Action Needed Fluke Sea Bass and Scup

[Gerry Zagorski]

Action Needed By Monday December 13th!

December 13-16 the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council will be meeting to discuss a variety of fisheries. One of the more important topics will be the allocation of the Fluke, Sea Bass and Scup Quota for Commercial and Recreational Anglers.
- The current allocation for Fluke is 60% to Commercial and 40% to Recreational.
- For Scup it's 78% Commercial and 22% Recreational
- For Sea Bass it's 49% Commercial and 51% Recreational

The RFA is working in cooperation with and wrote a position statement agreeing with American Sportfishing Association, asking the Council to consider shifting more of the allocation to Recreational fishermen.

If you're in agreement let your Council Representative know by 12/13
- Go to https://keepamericafishing.org/action-center/
- Click on your state
- Click on Support Bringing Allocations into the 21st Century
- Fill in your personal information
- Emails of your support will be sent to your Council Representative

We need to flood the council with these letters so please share this link https://www.njfishing.com/forums/showthread.php?p=565616#post565616 with your fishing friends and any fishing groups you belong to.

Thanks!

[Jarhead]

Done

[dales529]

Done

[BugEye Chris]

Done

[penn50w]

DONE ;)

[Quin T Rex]

Done

[FASTEDDIE29]

Thank you for all you do Cap’n! DONE!!!

[TomKaye]

Done and forwarded link to some fishing friends who may not frequent this site.
Thanks.

[dakota560]

Gerry just tried sending in the letter from my mobile device but never received the email code to complete the filing. Will try later today once I'm home.

I have a question so I understand the process. A few years ago New York sued to have their share of the commercial quota increased. The lawsuit was filed against the Secretary of Commerce, NOAA and NMFS, collectively Marine Fisheries. An allocation within the commercial sector as opposed to an allocation here between sectors. But an allocation nonetheless. ASMFC and MAFMC weren't at all named in the lawsuit.

At the same time when I had numerous email exchanges with ASMFC and MAFMC Members a few years ago, I was told numerous times they don't set the policies, their handed down from National Marine Fisheries and their hands are essentially tied. In essence state versus the Federal Government since I believe both ASMFC and MAFMC are state chartered institutions. States could and do recommend Conservation Equivalency measures but it sounded like everything else was a Federal mandate.

These letters addressing changes to the allocation are being directed at the state level, my question is do the states have the authority to make that change or is this an MSA mandate with the ultimate authority in the hands of Washington?

[dakota560]

Gerry tried again from home....done.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Gerry just tried sending in the letter from my mobile device but never received the email code to complete the filing. Will try later today once I'm home.

I have a question so I understand the process. A few years ago New York sued to have their share of the commercial quota increased. The lawsuit was filed against the Secretary of Commerce, NOAA and NMFS, collectively Marine Fisheries. An allocation within the commercial sector as opposed to an allocation here between sectors. But an allocation nonetheless. ASMFC and MAFMC weren't at all named in the lawsuit.

At the same time when I had numerous email exchanges with ASMFC and MAFMC Members a few years ago, I was told numerous times they don't set the policies, their handed down from National Marine Fisheries and their hands are essentially tied. In essence state versus the Federal Government since I believe both ASMFC and MAFMC are state chartered institutions. States could and do recommend Conservation Equivalency measures but it sounded like everything else was a Federal mandate.

These letters addressing changes to the allocation are being directed at the state level, my question is do the states have the authority to make that change or is this an MSA mandate with the ultimate authority in the hands of Washington?

Hey Tom - The overall % splits by species between commercial and recreational are a joint decision between the state and federal managers. So, yes we do need address our concerns to both and the form does that.

After going to the site and choosing NJ and filling out the form, I got a confirmation back letting me know that my comments were sent to:
- Assemblyman Eric Houghtaling - NJ State
- Commissioner Fote - NJ State
- Member Nowalsky - Both NJ State and Federal
- Member Hughes- Federal
- Commissioner Cimino - Both NJ State and Federal

[dakota560]

Back to my question about who is ultimately responsible for sector allocations in the summer flounder fishery or all fisheries for that matter. The attached files reflect a portion of the NY lawsuit I referred to. First file is who the suit was filed against which is Marine Fisheries or Washington, Federal in other words. Second attachment discuss the basis for the suit. New York wanted a higher percentage allocation of the commercial quota since the current allocation no different than the sector allocation is completely outdated. The point here isn't the law suit, the point is who the suit was filed against which presumably addresses the party with the authority of making those allocation decisions, in this case the Federal Government or Marine Fisheries. There's more pages obviously to the basis of the suit but based on the second attachment, you get the point. That being the allocation methodology is outdated, no different then the sector allocation being significantly outdated with the inception of using New MRIP to quantify recreational landings and catch.

Again with that said, is the outdated 60/40 split a decision made by a Committee involved in the fisheries management process or is it an allocation based on legal precedent. Legislation in other words. And who makes that determination, is it Martine Fisheries (Washington), ASMFC and or MAFMC (state charter) or someone behind door number three.

Fisheries management is a very complex structure which would rival the institutions and agencies that manage the health care industry. I believe it's extremely important to know two things. First who has the ultimate authority to make the sector allocation this thread addresses and second why wasn't the allocation changed immediately when New MRIP statistics were introduced because based on your email and my calculations four years ago, the recreational sector would have received an approximate 50% increase in allocation and therefore quota by going from 40% to closer to 60% for 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and possibly dependent on next week's meeting results 2022. The public deserves to know whose hands that decision rests in and why the decision wasn't made concurrent with the use of New MRIP statistics.

Since you have inroads to RFA and obviously are working with ASA, I'm sure you have the answer to those questions so I for one would appreciate an answer to further my understanding of the fisheries management process.

[dakota560]

Gerry I got the same email....thanks!

When you say the sector allocation is a joint decision by the state and feds, what state agencies are we talking about? Since the letters are being sent to the Commission and Council, are they the state agencies you're referring to. If not, specifically which agencies are involved?

[tjd24]

DONE

[Gerry Zagorski]

Tom - Yes it's confusing it's a % on top of % game

As far as the NY law suit, NY was fighting not to change the coast wide % for recs vs com %. That was already decided by a larger group including all the states and feds and that's what we're fighting for now, a higher % to recs.

What NY was arguing for was a higher % of the total com % to get passed down to them.

Not going to debate, go sideways or answer any more questions here since our most important mission right now is to get the overall % of coast wide is to try and get more % to recs.

[dakota560]

Tom - Yes it's confusing it's a % on top of % game Gerry not really sure what that means.

As far as the NY law suit, NY was fighting not to change the coast wide % for recs vs com %. That was already decided by a larger group including all the states and feds and that's what we're fighting for now, a higher % to recs.

What NY was arguing for was a higher % of the total com % to get passed down to them. That's exactly what I said in my earlier post

Not going to debate, go sideways or answer any more questions here since our most important mission right now is to get the overall % of coast wide is to try and get more % to recs.
Didn't realize we were debating.

I asked a simple question where in the process is the sector allocation made and who is responsible for making it? Why would you ever consider that a debate?

I thought productive exchanges were welcomed on the site. You're asking people to sign a letter being sent to ASMFC and MAFMC. My question was simply are they the governing bodies responsible for changing the allocation in this process. I assume the answer is yes but wanted your confirmation so I and others understand. You posted the thread asking for signatures and support, assume it would be in your best interest if everyone knew what they were signing and how the process worked

My other observation is if they are the agencies responsible for changing the allocation percentages between sectors based on New MRIP back in 2018, why has it taken 4 - 5 years to make the allocation change since it's had significant impacts to the recreational sector, the fishery as a whole and consequentially the commercial sector. They seem like benign and fair questions to ask, unfortunate you don't seem to agree.

[Togfather2530]

I know this goes against the goals of recreational fishing enthusiasts but as I read this post it got me thinking. I know my freezer is full and I’m always giving fish away since I usually go once a week or every other at least. I don’t really see that we really need to keep more fish recreationally. The way I see it that will just increase the cost of fish at the supermarket for everyone which is already expensive. We are fishing recreationally and they are fishing commercially to make a living and feed people. From an environmental standpoint a commercial boat has much less environmental impact than 1 million recreational boats running around the ocean to get the job done. As much as the regs are stiffer than the free-for-all it was back in the day, an avid fisherman still has plenty of fish to eat and if they are any good of a fisherman they can’t even eat them all. Just another view point that’s all, I guess I’m looking at what’s best for everyone not just the recreational fisherman.

[hammer4reel]

I know this goes against the goals of recreational fishing enthusiasts but as I read this post it got me thinking. I know my freezer is full and I’m always giving fish away since I usually go once a week or every other at least. I don’t really see that we really need to keep more fish recreationally. The way I see it that will just increase the cost of fish at the supermarket for everyone which is already expensive. We are fishing recreationally and they are fishing commercially to make a living and feed people. From an environmental standpoint a commercial boat has much less environmental impact than 1 million recreational boats running around the ocean to get the job done. As much as the regs are stiffer than the free-for-all it was back in the day, an avid fisherman still has plenty of fish to eat and if they are any good of a fisherman they can’t even eat them all. Just another view point that’s all, I guess I’m looking at what’s best for everyone not just the recreational fisherman.

I feel totally opposite of that .
Recreational fishery brings in billions of dollars of revenue for these fisheries .
Every state has its gems .
You don’t see Colorado or Idaho commercially sending you elk to eat . The Dakota their pheasants.
Our gem here is the salt water fishery, we shouldn’t have to feed the world , if they want to eat it they should have to come here to catch it.

Allowing just a few boats to harvest and earn a living selling all the fish from the ocean instead of millions of anglers just doesn’t cut it


.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Gerry not really sure what that means.

That's exactly what I said in my earlier post

Didn't realize we were debating.

I asked a simple question where in the process is the sector allocation made and who is responsible for making it? Why would you ever consider that a debate?

I thought productive exchanges were welcomed on the site. You're asking people to sign a letter being sent to ASMFC and MAFMC. My question was simply are they the governing bodies responsible for changing the allocation in this process. I assume the answer is yes but wanted your confirmation so I and others understand. You posted the thread asking for signatures and support, assume it would be in your best interest if everyone knew what they were signing and how the process worked

My other observation is if they are the agencies responsible for changing the allocation percentages between sectors based on New MRIP back in 2018, why has it taken 4 - 5 years to make the allocation change since it's had significant impacts to the recreational sector, the fishery as a whole and consequentially the commercial sector. They seem like benign and fair questions to ask, unfortunate you don't seem to agree.

Tom - I don't know the answer to your question as to why it's taken 4 or 5 years. What I do know is we have an opportunity right now to get more favorable percentages allocated to the recreational sector. That in it self makes total sense to me and I'd like to stay focused on that task.

[dakota560]

I know this goes against the goals of recreational fishing enthusiasts but as I read this post it got me thinking. I know my freezer is full and I’m always giving fish away since I usually go once a week or every other at least. I don’t really see that we really need to keep more fish recreationally. The way I see it that will just increase the cost of fish at the supermarket for everyone which is already expensive. We are fishing recreationally and they are fishing commercially to make a living and feed people. From an environmental standpoint a commercial boat has much less environmental impact than 1 million recreational boats running around the ocean to get the job done. As much as the regs are stiffer than the free-for-all it was back in the day, an avid fisherman still has plenty of fish to eat and if they are any good of a fisherman they can’t even eat them all. Just another view point that’s all, I guess I’m looking at what’s best for everyone not just the recreational fisherman.

I'll keep saying it until people understand. Today's problems with the fishery isn't a catch problem, it's a catch composition problem driven by inflated recreational size minimums and quota cuts in both the recreational and commercial sector. The allocation Gerry posted about is important for one reason, but not what most people think. It has to happen in order for the recovery plan to work. Can't post right now but will later today. I suggested it to the Commission and Council two years ago and what I got in return was a bunch of theoretical jargon.

Togfather, as it relates to the recreational sector and your comments, right or wrong, Marine Fisheries data indicates 82% or 7 million recreational trips in 2018 ended up with zero keepers, 13% ended up with one keeper. That's a problem. In excess of 4 million less trips between 2011 and 2019, that's a huge social and economic problem to the recreational community and shore based communities and small businesses.

Commercial has an 80% assumed mortality rate for discards, recreational is 10%. Factor that into your thought process. Natural mortality takes 25% of the population every year, why are we waiting to harvest older age classes who've already lost 60 - 80% of their class to natural mortality. To put that in perspective, in 2017 the biomass population was estimated at 121 million. So it's assumed we'll lose 30 million fish in 2018 from natural mortality. Wouldn't it make sense to harvest them at younger age classes as in the nineties before being lost to predation? And in the process, wouldn't it make more sense harvesting a 15.5" male as opposed to a 20" female. It's not one fish for one fish. It's one immature male versus a significant mature breeder which can drop 3 million eggs a year.

We've been engrained to think only about catch because that's all management talks about. It's all we think about, what's our quota? Between 2004 and 2017 landing weights have declined by almost 60% and the stock is declining at a record rate. It's failing. We need to stop talking about weight and talking about size, gender and recruitment strength.

[dakota560]

Tom - I don't know the answer to your question as to why it's taken 4 or 5 years. What I do know is we have an opportunity right now to get more favorable percentages allocated to the recreational sector. That in it self makes total sense to me and I'd like to stay focused on that task.

Gerry I agree. And if you allow me I'll explain the importance of this allocation later today.

[Detour66]

DONE! Gerry you should consider posting this on the varies Facebook Fishing sites in the tri-state area. you should get a good response.

[Gerry Zagorski]

DONE! Gerry you should consider posting this on the varies Facebook Fishing sites in the tri-state area. you should get a good response.

Thanks I've done that on a few of the ones I belong to.

[frugalfisherman]

How many letters and petitions do you guys have to send before you realize these people don't give a rats ass what you think. It's like the sky is falling fools making up these nonsense covid rules. Want a slot fish? Just keep one!

[dakota560]

How many letters and petitions do you guys have to send before you realize these people don't give a rats ass what you think. It's like the sky is falling fools making up these nonsense covid rules. Want a slot fish? Just keep one!

Frugal, I've unfortunately had four family members die from Covid, believe me it's not a pretty sight watching every major organ in someone you love completely shut down and watching them breathe their last breath with your own eyes on a ventilator. I just think there's better analogies to get your point across about fisheries management.

That said, I do completely agree with your post regarding fisheries management. Stakeholders and public opinion are terms only in the abstract, they don't really exist in real life to the people tasked with managing I'll limit my comments to the summer flounder fishery. Fisheries management does some great work, but in the case of this fishery it's beyond comprehension what's being caused and allowed to happen to the stock. And it's as plain as day what the causes are yet year in year out a blind eye is turned.

As far as pirating a slot fish or any other fish, in many cases I've considered it but would be contradicting everything I've written about our collective responsibilities to manage our natural resources so have chosen not to. No one would be put in the position to make that decision if the stock was being managed effectively. As I've said all along, that's been proven already in the nineties through 2010 when the population increased to almost 200 million fish.

Wasn't able to listen in to yesterday's MAFMC meeting regarding summer flounder but spoke with people who were able to. In spite of every Commission and Council Member receiving my analysis, numerous public comments from many others involving concerns over the regulations and unabated harvest or older age classes and the most fecund female breeders and the negative impacts it's having on the stock, not one change was proposed in the regulations or yesterday's meeting to address the root cause of a 70 million decline in the population of this stock in 7 short years or address how the powers to be are going to change regulations to prevent the ongoing onslaught of the spawning stock, large female breeders, anemic recruitment levels and ridiculously inflated discard rates from both sectors. Not one year have these problems been mentioned much less addressed.

Everyone should be up in arms about what's coming down the pike, the so called Federal and State management of this fishery couldn't be doing more to insure our children never know what a summer flounder is. 20 years of meetings for public commentary, marches, protests, articles, sciences own data and management marches to their own tune. I wouldn't be upset about any of that if the fishery was thriving. But being it's failing miserably, we all need to be concerned with the future of this fishery. There's a different agenda in play here, and it doesn't include the overall health and future of the fishery.

Get to know the players on the MAFMC and ASMFC Committees. Get to know their names and titles, it's all listed by state and public information. Here's the ASMFC Board by state, name and title:

https://safis.accsp.org:8443/myJSPs/asmfcmembersearch.jsp?member=155

Here's the MAFMC Board. Click on Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass under Special Committees after clicking on the link:

https://www.mafmc.org/committees

Get to know the names, some should be very familiar. And when this fishery is destroyed, you'll know the people involved in it's demise. The regulations and use of recreational size minimums are very much in the control of the Commission and Council one way or another. Yesterdays meeting basically validated what you said in your post which is "We don't give a crap about your opinion, stay the &$%^ out of our sand box".

Gerry you, RFA and ASA should structure the same virtual letter writing campaign with letters going directly to US Senators of the states involved in this fishery so we can bombard them with the facts I've presented to the Secretary of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS and Commission and Council Members. I'd be more than happy to volunteer my time to draft the letters. If this site and these organization truly care about reform, use the site to get Congress involved. Politicians respond to four things. Retaining or improving their positions in office, power, money and votes. Couple hundred thousand letters in a well orchestrated campaign by RFA, NJF and ASA would go a long way getting their attention and involvement to change the incredibly ineffective manner this fishery is being managed.

Would appreciate your thoughts spearheading that campaign because unlike 2018, "Enough is &^%#$@! Enough!"

[dales529]

How many letters and petitions do you guys have to send before you realize these people don't give a rats ass what you think. It's like the sky is falling fools making up these nonsense covid rules. Want a slot fish? Just keep one!

Covid aside , guessing you never lost someone to that or in general ?

So for private boats I guess you could pirate a slot but for most how do you justify putting a charter or PB at risk for keeping illegal size fish? You post often here on a PP/ PB boat you fish on, are you saying they allow you to just put anything in your cooler?

[frugalfisherman]

I will repeat

[bigfishy]

I will repeat

Nothing new...been that way for a looong time,only recently getting worse...on all levels!!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Well looks like we got some of the commercial allocations shifted over to recreational... Thanks to everyone who pitched in spreading the word and submitted their comments.

[dakota560]

Well looks like we got some of the commercial allocations shifted over to recreational... Thanks to everyone who pitched in spreading the word and submitted their comments.

Gerry, the attached image is from Kiley Dancy to the Council and Commission for 2020 Summer Flounder Specifications. Don't worry about the year, focus on the calculation.

Everyone I would imagine, including me, want to know how the change you posted effects the overall recreational and commercial sectors, both in Commercial ACL and Commercial Quota (Commercial Quota being the same as commercial landings) and Recreational ACL and RHL, the recreational sectors equivalent terminology for catch and landings limits. Could you please post the answer. Fyi, the highlighted areas are the 60:40 allocation calculations based on landings again for 2020.

Just want to make sure we all understand why an allocation for decades which was based on landings was switched to catch and what that actually means to quotas and landings before we all start celebrating. And personally, unless I misunderstand the change and calculation, I don't believe one ounce of the commercial quota was shifted to recreational.

I'll save my next question for after you answer this one.

[hammer4reel]

Well looks like we got some of the commercial allocations shifted over to recreational... Thanks to everyone who pitched in spreading the word and submitted their comments.

Really want to see actual poundage allocations .
By using ACL which incorporated all mortality into our poundage .
Knowing that they give us way more mortality landings than they do commercial discards I don’t believe either that they gave us more actual fish to keep .

And If they did instead of increasing the bag limit or season length we should be pushing for them to lower the minimum size down to 17”


Proof of that is both commercial as well as recreational got a poundage increase in 2021 .
Commercial guys actually got it . Recreational was held off due to the THOUGHT over fishing would occur.

Our over fishing is not happening due to poundage of keepers being caught .
Our over fishing is because of the mortality being charged on all the throwbacks .

Catch ten shorts and get charged 40% mortality you over fished by 30 % , yet didn’t even box a fish .

.

[dakota560]

Our over fishing is not happening due to poundage of keepers being caught .
Our over fishing is because of the mortality being charged on all the throwbacks.
.

To work off Dan's point, everything in the recreational sector for this fishery works off of fishing effort. Number of directed angler fluke trips. If based on the data from 2018, 82% of trip or 7.1 million ended with no keepers and 13% or 1.1 million ended with one keeper, how in God's name did the sector remotely come close to their quota when 8.2 million trips resulted in 1.1 million fish retained. Even with insane discard rates, how is it possible. Might have something to do with the fact identical age class fish landed recreationally have assigned weight values 50% -60% greater than commercial even though everyone is fishing the same biomass. Marine fisheries data, not mine. Basically 1 fish harvested for every 8 angler trips. That equates to significantly less than a practical one fish possession limit, worse than winter flounder at 2.

Gerry to answer the question you didn't answer, recreational got ZERO allocation from commercial since the calculation now works off catch and not landings. Recreational got an increase but so did Commercial after already receiving a 100% increase between 2018 and 2019. Difference is commercial will harvest every last ounce, recreational won't. Smoke and mirrors. My bet is size minimums don't change in 2022 so if 7 million recreational trips in 2018 ended up with no fish harvested, the recreational sector quota for 2022 could be increased by 20 million lbs.and because of the same size minimums, those 7 million trips would still have ended up with zero fish harvested.

All the management bodies know this and the sector is boxed in. You think the recreational sector or the stock benefitted, it didn't. And worst of all, not one change was discussed or made to reduce the harvest of older age classes, address the onslaught of the spawning stock and female population, reduce discard rates or address protection of the spawn and the associated destruction of recruitment levels.

This fishery is mortally wounded while management sits around playing let's make a deal.

Won't be long before the party boat and for hire industry book more winter flounder trips a year than summer flounder.

For anyone who thinks a slot fish or anything below 18" for New York, New Jersey, Ct and RI are an option for 2022, you're living in Fantasyland. The reality is those larger fish are the prime fish being caught by the commercial sector and fisheries management is going to insure they continue being the exclusive harvest of that sector to protect catch values. Until that mentality changes, nothing changes in this fishery other than the fact we'll continue targeting and killing off the spawning stock and larger females and the fishery as a whole will continue declining.

[Rocky]

And If they did instead of increasing the bag limit or season length we should be pushing for them to lower the minimum size down to 17”
.


I was told next years size limit would be 17 1/2".

[hammer4reel]

I was told next years size limit would be 17 1/2".

Maybe you will catch a limit then lol

[Rocky]

Maybe you will catch a limit then lol

Bastard!!!

[dakota560]

I was told next years size limit would be 17 1/2".

Rocky if we get to 17 1/2, it is movement in the right direction which is what we always wanted. The last time NJ was at 17" was in 2007, albeit with a possession limit of 8. I believe NY, RI and Ct which have higher possession limits @ 4,4 and 6 at 19" currently, with the increased quota but lower size minimum in preferred measures if I'd guess they'll all go to 18" and keep the possession limits they have.

Just an observation, bet all those fish we saw the last few years at 17.99" which had to go back are going to miraculously shrink to 17.49" over the next few years if NJ's minimum is in fact reduced to 17.5". It's just the way it works and most here know what I'm talking about.

My major concern about this past week's meeting if I understand the new allocation process is changing the basis for the new percentages from landings to catch. They just couldn't take quota away from commercial which Gerry is why I disagreed with your post. Commercial didn't give up anything, they got more. Recreational looks to have a quota (landings and discard mortality) of 14.64 million pounds. If that represents 45% of ACL (Allowable Catch Limit, the new allocation methodology) then the commercial allocation at 55% is 17.89 million lbs. bringing the combined quota to 32.53 million lbs.

Remember the stock between 2010 and 2017 lost 70 million fish, mature female population and spawning stock declined by 40% - 50%, 31 million mature females disappeared along with over 60 million mature fish of both genders while recruitment imploded. During that time frame, ACL averaged 20 million lbs. with a low of 11.2 million in 2017.

Someone please help me understand how harvesting 12.5 million lbs. more a year based on the 2010 - 2017 average or 200% more than 2017's combined quotas of continued older age classes at essentially the same size minimums is going to rebuild the depressed spawning stock and female population of this stock? In 2009, when the stock had an estimated population reported at 194 million fish, the combined commercial and recreational quota was approximately 21 million lbs. The population has declined through 2017 by 70 million fish and the 2022 combined quota is 32.5 million lbs. What the hell are we doing?

The lack of logic has reached new heights. Continue the onslaught of the spawning stock, large female breeders, offer again no protection to the spawn and we're all expected to believe the fishery which has been demolished under this past decades regulations will rebound. Recreational anglers don't fish during the spawn and therefore have no impact on it's efficacy, the commercial sector does. In 2017, the commercial sectors quota was 5.66 millions lbs., 2022 it's 17.89 million lbs. or a 216% increase in 5 years. At the same time, the regulations for most states recreationally remained relatively the same. The easy answer for fisheries management to justify that inequity between sectors is that fishing effort went up, a completely hypothetical number no one can support.

Short-term management of a long-term resource will always result in long-term failure in fisheries management or business. This stock is destined to fail because of utter incompetency and corrupt management, only question remaining is when.

That's it for me guys, what's happening in this fishery is absolutely incredible and an absolute validation the focus of this fishery is not the health of the stock but industry. Why, doesn't really matter but the decisions being made are some of the worst I've ever witnessed in my life, career or otherwise, and stock assessment statistics bear that out.

[dakota560]

ttt, just think it's important for everyone to understand the facts and how this fisheries is being mismanaged.

[hammer4reel]

ttt, just think it's important for everyone to understand the facts and how this fisheries is being mismanaged.

Starting to think there are so many guys not catching fish regularly that just aren’t interested in what’s really happening .
Seems like the guys who fluke fished when the limit was 8 fish get it , and care .

To see such a great fishery decline with so many having their head in the sand sucks .

Seems even those making a living here on this site would rather cry their business is being destroyed but not help themselves to make it productive again .

.

[dakota560]

Scathing article in what happened at this past weeks Commission / Council meeting in the recently published Fisherman Making Waves Edition that just came out regarding sector allocations and the evils of MRIP in general. Believe article was written by Jim Hutchinson Jr. I'll see if I can post a link later tonight.

[dales529]

ttt, just think it's important for everyone to understand the facts and how this fisheries is being mismanaged.

All
More to come on this. A lot going on and a slot fish is a focus group within NJMFC, ASMFC etc . Allocation liberalization is a step in the right direction and there are many layers in that process before "other" measures can be done. This includes, NJMFC, ASMFC and Technical committee review ongoing.

RFA NJ and RFA National is all over this as are the councils. There are meetings coming up Jan 6th with NJMFC and Jan 24 with ASMFC.

Tom: Your analysis has been reviewed with some agreed to and some not but its NOT being ignored! Great Job

Hope to post more detailed information before the Jan 6th NJ meeting.

[dales529]

Scathing article in what happened at this past weeks Commission / Council meeting in the recently published Fisherman Making Waves Edition that just came out regarding sector allocations and the evils of MRIP in general. Believe article was written by Jim Hutchinson Jr. I'll see if I can post a link later tonight.

Tom
Link here: https://issuu.com/recreationalfishingalliance/docs/winter_2021_making_waves

Page 38 for Allocation which is the one you are referring to. Jim Hutch Article starting on page 32 also a good read. RFA making waves! Wish I could say we havent been saying this for years but we have.
Should be noted that the article on Jim D should be read as well.

[dakota560]

All
More to come on this. A lot going on and a slot fish is a focus group within NJMFC, ASMFC etc . Allocation liberalization is a step in the right direction and there are many layers in that process before "other" measures can be done. This includes, NJMFC, ASMFC and Technical committee review ongoing.

RFA NJ and RFA National is all over this as are the councils. There are meetings coming up Jan 6th with NJMFC and Jan 24 with ASMFC.

Tom: Your analysis has been reviewed with some agreed to and some not but its NOT being ignored! Great Job

Hope to post more detailed information before the Jan 6th NJ meeting.

Dave all good to know. For those who haven't agreed with my analysis, they'll either NEVER understand data analysis or eventually they'll get it. I've never analyzed data in my 40 year career more consistent and conclusive with what caused the fortunes of this stock to deteriorate. We can all have different opinions of the severity of those declines based on data provided us through science and trawl studies. Declines all regulatory driven, the result of removing large percentages of the spawning stock and the largest most fecund breeders from the stock causing discard rates to soar, recruitment to implode and the population to suffer a 40% or 70 plus million decline this past decade. Anyone / everyone in management or not can try tempering the severity of these declines but in doing so we're just perpetuating the problem.

One graph sums up best the transition this fishery went through and the impact it's had on recruitment. And it's only been 25 years since it happened and NO ONE IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT is discussing it or questioning what caused it. Amendment 10 from MAFMC, read it. Commercial trawl Mesh sizes were increased to protect juveniles and harvest older age classes. This is when the fisheries troubles first started even though the extent of the change never really manifested itself until 2010 but a management decision started the process of harvesting older age classes which is the number one problem effecting every aspect of this fishery.

Notice in the first chart, recruitment exceeded SSB every year prior to 1997 because many more males and immature fish were being harvested post 2987, every year SSB conversely exceeds recruitment because we started harvesting older age classes, higher percentage females and all sexually mature.

In 2001, the recreational sector joined in with size minimum increases through CE in an effort to hold onto possession limits and season lengths . The trend of harvesting older age classes began and precisely at that time new recruits relative to SSB as a weight measurement or relative to the mature female population declined by 80% or more and has never recovered. Keep in mind this is with an SSB population composed of older age classes and females producing 5 to 10 times more eggs. So why aren't we seeing this bear out in the statistics. From a relative standpoint, new recruits to SSB should have increased materially, the relationship instead plummeted. Not once have I heard that question asked or even discussed. When you have a sudden decline the nature of what both fisheries management graphs are showing, it means something literally changed overnight causing the efficacy of the spawn to be materially impaired. That change was Amendment 10 in 1997 commercially and CE in 2001 recreationally to fend off catch and possession limit cuts.

It's also a validation that steepness or density differential doesn't exist in this fishery as some believe. I guarantee to everyone involved in the management of this fishery that habitat didn't change in one year in 1997. Harvesting larger breeders during their offshore migration did and has had a pronounced and lasting impact on the efficacy of the annual spawn and the degradation in the relationship of new recruits to the spawning stock or mature females which the data clearly reveals. There's a strong possibility dragging nets through concentrated schools migrating offshore are stressing out the spawn and causing extensive damage. It's somewhat the same argument if fishing for largemouth bass during the spawn and pulling fish off the beds. Only in this case we're harvesting egg laden females, mature males and who knows what damage is being done to eggs already released. No one knows but that chart supports a radical change in the relationship of new recruits to the spawning stock when Amendment 10 was adopted.

It all has to change or it's all going to come crumbling down. You have the Statistical Science Center, Northeast Fishery Science Center, Monitoring Committee and Technical Committees etc. I challenge any one of them at the Federal or State level to shoot holes in my work. I'd actually look forward to the discussions.

As I said, last weeks decisions will further hurt this fishery if the data the fishery is being managed based on is remotely accurate, which I know is a big question mark. But if it is, you can't ignore the declines, tripling of quotas since 2017 and think the gender imbalance caused in catch composition that subsequently led to significant declines in the spawning stock, female population and recruitment is magically going to disappear. It doesn't happen that way. No fishery will survive if the regulations target the harvest of the spawning stock, cause massive discard levels in both sectors, provide no protection to the spawn. It's a statistical impossibility. Again we can provide all those protections for the striper fishery and we see the fishery we had this year but for some unknown set of reasons the multiple management agencies associated with this stock won't make the same decisions for the betterment and survival of the fishery.

[Gerry Zagorski]

This is not over yet. Been working with a few others behind the scenes and will be working a plan to get some attention on a slot fish for next year. I'm preoccupied with some personal stuff and Christmas right now but stay tuned here next week. I'll let you know the plan which will involve all of us.

[Brewlugger]

Tom do you think the council has given any thought on how these regs impact the genetic viability of this fishery?

[dakota560]

Tom do you think the council has given any thought on how these regs impact the genetic viability of this fishery?

Brew I think it's very much on their radar screen but since they've been adamant in past that regulations (A) are not removing too many females from the fishery, (B) that most fish caught between sectors are males and (C) that fish between 18" and 24" are 50:50 males / females and most fish longer than 24" are females they're in a quandary . The quandary is how do they reverse this problem and not lose total credibility of past regulatory decisions. For what it's worth, the three statements mentioned above were made by the Monitoring Committee "MAFMC" and their own data from actual narrative and trawl studies undeniably refute each statement.

Personally I could give a shit how we got here, other than understanding what happened, learn from it and make the correct decisions to get the stock back on track. Fisheries management is a very complex process. What I can't accept and would expect everyone involved in this fishery not to as well is knowing wrong decisions were made and sticking with them for political reasons, personal reasons, credibility etc. while the fishery and it's entire constituency base suffers including the commercial and recreational sectors and many small businesses.

[Gerry Zagorski]

First of all I know the NJ council and the board are 100% behind getting a slot fish. There is and has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes with the RFA and others to try and do just that, like getting other state managers as well as scientists to agree.

They understand that over time, selective harvesting has recreational anglers targeting the very fish needed to sustain the fishery. The problem is in the current federal framework and laws concerning how the fishery is managed. Introducing a slot or smaller fish into the current framework would shorten the number of days we can fish, reduce our bag limit or both.

Once again, stayed tuned for an action plan next week...

[Brewlugger]

Thanks guys .looking forward to seeing this fishery going back in right direction. As you said in your letter Tom this is legacy fishery and I wouldn't mind a shorter season or whatever it takes to bring it back.

[dakota560]

First of all I know the NJ council and the board are 100% behind getting a slot fish. There is and has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes with the RFA and others to try and do just that, like getting other state managers as well as scientists to agree.

They understand that over time, selective harvesting has recreational anglers targeting the very fish needed to sustain the fishery. The problem is in the current federal framework and laws concerning how the fishery is managed. Introducing a slot or smaller fish into the current framework would shorten the number of days we can fish, reduce our bag limit or both.

Once again, stayed tuned for an action plan next week...

Because I trust you and Dave I'll wait for developments next week. But let me say this. As the saying goes, "The journey of a million miles begins with the first step." A slot might in fact be the first step and as I've repeatedly said in many ways it is to start the process of harvesting younger age classes but the remaining 999,999 steps needs to focus on the health of the fishery and the issues identified in my work because without it everyone loses and I do mean everyone.

I'll steal the saying from Keanu Reeves character in the movie the Day the Earth Stood Still "If the Earth dies, you die." If this fishery dies, the benefits all constituents gain from it dies no different than a long list of other fisheries we've lost.

If whoever your speaking with and all the people I've sent my work to don't start focusing on the fishery as opposed to allocations, season lengths, politics, horse trading, deflection, theories etc. this will never work. We had a blueprint, it was called the nineties. We deviated from the blueprint and mortally wounded a thriving fishery unless as I've acknowledged the data in the stock assessments are wrong, which would mean we have a much larger problem making policy decisions on bad data.

Will be interested hearing your update. Just fyi, I have my own personal matter to deal with in about a week and a half so I might be out of commission for a while but will try monitoring the board.

Fyi, the recreational sector does not have the benefit of selective harvest, especially when you factor in 82% of angler trips result in zero keepers and 13% in one. 8.6 million trips resulting in 1.6 million fish caught due to insanely high size minimums is mandated harvest, not selective. Commercial with a range from 14" to infinity, that's selective harvest and in a fishery with significant market value differences of size fish it's a very risky methodology managing the stock. Selective harvest causes significantly greater levels of discard mortality. Plenty of articles written about it and it's just common sense. We know it's happening, there's proof from Federal On Board Observers and instead of managing the problem once again we conveniently sweep it under the rug.

This past week's decisions put the fishery at a 200% plus increase in combined sector quota since 2018 and by harvesting the same age classes which caused all this stocks problems over the past decade, it doesn't allow for many more restarts. I said this 4 years ago, threw out a projected timeline and that time line is happening.

Not to mention a 200% increase in recreational quota since 2018 and NJ, NY, Ct and RI inexplicably over that time frame have the same size minimums and daily possession limits in place. Someone please explain how that's possible even if there were subtle increases to season lengths when 82% of angler trips resulted in zero harvest!

This fishery is trending in the wrong direction in a big way and without serious triage will continue doing so.

[hammer4reel]

First of all I know the NJ council and the board are 100% behind getting a slot fish. There is and has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes with the RFA and others to try and do just that, like getting other state managers as well as scientists to agree.

They understand that over time, selective harvesting has recreational anglers targeting the very fish needed to sustain the fishery. The problem is in the current federal framework and laws concerning how the fishery is managed. Introducing a slot or smaller fish into the current framework would shorten the number of days we can fish, reduce our bag limit or both.

Once again, stayed tuned for an action plan next week...

The short season threat is BS on their part , because they don’t want to change .
I know fish and game directors tried to start pushing for a slot fish last season , but efforts started late in the game .

Seasons are based on tonnage , smaller fish weigh less and more can be caught than those larger fish weighing more .
Slot fish allows less throw backs , meaning less mortality discards .
IMO the over gishing they claim we do is based more on the amount of discards than the actual fish kept .
Lowering that number should allow the season lengths to remain .


.

[dakota560]

The short season threat is BS on their part , because they don’t want to change .
I know fish and fame directors tried to start pushing for a slot fish last season , but efforts started late in the game .

Seasons are based on tonnage , smaller fish weigh less and more can be caught than those larger fish weighing more .
Slot fish allows less throw backs , meaning less mortality discards .
IMO the over gishing they claim we do is based more on the amount of discards than the actual fish kept .
Lowering that number should allow the season lengths to remain .


.

And Dan the biggest benefit and reason the stock surged in the nineties is harvesting the younger age classes, harvesting a high percentage sexually immature fish, significantly higher percentage males and before they succumb to 25% a year natural mortality. Wonder if that's factored into marine fisheries models. Meaning if you catch 10 fish, 2.5 would have died from natural mortality in one year's time anyway so why wait until we've lost 70 - 80% of a recruitment class before harvesting any age class.

I understand the intent was probably to let recruitment classes spawn more years but as I noted and as marine fisheries data demonstrates, new recruits per spawning stock metric ton has flatlined since 1997 when Amendment 10 was adopted so whether or not that was the intent it's not happening. Assumptions incorporating the entire age, length, gender relationship of this stock needs to be revisited, it's been thrown out of balance and regulations need to be changed to reinstate that balance.

For those of you not aware of what Amendment 10 addresses, read the following link from the MAMFC website. In particular, read section 4.2.2. clearly the intention was to protect younger age classes and begin the harvest of older age classes. What ended up happening in many cases as mentioned is younger age classes became collateral damage due to the alteration of nets while the inception of harvesting older more valuable age classes commercially began:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/53e3a14ce4b021b394687a71/1407426892017/SFSCBSB_Amend_10.pdf

[dakota560]

ttt. Gerry any updates from your post last week regarding developments in the summer flounder fishery. Again in my opinion, the quotas set coming out of December's joint meeting are the highest I believe for both the commercial and recreational sector at minimum over the last two decades at a period of time when the fishery based on the latest stock assessment shows the stock declining at a rate not seen since the eighties. And the preferred measure (regulations) for the recreational sector haven't really changed from prior years which means size minimums once again will constrain harvest recreationally as always, meaning increased recreational quotas will most likely never be realized even though I'd suspect miraculously the numbers for 2022 when published will say otherwise.

Again management is not addressing the problems facing the fishery, this is more smoke and mirrors than management. Nothing was discussed or changed to address a failing spawning stock, a failing mature female population, unimaginable discard rates, a slot fish, lower size minimums, historically poor recruitment levels, protection of the spawn or a plan to transition the fishery in general to the harvest of more sexually immature fish, a higher percentage males, from the current harvest composition which involves exclusively sexually mature fish with a very high percentage females.

It's unconscionable, in light of recent stock assessments, these were the decisions coming out of that meeting which will only intensify the existing problems facing todays stock.

I hope you have some updates, as mentioned last week, that provide a degree of hope that changes are in the works to address this absolute calamity of errors.

Thanks....Tom