all about. Hopefully you sign the petition but it's your prerogative not to.

[hammer4reel]

I'm not a hater and you know that, BUT I have been watching this go on for years, how will it be resolved ?

The same way your awesome clean ups go

One tire at a time

[dales529]

So what is this all about ??
Has anyone who signed the petition ever attend a Marine Fisheries Council meeting ???

https://www.njfishandwildlife.com/marcncl.htm

Doesn't really matter if signers have attended meetings or not. Marine Fisheries Council is on the State level. If any change were to happen that has to come from the federal level, NOAA, ( National Ocean Atmospheric Association) ASMFC ( Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) MAMFC (Middle Atlantic Marine Fishery Council) and then it dribbles down to the state level. States can ONLY adopt some options for regulations that NOAA approves which is why we dont have a summer flounder slot fish.

Couple that with bureaucracy, ego's and a seemingly endless rebuttal of every fishery advocate group in NJ study and elsewhere with little to none recreational fisherman funding for lobbyists or agreement on any species and that simply is WHY nothing has changed. But not from a lack of effort from RFA, SSFFF, JCAA Tom or many others that keep trying the grunt work with huge obstacles.

Bottom line without a HUGE voice no one above cares or is threatened for re-election as we have a small complaint voice but yet contribute $$$$ to the state and country in boating, tackle sales, taxes, hotels, deli's etc.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease but our rec fishing coalition has yet to squeak on any real level!

Tom is trying to change that through another avenue

[dakota560]

Dave and anyone else interested. Summation letter to Gina Raimondo (Secretary of Commerce) and the accompanied draft with detailed analysis should be completed by this weekend. Dave I'd appreciate your review before mailing out. Certain institutions and members have email addresses, other have to be mailed but The Honorable Gina Raimondo, NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC, and all state members of the MAMFC and ASMFC involved in the management of this fishery along with state and federal representatives from shore based communities and states in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions who participate in this fishery will receive the correspondence.

I could probably use help from someone with the best way to send a draft to our elected officials requesting these archaic regulations be changed to save this fishery and avoid economic disaster as well as the loss of a legacy recreational activity. Similar to what Capt. Dave "MuskyNut" posted for access rights to Greenwood Lake, I can draft the letter but will need some help simplifying an easy way for people to sign and submit. The more correspondence our elected representatives receive, the more attention drawn to this crisis and the better the odds our voices are heard, acknowledged and changes made.

I'm getting a bit ahead of myself but this needs to be done as quickly as possible so if anyone has ideas on how best to set that up, please pm me or post your thoughts on this thread. If we don't act to save this fishery, the current regulations in place will be the final nail in the stock coffin just like what happened to winter flounder. The data and trends that data reveals says so for anyone who wishes to dispute that claim. We need to do what we can to prevent that from happening.

[Pennsy Guy]

DONE

[dakota560]

Gerry I just made a similar post in the fresh water forum asking our sweet water brothers and sisters to support the cause by signing the petition. Would appreciate it if you could pin that thread on that forum as well.

Thanks in advance

Tom

[shrimpman steve]

See that even Florida fisherman get it .
Wish more NJ guys did .

Thanks Steve

My pleasure guys. Gotta stick together

[shrimpman steve]

Steve can always count on you, thanks my friend!

Anytime Tom!

[Detour66]

I posted it on two Fluke fishing sites that I belong to on Facebook. Let's see if that helps!

[dakota560]

I posted it on two Fluke fishing sites that I belong to on Facebook. Let's see if that helps!

Detour thanks so much, every signature matters!

[AndyS]

I'll sign the petition but how are you aware of this "The stock has lost 70 million in population between 2010 and 2017. 70 million or approximately 40% of the overall population. Mature female population has declined by more than 35 million fish or 50% over the same period. Recruitment levels, the future of every stock, are lower than they were in the 80's. Discard rates are near all time highs because of asinine regulations. In three years around 2010, the recreational sector caught approximately 157 million fish in order to harvest 11 million because of insane increased size minimums. Add insult to injury, 30% of the recreational harvest limit is subsequently lost to release mortality because they're forced to release fish which for decades were eligible for harvest", but NOAA, ( National Ocean Atmospheric Association) ASMFC ( Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) MAMFC (Middle Atlantic Marine Fishery Council) are unaware of this, are you looking at different data than them. Where do you get your information from ?

[dakota560]

I'll sign the petition but how are you aware of this "The stock has lost 70 million in population between 2010 and 2017. 70 million or approximately 40% of the overall population. Mature female population has declined by more than 35 million fish or 50% over the same period. Recruitment levels, the future of every stock, are lower than they were in the 80's. Discard rates are near all time highs because of asinine regulations. In three years around 2010, the recreational sector caught approximately 157 million fish in order to harvest 11 million because of insane increased size minimums. Add insult to injury, 30% of the recreational harvest limit is subsequently lost to release mortality because they're forced to release fish which for decades were eligible for harvest", but NOAA, ( National Ocean Atmospheric Association) ASMFC ( Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) MAMFC (Middle Atlantic Marine Fishery Council) are unaware of this, are you looking at different data than them. Where do you get your information from ?

Andy thanks for signing. Fair question about where I get my information from. I've spent a good amount of time over the last five years building tables and comparing historical data to various trends to policy decisions and regulations in place over the last 40 or more years. A majority of the data used in my analysis and the basis of my conclusions and recommendations comes directly from the 66th Summer Flounder Stock Assessment "SAW", the yearly Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document and PP presentations and Memorandums from numerous ASMFC and MAFMC calls and webinars. I've developed tables and trend analysis over these past five years that compares and evaluates policy changes in the regulations to corresponding impacts on the stock.

The 66th SAW is 456 pages long. I've poured through the entire document numerous times as I have the 57th Stock Assessment.
Here's a link to the pdf for the detailed 66th SAW if your interested.

http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5d0d2b9b2019SFlounderBenchmarkAssmt_SAW_SARC.pdf

To answer a few of your questions, the biomass population is shown on page 240 of the SAW. In 2010 the population was estimated at ~194 million fish, in 2017 it had declined to ~122 million, a 72 million or ~37% decrease in 7 short years. Same time frame size minimums were increased from 14" to 15.5" in the nineties (the period of exponential growth in this fishery) to between 18" and 21" for NJ, NY, Ct. and RI around 2010, since reduced to the still elevated 18" and 19" for those four states for the last 5 or 6 years. Four states that combined make up almost 85% of the summer flounder recreational quota. At that point, we exceeded the threshold of harvesting a balanced mix of males and females and the composition and balance in the fishery completely changed and the fishery has declined ever since driven by ridiculously poor recruitment classes caused by the decimation of the spawning stock and mature female population. Spawning Stock Biomass population in metric tons is with great detail extrapolated from the graph on page 449 of the 66th SAW for your reference. Look at the trend yourself, its continuing to decrease as the regulations mandate or promote the harvest of sexually mature older age classes. You don't need science to figure that out, it's common sense.

As far as the substantial declines in sexually mature females in the population, all you really need to read is the Sex Ratio section on pages 60 and 61. EVERY relevant age group 3 years and above (essentially the spawning stock biomass) has decreased or strongly decreased as size minimums were increased over the last two decades, intensifying this past decade. Read the section titled Sex Ratio, decreased or strongly decreased female proportions is mentioned 14 times, increased proportion is mentioned once for age group 1 (about 75% sexually mature group) in the spring indices. The regulations today are targeting almost exclusively the spawning stock and in particular a higher proportion of mature female breeders. Doesn't take a genius to understand it, just need to analyze the data as I have.

But to quantify the magnitude of these declines, I took the Sex Ratio statistics on pages 60 and 61, applied them to the Maturity statistics on pages 61 thru 64 and applied those percentage to the biomass population tables by age group on page 240 referenced above. In addition, I took an average between the spring and fall female proportion trawl studies by year on pages 315 and 316 and again applied them to the biomass population statistics for a more detailed analysis. Each analysis shows significant declines in the female proportion of older age groups, the reason recruitment statistics have fallen off the cliff.

As far as discard statistics, look at the below table based on a memorandum from Kiley Dancy to Chris Moore included in Kiley's PP presentation at the December Summer Flounder Meeting in Annapolis Maryland I attended. Image attached. In particular, look at the catch to discard numbers for the three years 2009 thru 2011, 165 million fish caught to harvest 11 million recreationally. And look at how the regulations have increased the release percentages over the years from a low of 19% to a high of 94%. The recreational sector has essentially been turned into a catch and release fishery.

To answer your questions about recruitment statistics, again reference the biomass population tables, age 0 represents new recruits each year. As you will see from those tables on page 240, todays recruitment is considerably lower than what it was in the nineties even at a considerably greater biomass population because again regulations have completely altered the gender composition of this fishery.

Your question regarding my statement that discard mortality now makes up 30% of the Recreational Harvest Limit "RHL", reference second attached file source "The Summer Flounder Specifications" document from the October 2019 Joint Meeting. Elevated size minimums and its impacts on catch composition has reduced the harvest portion of the recreational quota by 20% - 25%. It's precisely why 7,000,000 directed recreational summer flounder trips in 2018 resulted in ZERO fish being retained! Just ponder that statistic for a minute, mind blowing.

My work and analysis is not just supported by but it's based on marine fisheries data. Data and trends the public doesn't hear about because fisheries management doesn't want it heard. It's intended to show key trends in significant attributes of the fishery relative to policy decisions. Believe me when I say this, the increase of recreational size minimums beyond 15" - 16" created an imbalance in this fishery that has continued from 2010 and will continue until the regulations are changed to the regulations in place in the nineties that instilled a balance between sectors and a balance between the gender composition of the stock. The regulations we've been living with since approximately 2010 are literally killing this all important fishery. That's, to answer your earlier question, what this is all about.

Again I appreciate you signing the petition even if you weren't quite sure why. Hopefully now you know why. I sincerely appreciate your support.

[dakota560]

Just thinking out loud, we should have over 10,000 signatures by now. We have about 325 which I thank those who have signed but with the number of people effected by these regulations, with the fishery at risk, and the number of people who utilize this resource recreationally or as a source of income, for the life of me I don't understand how this petition isn't being signed by significantly more people.

Not going to change my plans one bit but afraid with that amount of signatures, Washington, fisheries management and our elected officials by default will use that as an excuse to say most anglers and industry people consider the regulation fair and to be working which is anything but the truth.

I hope I'm wrong!

[togzilla]

Just thinking out loud, we should have over 10,000 signatures by now. We have about 325 which I thank those who have signed but with the number of people effected by these regulations, with the fishery at risk, and the number of people who utilize this resource recreationally or as a source of income, for the life of me I don't understand how this petition isn't being signed by significantly more people.

Not going to change my plans one bit but afraid with that amount of signatures, Washington, fisheries management and our elected officials by default will use that as an excuse to say most anglers and industry people consider the regulation fair and to be working which is anything but the truth.

I hope I'm wrong!

Perhaps if you had not used a link from “Change.org” you would have had more people sign up

[dakota560]

Perhaps if you had not used a link from “Change.org” you would have had more people sign up

Tog,

Help me understand your point. I'm not a technical guy and asked for help from the site for the best way to doing something like this online. Got zero replies so like Capt. Dave "MuskyNut" who got 1,900 plus people to sign in the freshwater forum for the petition to allow public access rights to Greenwood Lake, I went online and used Change.org. I tried to make this as simple as possible for multiple websites and people here to sign so thought a web based petition would fit the mold. My thought process was if it worked for the Greenwood Lake access rights petition, we'd far exceed those signatures just based on the number of saltwater anglers, commercial anglers and businesses who depend on this fishery. The petition has almost 12,000 views but only 329 signatures. Just surprised at that ratio.

What in your opinion is the downside of Change.org. Would appreciate your insight.

[togzilla]

I signed the petition but there are many people that would see “Change.org” and refrain from going any further given their hard left political philosophy. Not trying to start a political debate but this country is so divided right now that I’m sure some who saw this simply ignored it. After I signed the petition I was immediately asked for a donation for a political issue. Whether you are far on the right or left, if you want to get maximum participation on an issue like this from an online forum where you have no idea of people’s political preference I would make sure your link does not involve any political ties. While I don’t think for a minute that was your intent others may not.

[AndyS]

Besides the petition, is there a way you can submit all this information to NOAA, ( National Ocean Atmospheric Association) ASMFC ( Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) MAMFC (Middle Atlantic Marine Fishery Council) in writing ?
Maybe an old fashioned letter writing campaign ???

[dakota560]

I signed the petition but there are many people that would see “Change.org” and refrain from going any further given their hard left political philosophy. Not trying to start a political debate but this country is so divided right now that I’m sure some who saw this simply ignored it. After I signed the petition I was immediately asked for a donation for a political issue. Whether you are far on the right or left, if you want to get maximum participation on an issue like this from an online forum where you have no idea of people’s political preference I would make sure your link does not involve any political ties. While I don’t think for a minute that was your intent others may not.

Thanks for the feedback. We need to raise money for lobbying efforts similar to Dave's thread. It's an important avenue to pursue. My petition had nothing to do with asking for funds, was simply looking for signatures to send along with the correspondence going out next week to about 80 people involved in the oversight and management of this fishery. I never realized that's how Change.org worked but for the record I'm not looking for a dime for the approach I'm taking to complement the lobbyist or scientific approach or any other on-going efforts. I chose the platform so I take responsibility if anyone got the wrong idea. Appreciate you pointing that out.

[dakota560]

Besides the petition, is there a way you can submit all this information to NOAA, ( National Ocean Atmospheric Association) ASMFC ( Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) MAMFC (Middle Atlantic Marine Fishery Council) in writing ?
Maybe an old fashioned letter writing campaign ???

Andy that's the game plan. Next week a 4 or 5 page summation supported by a 40 page comprehensive analysis is going out to probably 80 to 100 people involved with institutions already mentioned. The petition and list of signers will be included with the letter and material being sent to the Secretary of Commerce, NOAA and NMFS leadership. Everyone I've mentioned will receive the documentation, some only accept mail, others allow emails but in the end the highest levels in Washington will receive written documentation and all members of the ASMFC, MAMFC and NEFSC will be copied via email. I need to construct a list of all the state and congressional representatives for the states and shore-based districts participating in this fishery for the Mid-Atlantic and New England region and they'll also receive the same material either by mail or email.

I'm sending this to the Secretary of Commerce because based on their own data, industry, small businesses and the recreational community are and have been incurring catastrophic socio-economic consequences because of the regulations governing this fishery being the fact the fishery is in a sustained decline. Shore based communities are taking it on the chin, both sectors are, party boat, for hire and commercial operators as well and the same regulations that caused this mess if left unchanged will almost assuredly mean the end of another legacy fishery and more economic consequences to states in many cases built on fishing that will incur severe economic consequences weathering that storm.

[dakota560]

As mentioned, the material being sent out to the powers to be responsible for managing this fishery will be going out this upcoming week in an effort to change the regulations governing the summer flounder stock and reverse a decade long decline in the fishery.

As I mentioned, I wanted to send the petition with list of signatures and reasons from Change.org along with my correspondence. On change.org this morning, there's 11,732 views and only 334 signatures. Worse, on the two pinned threads on NJF, a recreational and pro fisheries web site, there's approximately 1,300 views for the petition and over 6,000 views from Dave's request to raise a measly $5k for the RFA and lobbying efforts to address the same concerns with the management of the summer flounder stock. Ignoring Change.org for now, between the two NJF threads there's over 7,000 views but only 334 signatures on the petition and I'd guess an immaterial amount of the $5k goal raised.

Question to anyone who wants to share an honest answer, what's preventing people from taking action to address areas of concern in fisheries management. We spend every year complaining about almost every change and aspect of the summer flounder regulations and bitch about how restrictive they've become yet most aren't willing to voice those concerns even when the platform to do so has been structured in a manner to make it as easy as possible for your voice and support to be heard. It's a significant problem regarding fair representation of every stock and public resource under management and truthfully I don't understand the reluctance of members here to get involved if only by signing a petition.

Do people not agree with the petition? If that's the case it's your prerogative certainly but if so then I'm wasting my time representing the fishery and it's constituents with issues most of you don't agree with or support. My concern is sending a petition with so few signatures to Washington might in fact send the wrong message and before making that decision today or tomorrow, I'd like some feedback from the board what your perceptions are with why so few people would sign a petition intended to help the fishery and protect their God given rights to access and utilize that resource. I downloaded the list the other day and I'm pretty sure just one sponsor from this site, one very well known and respected sponsor, signed the petition. Don't believe any other sponsors did. I find that incredibly disingenuous considering this is intended to help the fishery and by default sponsor's businesses yet it's still a struggle to convince people to engage. Also missing were some notable names I thought surely would be on the list but again we're surprisingly not.

If I look behind me and there's no line forming to support what we're talking about here or people generally think the fishery is flourishing, then I'm wasting my time and quite frankly yours as well.

Help me understand what I'm missing here because this is not at all the results I expected and there's a huge disconnect between my own perceptions of the fishery, my expectations and the actual results. I'm not complaining, I've just invested a tremendous amount of my personal time in this and if I'm pissing in the wind I certainly have better things to focus on in life.

[Capt Sal]

As mentioned, the material being sent out to the powers to be responsible for managing this fishery will be going out this upcoming week in an effort to change the regulations governing the summer flounder stock and reverse a decade long decline in the fishery.

As I mentioned, I wanted to send the petition with list of signatures and reasons from Change.org along with my correspondence. On change.org this morning, there's 11,732 views and only 334 signatures. Worse, on the two pinned threads on NJF, a recreational and pro fisheries web site, there's approximately 1,300 views for the petition and over 6,000 views from Dave's request to raise a measly $5k for the RFA and lobbying efforts to address the same concerns with the management of the summer flounder stock. Ignoring Change.org for now, between the two NJF threads there's over 7,000 views but only 334 signatures on the petition and I'd guess an immaterial amount of the $5k goal raised.

I've just invested a tremendous amount of my personal time in this and if I'm pissing in the wind I certainly have better things to focus on in life.

Some people have no idea what has been going on for years. We all thank you for your work. If Mates and Capts. would take more time to educate novice anglers about the politics involved in our sport it would help. Like the old saying goes "An educated consumer is our best customer'. Money talks but so do numbers!

[dales529]

As mentioned, the material being sent out to the powers to be responsible for managing this fishery will be going out this upcoming week in an effort to change the regulations governing the summer flounder stock and reverse a decade long decline in the fishery.

As I mentioned, I wanted to send the petition with list of signatures and reasons from Change.org along with my correspondence. On change.org this morning, there's 11,732 views and only 334 signatures. Worse, on the two pinned threads on NJF, a recreational and pro fisheries web site, there's approximately 1,300 views for the petition and over 6,000 views from Dave's request to raise a measly $5k for the RFA and lobbying efforts to address the same concerns with the management of the summer flounder stock. Ignoring Change.org for now, between the two NJF threads there's over 7,000 views but only 334 signatures on the petition and I'd guess an immaterial amount of the $5k goal raised.

Question to anyone who wants to share an honest answer, what's preventing people from taking action to address areas of concern in fisheries management. We spend every year complaining about almost every change and aspect of the summer flounder regulations and bitch about how restrictive they've become yet most aren't willing to voice those concerns even when the platform to do so has been structured in a manner to make it as easy as possible for your voice and support to be heard. It's a significant problem regarding fair representation of every stock and public resource under management and truthfully I don't understand the reluctance of members here to get involved if only by signing a petition.

Do people not agree with the petition? If that's the case it's your prerogative certainly but if so then I'm wasting my time representing the fishery and it's constituents with issues most of you don't agree with or support. My concern is sending a petition with so few signatures to Washington might in fact send the wrong message and before making that decision today or tomorrow, I'd like some feedback from the board what your perceptions are with why so few people would sign a petition intended to help the fishery and protect their God given rights to access and utilize that resource. I downloaded the list the other day and I'm pretty sure just one sponsor from this site, one very well known and respected sponsor, signed the petition. Don't believe any other sponsors did. I find that incredibly disingenuous considering this is intended to help the fishery and by default sponsor's businesses yet it's still a struggle to convince people to engage. Also missing were some notable names I thought surely would be on the list but again we're surprisingly not.

If I look behind me and there's no line forming to support what we're talking about here or people generally think the fishery is flourishing, then I'm wasting my time and quite frankly yours as well.

Help me understand what I'm missing here because this is not at all the results I expected and there's a huge disconnect between my own perceptions of the fishery, my expectations and the actual results. I'm not complaining, I've just invested a tremendous amount of my personal time in this and if I'm pissing in the wind I certainly have better things to focus on in life.

Nothing you are missing here Tom. As they say you can lead the horse to water but cant make him drink. As you know in the many years of call to action few respond. Rec fisherman as much as I had hoped it would change are still our own worse enemy. :mad:
Stay the course and I am always happy to review and discuss your findings. I would suggest we put in your letter (if you are still willing to do it) the regulations with supporting documents you propose that have worked in the past and would continue to work today vs the existing regs.

[dakota560]

Dave that's absolutely the plan as you'll see. Should have the documents ready for review by Friday or this weekend. After finalizing and mailing out, I'll submit them before the 12/1 deadline for the upcoming MAMFC meeting 12/13 - 12/16 discussing 2022 regulations in order for both documents to be included in the briefing materials.

The data will show without doubt the regulations are at fault for the substantial decline in the stock and if the size fish being harvested in this fishery doesn't revert back to the age classes both sectors we're harvesting in the nineties, declines will continue until the spawning stock is so damaged it's chances of ever recovering are virtually non-existent based on the current rate of decline the regulations have caused the stock.

Again for those who signed the petition, thanks so much for your support. Gerry as the owner of this site and Capt. Ron as such a well respected sponsor and advocate for fisheries management, I want to personally thank each of you for your sugnatures. Gerry additional thanks for pinning both threads in the two forums.

Now we'll just have to wait and see where the chips fall but the data and narrative couldn't be any clearer as to why this fishery is in trouble.

[retiredfireguy]

Done!

[No Bananas]

Done and passed along to others not on this site.

[dakota560]

Guys thanks so much for the support. Please continue getting the word out any way possible. Decisions are going to be made within the next few months concerning future regulations and now's the time to send a strong message about our collective concerns about the condition of the stock and management practices being used causing it's decline.

[frugalfisherman]

OK. I don't get it. You say you want to change the regulations. To what? The petition indicates lowering the size limit but what good would that do? If someone catches an 8lb female they could still keep it. The only thing that would have an impact would be to have a maximum size limit. Everything over say 22 inches throw back only trouble is no more boat pools or tournaments. Just my opinion.

[TomKaye]

Quote :
""As I mentioned, I wanted to send the petition with list of signatures and reasons from Change.org along with my correspondence. On change.org this morning, there's 11,732 views and only 334 signatures. Worse, on the two pinned threads on NJF, a recreational and pro fisheries web site, there's approximately 1,300 views for the petition and over 6,000 views from Dave's request to raise a measly $5k for the RFA and lobbying efforts to address the same concerns with the management of the summer flounder stock. Ignoring Change.org for now, between the two NJF threads there's over 7,000 views but only 334 signatures on the petition and I'd guess an immaterial amount of the $5k goal raised.""

Never ceases to amaze me all the guys crying "something's gotta be done",
but won't sign a petition, or give up the price of a 12 pack or a 30 pack for a worthy cause.
Change.Org's politics are immaterial to me. I signed.
I'm a conservative fixed income RFA member and sent a small additional donation as well.
Have not contributed to SSFFF in a couple years but will do so after I take care of Holiday CC bills.
Hopefully all of our kids and grandkids get to enjoy our recreational passion one day.

Will send the link on again to some fishing buddies. Open up your wallets please guys.
Tight lines and stay healthy.

[dakota560]

OK. I don't get it. You say you want to change the regulations. To what? The petition indicates lowering the size limit but what good would that do? If someone catches an 8lb female they could still keep it. The only thing that would have an impact would be to have a maximum size limit. Everything over say 22 inches throw back only trouble is no more boat pools or tournaments. Just my opinion.

Frugal I'm glad you asked the question because we have to change the thought process in this fishery.

A shot answering your question. I assume you're suggesting a slot of some sort with a 22" maximum. Is that correct? If so, what are we really changing? The discards mortality rate would remain sky high and the recreational sector as a whole would still be harvesting almost entirely females and fish making up the spawning stock. With the maximum, more of the larger fish would be released and you're correct tournaments would be at risk but we'd actually be creating more discard mortality and have less of our quota eligible for harvest. We'd probably also see a shortened season for the same reason. Lastly, what concessions would you propose for the commercial sector because you certainly can't put a maximum size limit on that sector. I think your thought process while creative moves us further away from the regulation we already have the benefit of knowing work.

My second reply would be with a return question. Why do you think when the recreational size minimums we're 13" and 14" and the same as commercial in the 90's, the stock increased in population by 121 million fish and the spawning stock increased by 61 million metric tons or a 900% increase? At the same time, annual landing were more than double what they are today and possession limits were between 8 and 10 fish. Keep in mind discard mortality rates were maybe 5% of landings recreationally, today I think we've reached 40%. My point is those same regulation had the effect of promoting growth and most important balance in the fishery in the last fifty years more than any other, why change them.

Today's recreational harvest is over 90% females in NJ and probably over 95% in the three states with 19" minimums. If you don't believe that, ask any sponsor on this site or check your fish when filleted. There's enough scientific data out there as well to support that statement. Drop the recreational minimum starting with a smaller slot of maybe 15.5", keep the possession limits as they are until the population starts to increase and as a sector two things happen. We'll harvest less females and less older age classes adding protection to the spawning stock.

Today based on the size minimums encumbering the recreational fishery and based on size tables, we won't harvest females until age 4 and we won't harvest males until age 6. At 25% natural mortality, we're losing almost 60% of age classes to natural mortality for females before they're eligible for harvest and almost 80% of males.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to harvest them when younger before losing them to natural mortality? And that's before consideration for the impacts of fishing related mortality.

We've already proven the philosophy of harvesting younger age classes has grown the stock to it's most prolific growth ever, harvest the younger less mature population not yet contributing to the stocks future and let the older age class mega breeders perpetuate the stock. When we switched to harvesting the older age classes, destroying recruitment classes, then reducing them even more with insane discard mortality rates plus 25% natural mortality, we decimated the spawning stock by almost 40% and the female population of the stock declined by over 30 million fish or 50% of the population in 7 short years between 2010 and 2017. We continue on that path, we lose this fishery.

To further answer your question, in most cases for the person who catches that 8 lb female, he or she will have already caught their limit and the big girl will be released. Obviously there are those who will high grade, throw away one of the now dead smaller fish and retain the 8 lb. fish. Maybe for a few years, three or five fish tournaments have to change to one fish. We had a lot of tournaments in the nineties when size minimums we're 13" or 14", why can't we do it today?

We either do what I'm suggesting or there won't be tournaments because like winter flounder there won't be a summer flounder fishery. So fisheries management either starts managing this fishery for growth and the fisheries benefit or at some point in the not too distant future we start talking about summer flounder in the past tense like we do winter flounder today.

In addition to everything above which impacts the recreational sector, in my opinion since sizes and lower spawning stocks and less females caused recruitment to decline precipitously and the stock to decline by over 70 million fish, protecting the spawn from commercial harvest in the two months they spawn while migrating offshore in the fall is that sectors contribution to the recovery process. Don't lose the 15% of their annual quota they typically harvest those two months, reallocate 1.5% a month to the other ten months so they're annual quota remains in tact. Let the entire spawning stock spawn without interruption for three years to bolster annual recruitment, assess the impact from there and reassess if necessary. But harvesting a stock struggling with recruitment for the better part of a decade without knowing the impact harvest is having on the spawn isn't managing, it's gambling.

If we allow the trends in the fishery to continue because we're targeting the harvest of the spawning stock and large breeders, the summer flounder fishery will not make it. Since 2010, fisheries management declared the stock rebuilt meaning the regulation were working. They continued increasing size minimums and ever since it's been declining substantially. Regulation need to change.

[dakota560]

Quote :
""As I mentioned, I wanted to send the petition with list of signatures and reasons from Change.org along with my correspondence. On change.org this morning, there's 11,732 views and only 334 signatures. Worse, on the two pinned threads on NJF, a recreational and pro fisheries web site, there's approximately 1,300 views for the petition and over 6,000 views from Dave's request to raise a measly $5k for the RFA and lobbying efforts to address the same concerns with the management of the summer flounder stock. Ignoring Change.org for now, between the two NJF threads there's over 7,000 views but only 334 signatures on the petition and I'd guess an immaterial amount of the $5k goal raised.""

Never ceases to amaze me all the guys crying "something's gotta be done",
but won't sign a petition, or give up the price of a 12 pack or a 30 pack for a worthy cause.
Change.Org's politics are immaterial to me. I signed.
I'm a conservative fixed income RFA member and sent a small additional donation as well.
Have not contributed to SSFFF in a couple years but will do so after I take care of Holiday CC bills.
Hopefully all of our kids and grandkids get to enjoy our recreational passion one day.

Will send the link on again to some fishing buddies. Open up your wallets please guys.
Tight lines and stay healthy.

Tom thank you! That's exactly what's needed. Passion, conviction, determination and most of all support to change something we've all complained about and know hasn't worked for probably 15 years now. You get it. It doesn't offend me that others don't but when you look at the data and the condition of the stock and the declines we've lived with over the last decade and still believe nothing has to change, I'm sorry but those opinions I certainly don't understand nor agree with. To me that's throwing in the towel or waiting for someone else to do the work. We ALL have something to contribute even if just a signature in a petition. We were told short term sacrifices for more liberalized regulations down the road and preservation of the stock. Well we've sacrificed, commercial and recreational, for twenty years, no more liberalized regulations or any on the immediate horizon and the stock faces more threats today than it did when it crashed in 1988.

TIME FOR REGULATIONS TO CHANGE to start harvesting younger age groups no different than what the recent changes in the striped bass fishery are intended to accomplish. Protect breeders, harvest younger age classes, improve recruitment and protect the spawn. Why was it so easy doing that in that fishery but we can't do it in the summer flounder fishery which is screaming for help.

[dakota560]

Good morning. Checked the website this morning. Petition signatures up to 435 with almost 16,000 views of the petition and 87 shares. Almost 9,000 views on the two pinned threads here asking for financial support to hire a lobbyist for RFA and support to sign the petition changing the regulations. Again I'm appreciative of the people who get it and signed, disappointed there's such a large difference between views and signatures or funds raised. Not going to stop trying to promote change in the fluke fishery to get the regulations back where they belong and make sure businesses and families don't suffer the economic hardships of a failed fishery and future generations have the same opportunities to enjoy this fishery we have in our lifetime.

Letters to Secretary of Commerce, NOAA and NMFS going out tomorrow and copies being submitted to ASMFC and MAFMC no later than Tuesday to be part of briefing materials for the upcoming December 13 - 16 meeting. There's been a lot of discussion about a higher RHL but the same amount of discussions between the tech groups and science groups as to what the final numbers will be and what impact it'll have on 2022 regulations. The range is all over the board from a slight increase in recreational harvest limit "RHL" to the possibility of a decrease.

Whatever the outcome is, there's a minority of us who tried to have our voices heard and the majority who chose to sit on the sideline so keep that in your back pocket when the regulations are made final.

[Fred E. Goose]

frugalfisherman asked my question. I read over this whole long thread and all of your lengthy responses and just thought...OK. I don't get it. You say you want to change the regulations. To what?
and you gave him another long-winded response that doesn't really answer anything. Are you suggesting changing the size minimums to 13", 14" for recreational? The mortality rate of these fish when caught and released is one thing. It depends on a lot of factors including health of the fish, time out of water, length of fight, handling, etc. But the mortality rate of these fish increases to 100% when they are in someone's cooler!

It's a good thought and a worthy cause, but recreational is NOT the problem. Commercial is a big problem. Actual enforcement of laws against recreational and commercial are big problems. Human population growth is a big problem...you have more people fishing now than in the 90's, taking more fish than in the 90's, and you have more demand for the commercial fisheries.

I don't mean to offend, but I read a lot of this wondering what you are actually trying to change the regulations to and why. I hope you are successful because I mainly fish the bay and would like to keep the smaller fish that I currently don't because I follow the rules. But, that means I hope you are successful for my own selfish reasons and not anything to do with conservation.

Good Luck

[dakota560]

frugalfisherman asked my question. I read over this whole long thread and all of your lengthy responses and just thought...
and you gave him another long-winded response that doesn't really answer anything. Are you suggesting changing the size minimums to 13", 14" for recreational? The mortality rate of these fish when caught and released is one thing. It depends on a lot of factors including health of the fish, time out of water, length of fight, handling, etc. But the mortality rate of these fish increases to 100% when they are in someone's cooler!

It's a good thought and a worthy cause, but recreational is NOT the problem. Commercial is a big problem. Actual enforcement of laws against recreational and commercial are big problems. Human population growth is a big problem...you have more people fishing now than in the 90's, taking more fish than in the 90's, and you have more demand for the commercial fisheries.

I don't mean to offend, but I read a lot of this wondering what you are actually trying to change the regulations to and why. I hope you are successful because I mainly fish the bay and would like to keep the smaller fish that I currently don't because I follow the rules. But, that means I hope you are successful for my own selfish reasons and not anything to do with conservation.

Good Luck

I'm not offended at all. Fisheries management is a complex process run by a convoluted number of federal and state agencies. Short answers to complex issues threatening the fishery aren't easy to do. The answer I gave Frugal I thought was very clear in what needs to happen in this fishery to reverse the significant declines in the stock over this past decade. If that explanation didn't make sense to you or anyone else, nothing I can add will so probably best to leave it at that.

[dakota560]

frugalfisherman asked my question. I read over this whole long thread and all of your lengthy responses and just thought...
and you gave him another long-winded response that doesn't really answer anything. Are you suggesting changing the size minimums to 13", 14" for recreational? The mortality rate of these fish when caught and released is one thing. It depends on a lot of factors including health of the fish, time out of water, length of fight, handling, etc. But the mortality rate of these fish increases to 100% when they are in someone's cooler!

Between 2009 and 2011, because of the highest recreational size minimums on record, the recreational sector is reported to have caught 164.5 million fish to harvest 11.5 million. Is it your opinion catching, handling and discarding 153 million fish to harvest 11.5 million because of the insane size minimums the recreational sector is handicapped by is beneficial to the stock?

It's a good thought and a worthy cause, but recreational is NOT the problem. Commercial is a big problem. Actual enforcement of laws against recreational and commercial are big problems. Human population growth is a big problem...you have more people fishing now than in the 90's, taking more fish than in the 90's, and you have more demand for the commercial fisheries.

Not True. Between 1990 and 2000 when the stock experienced its best growth harvesting younger age classes, many sexually immature, both sectors combined to land 191 million fish or an average of 17.5 million fish a year. Between 2010 and 2017 when the stock lost between 40 - 50% of it's population, landings declined to 77 million fish or 9.6 million annually, almost half of what was taken in the 90's. You'd also probably be surprised if I told you landing weights for the commercial sector between 2004 and 2017 were cut by 67%. Point is both sectors combined have lived through significant cuts in quota and more fish are not being landed today than 30 years ago and the stock continues to decline significantly even with significant quota cuts. Regulations are forcing both sectors to harvest different age classes, the wrong age classes. We're harvesting fish making up the spawning stock, sexually mature with many being the mega female breeders of the stock, killing recruitment in the process and putting the fishery in an uncontrollable downward spiral.

Your argument implies one dead fish harvested in a cooler is the equivalent to one fish that dies as a result of improper handling being discarded. My point is your argument doesn't at all factor in gender or sexual maturity. I'd rather see 5 smaller sexually immature males harvested than two 10 yr-old female breeders capable of producing 5 million eggs a year to insure the future of the fishery. Until the regulations acknowledge the importance of gender composition in this stock, which is directly tied to size since females grow faster and live longer, the stock will continue declining.

And for what it's worth, the stock grew by over 120 million fish between 1990 and 2004 finding a balance between the commercial and recreational sectors before recreational size minimums were increased too high. That changed the gender balance of harvest and changed the gender balance of the stock while killing millions of younger age class fish in the process of harvesting older age class fish. The composition of the stock started changing right then and from 2010 on declined in population every year.

Hope that sheds a better light on my perspective and now I'll leave it at that. Thanks for asking your question and sharing your opinion as it's important to exchange views.

[Duffman]

I swore I’d stay out of this discussion. Tried reading the entire thread but my brain just isn’t capable of all that.

Just a simple straight forward question…….what does the RFA and SSFF want to see as the next fluke regs? The actual number? 3 @16, 5 @14? What is it? I’m just spit balling these numbers. Have no clue. Just want the number they have in mind.

[dakota560]

Last post on summer flounder promise. Maybe this simplifies matters.

(A) Nineties, both sectors harvested younger age classes 1 and 2 years old. Proportionately more males, less females, high percentage sexually immature fish. Let the older age classes breed which promoted record recruitment classes. Population exploded higher.

(B) Last 15 or so years. Harvest mostly age classes 4 - 6. All sexually mature fish making up the spawning stock. Significantly higher percentage females being harvested than males even though fisheries management disputes that while their own data proves them wrong. Female proportions of every age class has declined significantly because were harvesting the older fish, future of the stock. Destroy the spawning stock, remove too many females from the stock, no babies, population declines, quotas get cut per Magnuson, possession limits go down or seasons are shortened. We've been in that cycle since around 2007 and with recruitment levels at 50 year lows, management still allows the commercial sector to harvest during the spawn while the stock has a major recruitment problem and no one in fisheries management knows the impact commercial harvest is having on the spawn. Fisheries management is risking the health of the entire fishery by allowing the commercial sector to harvest during the two primary fall months the spawn occurs representing ~15% of their annual quota. Reallocate the quota to the months outside the spawn and let the stock spawn without netting. Most fisheries try protecting the spawn, this one promotes harvesting during it. Insane.

I'll let someone else speak on behalf of RFA or SSFFF, but your choices are A or B. I choose A, harvesting younger age classes and protecting the spawning stock and breeders. Those regulations brought the stock to it's highest levels in the last 40 years while providing the most liberalized regulations for both sectors in the last 40 years. Those who want B will be putting the final nail in the fisheries coffin.

Sending my work to Washington, already submitted to MAFMC for Decembers meeting and let the chips fall where they may.

PS If you agree with what they recently did with the regulations for the striper stock to protect large female breeders while introducing a slot to harvest middle age groups while protecting the juveniles, well the regulations for summer flounder need all those same protections and regulations to provide them. Striper regulations were changed literally in a year. We've been asking for fluke regulations to be changed for 15 years yet that ask falls on deaf ears. Each of you draw your own conclusion why.

[Duffman]

Ok. So if YOU choose option A, what would YOU personally like to see as the reg?

[Fred E. Goose]

Thanks for all of the numbers dakota560. I'll first make the point that your data is coming from the same fisheries management sources that you claim have decimated the stock due to their gross mismanagement of the fisheries. On one hand they are incompetent enough to crash the population by 50% due to the regulations they impose, but on the other hand they are a trusted resource for every number you have based your argument on. These numbers are, of course, estimates. But I would imagine they actually do collectively represent closely the population decline. I just needed to point that out.
Now to respond to your questions/comments on my original post:

Between 2009 and 2011, because of the highest recreational size minimums on record, the recreational sector is reported to have caught 164.5 million fish to harvest 11.5 million. Is it your opinion catching, handling and discarding 153 million fish to harvest 11.5 million because of the insane size minimums the recreational sector is handicapped by is beneficial to the stock?

NO.
I think discarding is a poor choice of words here when speaking of catching, handling, and releasing. But that aside, saying 164.5 million fish were caught to harvest 11.5 million is misleading. This number includes fish that were caught, released and caught again 2 times, 3 times, 5 times, 10 times. Otherwise 164.5 million fish would make up around 85% of the 194 million total population in 2010. I don't believe you meant to say that 85% of the population was caught, handled and discarded but your words there are misappropriating the data.

Saying 164.5 million fish were caught to harvest 11.5 million also doesn't account for the fact that within that 164.5 million fish caught included recreational fishermen who only practice catch-and-release fishing.
Now I'll throw the question back at you:
Between 2009 and 2011, because of the highest recreational size minimums on record, the recreational sector is reported to have caught 164.5 million fish to harvest 11.5 million. Is it your opinion catching, handling and discarding 153 million fish to harvest 11.5 million because of the insane size minimums the recreational sector is handicapped by is beneficial to the stock?
...and if so, do you believe that catch-and-release fishing of summer flounder should be outlawed to preserve stock?



Not True. Between 1990 and 2000 when the stock experienced its best growth harvesting younger age classes, many sexually immature, both sectors combined to land 191 million fish or an average of 17.5 million fish a year. Between 2010 and 2017 when the stock lost between 40 - 50% of it's population, landings declined to 77 million fish or 9.6 million annually, almost half of what was taken in the 90's

I'm trying to follow your point here, obviously the overall numbers had declined, but the percent of the population that was landed stayed the same...the stock lost between 40-50% of its population between these years and the landings declined to almost half. So then the percent of the population that was landed remained the same or at least is estimated to be similar.

Your argument implies one dead fish harvested in a cooler is the equivalent to one fish that dies as a result of improper handling being discarded.

That was not my argument. My argument was that a smaller fish harvested in a cooler has a 100% mortality rate. A smaller fish that is caught, handled, and released has a significantly improved chance at survival to grow to sexual maturity.

And that's that. All of the data presented doesn't change a common sense approach that small fish grow to become big fish. There is no way to regulate that only smaller males can be harvested and smaller females need to be released. Also, the basis of your whole argument is that these regulations are the singular factor that has caused a decline in the population. What about the population loss from natural causes, environmental causes, pollution, change to and even destruction of the spawning grounds and historic feeding grounds (chemical runoff of lawn treatments of waterfront properties and beach replenishment projects for example).

I think the hardest pill for me to swallow is that I believe that the commercial fisheries are devastating the stock for the recreational fisherman. This is being done legally, illegally, and even through legal outfits that are illegally overfishing. These are also the ones that are catching and discarding. These are the ones that are lobbying Washington to increase their interest while stripping the population from the recreational fisherman. What it seems you are petitioning would result in an increase in harvest by commercial and an increase of harvest by recreational. Again, the common sense approach tells me that killing more small fish means they won't grow to become big fish.

Now you can call me long-winded too! :D


Hope that sheds a better light on my perspective and now I'll leave it at that. Thanks for asking your question and sharing your opinion as it's important to exchange views.

DITTO!

[hammer4reel]

discarding[/B]. These are the ones that are lobbying Washington to increase their interest while stripping the population from the recreational fisherman. What it seems you are petitioning would result in an increase in harvest by commercial and an increase of harvest by recreational. Again, the common sense approach tells me that killing more small fish means they won't grow to become big fish.

Now you can call me long-winded too! :D




DITTO!


The issue is IF you catch 10 shorts and throw them back , you get charged with mortality rate of 40 percent. Meaning they claim you harvested 4 fish , even though your cooler is empty.
So you over fished , while retaining nothing.

Instead implement a slot fish so that you keep 2 or 3 of those smaller fish . And then must. Stop fishing after a limit is reached.

The mortality discard rate is crushing the recreational fishery.
.
Keeping smaller fish that may or may not ever make it to a larger size while ACTUALLY releasing fish that have made that size is def pro active.
.
Those larger heartier fish have a better chance at giving us back a renewable resource.

.

[dakota560]

Ok. So if YOU choose option A, what would YOU personally like to see as the reg?

Duffman I'd propose a three year phase in period. Example for NJ. I'd recommend we go from a 3 @ minimum 18" to 2 @ minimum 18" and a slot between 15" - 16", the highest size minimums in the nineties and based on size / gender statistics about a 50/50 mix of males and females would be harvested with the slot. That's key. Year 2, 2 slots at the range and 1 18" minimum. Year 3, three fish at a 15.5" minimum. That all assumes the Recreational Harvest Limit "RHL" remains the same and recruitment and population is showing signs of improvement. Basically it took 15 years to &$%^ it up, this isn't something that can be corrected in a year based on the number of variables involved now.

I'd approach each state the same way, gradually work our way back to harvesting smaller age groups and providing protection to the spawning stock and large female breeders. So NY has 4 @ 19". I'd do the same in years 1 and 2, convert one to a slot each of the first two years and in year three switch 15.5" for all states which is what it was in the tail end of the nineties, albeit at much higher possession limits. Until we start seeing improvement. leave possession limits where they are, focus on size and the corresponding impacts on changing the gender composition of catch, driving discard rates down and recruitment levels up.

Just so everyone knows, as soon as a slot is mentioned, the first question marine fisheries asks is how much of the season are you willing to concede. I know it because I've been on the calls and it's always the first question asked when a slot or reduction in size minimums is discussed. Assumption is your going to catch more fish so season has to be shortened or possession limits reduced. I'd rather reduce possession limits if forced because based on the data for 2018, 82% of angler trips don't catch one keeper much less 3 or 4. But make no mistake, there's going to be future sacrifices to unfortunately correct 15 years of mismanagement in this fishery.

On the commercial side, in the absence of suggesting you keep what you catch meaning no discards, you can't control size fish they retain and size fish they discard. It's all about market price and what ever size is fetching the highest market values that day, that's what they target just like we all would. So in the absence of going to a policy which says you keep what you catch, no discards, which is probably never going to happen, I think the best contribution the commercial sector can make is stop the harvest during the primary spawn which typically runs two months in the fall when concentrated schools are migrating back east to their wintering grounds. I would take that in a heart beat for three years and monitor the impact each year on recruitment. If harvesting during the spawn is detrimental to the efficacy of the spawn which it has to be, just close the fishery for those two months and as I've suggested reallocate their quota to the other ten months of the year so no change in annual quota, just change the timing of their harvest to fill that quota. If we can get recruitment back up to 60 to 70 million new recruits a year from the low 30 million it's dropped to, the problems in the fishery are basically resolved. Increase in the population increases catch quotas. Increase the spawning stock and female population because the recreational sector with reduced minimums will be harvesting a lot less females and discard rates will come back to earth. The positive impact, as in the nineties, in the stock should be enormous. Commercial continues catching the market value fish they're targeting but with improved recruitment and a larger spawning stock, as long as quotas are set properly I think we once again have a growing and sustainable fishery. Everyone gets what they want. It's all about balance, and in a fishery where females grow faster and live longer than males, it's all about size limits and gender.

That's what I would propose as a starting point to turn this fishery around. That's me as an independent, I'm not speaking on behalf of RFA, SSFFF or any fishing organizations just Dakota560 whose spent the last five years of my life analyzing this fishery and determining what changed to cause the stock to go into a decade long decline.

[dakota560]

I'll try to respond to your points.

First the data is the data used to make policy decisions in the fishery. Is it representative, in some cases I believe it is, in others I like everyone else have major reservations especially with MRIP statistics. But that's neither here nor there, it's the data being used to manage the fishery when it was growing and the data used to manage the fishery when it declined. Using any other data set would be DOA trying to change regulations since everything has to pass Peer Review.

Your comment Thanks for all of the numbers dakota560. I'll first make the point that your data is coming from the same fisheries management sources that you claim have decimated the stock due to their gross mismanagement of the fisheries. On one hand they are incompetent enough to crash the population by 50% due to the regulations they impose, but on the other hand they are a trusted resource for every number you have based your argument on. is not at all accurate. Science creates the data as part of the process but it's not the scientists who decided policy decisions using size minimums to constrain recreational harvest. If they give representative data of the state of the fishery and other committees or overall management makes bad decisions based on that data, scientists are not to blame nor is it the same source. There's the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the Statistical Science Center, the Monitoring Committee who are very influential in regulatory decisions, the Advisory Panel and the list goes on. You shouldn't confuse the raw data or the groups generating it with how decisions are being made and who those decisions are being made by.

All my analysis was predicated on using marine fisheries data for that reason to examine historical trends and relating those trends and changes to policy decision to identify when and why the train left the tracks. So I know there's nothing wrong with my approach, the management I'm blaming for causing these declines is not because of the data they're using or I'm using, it's because they're ignoring the trends the data is showing. Two completely different issues.

Second in a three year period 165 million fish caught to harvest 11.5 million is insane. Discards is fisheries management terminology, not mine. Call it what you wish. If it's 80 million fish caught twice each, 165 million each caught once or 40 million caught 4 times each, personally I don't think it matters as its still results for those three years in 154 million fish being caught and released and who really knows how many die and how many survive. I agree handling factors into it but even more so if caught on a bucktail, I believe most fish survive. Bait draggers, I think there's significant mortality. Most people, not all, spend a lot of money fishing the salt to take a few fish home for dinner so I don't believe catch and release fisherman make up a sizeable portion of fishing effort. Should it be outlawed, no. Why? Because I don't think its a problem and I think the percentage of anglers who are purely C&R is minimal. Catching 15 fish to maybe keep one because of elevated size minimums, huge problem in this fishery. And as Dan pointed out, the recreational sector is losing 40% of their quota because size minimums were raised to outrageous levels.

As far as smaller fish released having a better chance surviving to maturity on paper sounds correct but if that's the case why has recruitment and the spawning stock plummeted. Also are you taking 25% natural mortality a year into consideration in your statement. What about discard mortality. Recreational sector today on average because of size minimums harvest 4 year old females which grow faster and 6 year old males which grow slower. So by the time that sector starts harvesting those age groups, you've already lost 70% of the 4 yr old class to natural mortality (predation, disease etc.) and 80% of the 6 year old class. Wouldn't it make more sense to harvest fish before natural mortality consumes 70 - 80% of each years recruitment class at a rate of 25% a year.

Environmental is a contributing factor but there was probably more pollution in the 90's than today. Is it contributing, anyone would be crazy to say it's not. But to what degree, no one knows and like I said personally I think pollution was much worse in the nineties than today.

Two questions. Both sectors are harvesting older age classes so if your theory of letting smaller fish grow is the answer, why is the spawning stock, mature female population and biomass all declining at record rates? Recruitment has been decimated because of the above, not because of environmental factors, causing sharp declines in the younger age groups and on top of those declines natural mortality is taking another 25% a year and who knows how many die from fishing related mortality from both sectors due to forced discards recreationally and selective harvest commercially. Any fishery with a commercial presence that has selective harvest of certain size fish will ALWAYS have high levels of discards and since most commercial discards die for obvious reasons they'll have extremely high levels of discard mortality. So what portion of the biomass is supposed to sustain the future of this stock in your opinion if every age class is shrinking?

In almost any fishery if you cut harvest by 70%, the fishery will grow significantly. Why is this fishery not only not growing, it's declining substantially. I'll give you the answer, we're harvesting the wrong age classes, killing the mommies, killing mature males, producing less babies, killing younger age classes as discards and killing the stock. And even greatly reduced harvest levels can't stop it.

No more long winded replies from me. I'm sending my correspondence to Washington and trying to have the regulations changed before this fishery goes belly up. That's what I'm going to do, what's everyone else going to do to save a fishery many peoples livelihoods and recreational enjoyment are dependent on?

[dales529]

A lot of good discussion and response here. Having been involved in this for 13 years I have come to the realization that its an uphill battle with many smaller hills along the way.

MRIP is the recreational angler enemy.

What Tom is trying to do simply and non long winded put is to show that the data used to manage our fishery, economics and livelyhood of many is trending in the wrong direction.

SSFFF / RFA-NJ and Tom studies have been refuted on procedural and small technical protocol issues politically to omit the data from Fisheries management but its never been stated the data itself is wrong.

That raises a big question

[NoLimit]

Amen!

[dakota560]

Dave thanks, you've been my mentor and taught me more than you realize about this process. Truth is Government doesn't want anyone else playing in their sandbox. They generate and control the data which is a huge conflict of interest but it's government we're talking about here and they control the fate in this case of the Summer Flounder stock. In many cases they've done a great job managing stocks, but in acknowledging the cases they've made the right choices for it's always been my belief you have to acknowledge the ones you haven't, reassess and take a different approach. What's happening here is we're using the same flawed management methodology that caused substantial declines in the fishery expecting different results. We said that back in 2018 and still today use the same regulations causing ten or more years of declines. Again that's not management, it's denial, avoidance and self-preservation.

Personally I'm not interested in blame, I'm interested in learning why this fishery is failing and sharing that with people who have the authority to make the necessary changes to insure this fishery is with us for years to come so the many people and businesses dependent on it don't suffer serious financial consequences.

For the same reasons Dave mentioned, Rutgers Length and Sex study from 2016 was dismissed from Peer Review because it wasn't a comprehensive enough period of time studied in management's opinion even though it's findings and conclusions are right on the money and in sync with fisheries managements own data regarding length and gender relationships within this stock. Simple technicality that undermined their entire study.

They can't criticize my data because it's their data, so they'll criticize either my experience in fisheries management which is limited or my approach or character. Want everyone to remember the movie "Money Ball" and Jonah Hill's character for the Red Sox. Analytical guy with an Ivy League education and not one ounce of baseball experienced changed the way baseball is played today. Matter of fact changed the way most professional sports are played today. Even though I've fished my entire life I don't have a PHD behind my name and that will be used against me if I allow it. But I can run circles around 99% of the people involved in the management process of this fishery doing relational analysis to identify trends comparing policy decisions to changes in the stock good or bad. Many years ago when Quality Management was really gaining traction in this Country, there was a saying "You can't manage what you can't measure". Very true statement at the time and more true today. What I'm doing is measuring historical trends and relationships to regulatory changes to help the Management of this stock better manage the resource.

I'm not criticizing science, I actually applaud them for the data available to do this analysis. Two years ago in a number of email exchanges with Council and Commission Members I was asked by those very Members, people managing this stock for years, where I got my data from. Imagine that. My answer every time was from the 456 page 66th Stock Assessment Report and 491 page 57th Stock Assessment both of which I've read cover to cover multiple times and suggested they do the same if they're going to be making policy decisions for a stock impacting the fishery, hundreds of thousands and more likely millions of recreational anglers and who knows how many whose financial future rests on the shoulders of this stock and their decisions.

I hope this time around things are different and changes are made to avoid the lose of this fishery. If it continues declining, it'll cause great pain for a lot of people.