Commercial Fluke Quota

[Billfish715]

The weekly catch per boat for February is 6,000 lbs. per week. That’s about 3,000+ fish per boat per week. Simple math puts the possibility of one boat catching 12,000 fluke in a month. Keep doing the math and see what possible totals you can come up with. Juggle some numbers and add ten commercial boats into the mix. How many fluke would they possibly take in a week ( discounting any and all culls )? Now, how many recreational and charter/party boats would it take to catch the same amount?

It’s just something to consider. There’s no need to start this commercial/recreational conversation again, but it does make you think. Perhaps the regulators will look at the possibilities and do some realistic math.


https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2022/marlet-sftripmod01-26-22.pdf

[frugalfisherman]

This is secondhand information I got from someone I talked to at the wholesale level about 15 years ago. At the time I was informed they were paying about $3 for small, $4 for medium and $5 for large size fluke. If you're coming in with 6000lbs of fluke do you want to get $18,000, $24,000 or $30,000? Keeping the large breeders and throwing back the smaller ones which are probably going to die is a lot more profitable and would make a lot more sense from an economic standpoint so saving the breeders with a recreational slot fish is silly. Like I said secondhand info.

[june181901]

Recreational folks don't have lobbyists who are as effective as the commercial guys! There are a lot more of us (recreational) then there are commercials!

[hammer4reel]

Recreational folks don't have lobbyists who are as effective as the commercial guys! There are a lot more of us (recreational) then there are commercials!

Correct , that’s because recreational anglers won’t put the money up to fight for their interests .
The commercial fleet has no problem each throwing THOUSANDS of dollars each to fight their case .

99% of Recreational fisherman won’t throw 5 bucks .


.

[bunker dunker]

i think folks would give more if they were given more.the last time i can remember
the rec guys getting anything in their favor was the 200 mile limit and that because the comm guys were on board.the gov makes way more money on the comm peeps there for it always falls there way.mind over matter!!!!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Recreational folks don't have lobbyists who are as effective as the commercial guys! There are a lot more of us (recreational) then there are commercials!

We had a lobbyist last year the NJ Chapter of the RFA paid for and we are in the midst of finalizing a contract with another lobby group as we speak.

If anyone would like to support this effort see Dales post and click on the link to donate https://www.njfishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116611

[tautog]

You need to do more than lobby. You need to set up PACs. Politicians want money in return for their votes. That's why the teachers' union and CWA give millions each election cycle in NJ.

[Capt Sal]

Correct , that’s because recreational anglers won’t put the money up to fight for their interests .
The commercial fleet has no problem each throwing THOUSANDS of dollars each to fight their case .

99% of Recreational fisherman won’t throw 5 bucks .


.

I tried getting my charter customers to join the RFA and donate to SSFF. Most of them didn't even know what they were??? The people that visit this site are informed for the most part but do not assume all recreational fishermen are. Some think it is only the for hire people that should

[Billfish715]

It still comes down to a small group of individuals making decisions that affect the livelihoods and recreational opportunities of us all. The decisions they make are deeply seated in traditional practices. There is no motivation for them to change distribution quotas that have remained pretty much the same for many, many years. Any change in the status quo would require them to think and evaluate and question the goals of the committee. This is the epitome of "group-think" which is commonplace in any organization, especially one that does not meet on a daily or weekly or monthly basis.

It's quicker and easier to simply agree with what has been done before. There is no time or room for personal reflection on the part of the committee members. Don't expect anything to change unless those individual committee members are approached with convincing evidence that would change their minds. It's not that they can't think. It's that they don't ask enough questions within their committee. They never seem to question or change their mission statement.

When a group thinks like a group and not as informed individuals and when they are afraid to break ranks, nothing changes nor does anything get done. It's a political arm of the government that answers only to themselves. What do you expect?

I'm sure the members think they are somehow saving the fish stocks by their decisions. But, when their decisions are predetermined, they will stubbornly stick to the status quo and not budge. Someone within the voting group has to pause and at least consider the facts and data that have been reported so thoroughly on this site by Tom. That might be the wedge in the log jam that we have been facing.

I'm only dreaming to think that the committee might look at the successes of their decisions to rebuild the fluke stocks over so many years. No one on any of those panels can truthfully answer that their regulations of the last 20+ years have restored anything. Why should I be surprised at their thought process when it reflects every bit of the political accountability that is absent in Washington or Trenton or your local government? No one will admit that they might have done something wrong or that their program is not working as it was supposed to. It's juvenile, and immature and wrong!

[Gerry Zagorski]

It still comes down to a small group of individuals making decisions that affect the livelihoods and recreational opportunities of us all. The decisions they make are deeply seated in traditional practices. There is no motivation for them to change distribution quotas that have remained pretty much the same for many, many years. Any change in the status quo would require them to think and evaluate and question the goals of the committee. This is the epitome of "group-think" which is commonplace in any organization, especially one that does not meet on a daily or weekly or monthly basis.

It's quicker and easier to simply agree with what has been done before. There is no time or room for personal reflection on the part of the committee members. Don't expect anything to change unless those individual committee members are approached with convincing evidence that would change their minds. It's not that they can't think. It's that they don't ask enough questions within their committee. They never seem to question or change their mission statement.

When a group thinks like a group and not as informed individuals and when they are afraid to break ranks, nothing changes nor does anything get done. It's a political arm of the government that answers only to themselves. What do you expect?

I'm sure the members think they are somehow saving the fish stocks by their decisions. But, when their decisions are predetermined, they will stubbornly stick to the status quo and not budge. Someone within the voting group has to pause and at least consider the facts and data that have been reported so thoroughly on this site by Tom. That might be the wedge in the log jam that we have been facing.

I'm only dreaming to think that the committee might look at the successes of their decisions to rebuild the fluke stocks over so many years. No one on any of those panels can truthfully answer that their regulations of the last 20+ years have restored anything. Why should I be surprised at their thought process when it reflects every bit of the political accountability that is absent in Washington or Trenton or your local government? No one will admit that they might have done something wrong or that their program is not working as it was supposed to. It's juvenile, and immature and wrong!

And this is why we all need to get and stay involved.... Too many people say it makes no difference, why attend meetings they do what they want to do.. Point in case we're talking about a big reduction in Black Seabass and only one recreational person in the ASMFC spoke up at the meeting?

As far as Summer Flounder, I think they are listening because people spoke up and as a result I think we have a really good chance of getting a slot fish in our regs...

People can sit on the couch if they want but the other groups won't... You need to lead, follow or get out of the way and make your voices heard! If you don't (not directing this at you Bill) you're part of the problem, not the solution.

If you want change get involved!

[Billfish715]

Gerry, This struggle to help save the summer flounder (and the related livelihoods it supports) has consumed us all in one way or another. The letter-writing campaigns, rallies, meetings, fund raisers are hopefully chipping away at the iceberg that stands in our way. There are still people who don't donate or attend or write but from the discussions on this board, those people are starting to "talk" or talk more. It's how the message gets around and sooner or later, enough of that "talk" will find its way to the ears of the decision makers.

They are, after all, just people who make decisions. They ultimately have to be persuaded to see our side with a more favorable eye. The voting members have no polls on which to fall back to help them with their decisions. Their position on the board/committee is an appointment and is not an elected post. There is nothing hanging over heads that would cause them any fear of being replaced. It doesn't mean the effort should end, but pressure on them to think independently and based on data is where more focus has to be placed. One by one they have to see how unsuccessful their regulations have been in restoring the stocks. Once they can make that concession, things will start looking up for us.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Gerry, This struggle to help save the summer flounder (and the related livelihoods it supports) has consumed us all in one way or another. The letter-writing campaigns, rallies, meetings, fund raisers are hopefully chipping away at the iceberg that stands in our way. There are still people who don't donate or attend or write but from the discussions on this board, those people are starting to "talk" or talk more. It's how the message gets around and sooner or later, enough of that "talk" will find its way to the ears of the decision makers.

They are, after all, just people who make decisions. They ultimately have to be persuaded to see our side with a more favorable eye. The voting members have no polls on which to fall back to help them with their decisions. Their position on the board/committee is an appointment and is not an elected post. There is nothing hanging over heads that would cause them any fear of being replaced. It doesn't mean the effort should end, but pressure on them to think independently and based on data is where more focus has to be placed. One by one they have to see how unsuccessful their regulations have been in restoring the stocks. Once they can make that concession, things will start looking up for us.

The problem is the people on our local boards are sort of hand tied and so are most of the people one step above them in some of the regional boards like the ASMFC. Although they'd like to get things done, they are restricted by the frame work of federal laws like Magnuson Stevens https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies which governs how fisheries are measured, accounted for and managed.

I can tell you first hand there is progress being made like the Recreational Reform which allows management some flexibility to take into account more data for longer periods of time, more recent landing data and stock status. That is being discussed here https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/61f44ea1cbe85135c3b669cc/1643400867886/Tab04_Rec-HCR-FW_2022-02.pdf

[Gerry Zagorski]

And for those of you who Seabass fish, you need to read and take action on this which encourages Recreation Reform I mentioned above.

https://www.njfishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117707

[frugalfisherman]

So what ever happened with this?
January 2019 Edition | Volume 73, Issue 1

Published since 1946

Modern Fish Act Enacted
On December 31, President Donald Trump signed into law legislation to update federal saltwater fisheries management. The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018 (Modern Fish Act) updates the federal law that oversees how ocean fisheries are managed. The new law improves management tools for recreational fisheries and helps to define the important differences between recreational and commercial fishing. The bill, led in the Senate by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) and in the House by Congressman Garret Graves (R-LA), passed unanimously in the Senate on December 17 and then passed the House by a 350 to 11 vote on December 19.

“This is historic for the recreational boating and fishing community, capping years of hard work to responsibly modernize recreational saltwater fisheries management,” said Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “The Modern Fish Act is a critical first-step solution towards establishing a framework for expanding access to recreational saltwater fishing, while ensuring conservation and sustainability remain top priorities in fisheries management. We thank President Trump and Congress for making the Modern Fish Act the law of the land and look forward to working with them in the coming years to advance policies that protect and promote recreational saltwater fishing.”

According to a statement by a coalition of sportfishing organizations, the final Modern Fish Act will provide more stability and better recreational fishing access by:

Providing authority and direction to NOAA Fisheries to apply additional management tools more appropriate for recreational fishing, many of which are successfully implemented by state fisheries agencies (e.g., extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices of native communities);
Improving recreational harvest data collection by requiring federal managers to explore other data sources that have tremendous potential to improve the accuracy and timeliness of harvest estimates, such as state-driven programs and electronic reporting (e.g., through smartphone apps);
Requiring the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the process of mixed-use fishery allocation review by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Councils and report findings to Congress within one year of enactment of the Modern Fish Act, and
Requiring the National Academies of Sciences to complete a study and provide recommendations within two years of the enactment of the Modern Fish Act on limited access privilege programs (catch shares) including an assessment of the social, economic, and ecological effects of the program, considering each sector of a mixed-use fishery and related businesses, coastal communities, and the environment and an assessment of any impacts to stakeholders in a mixed-use fishery caused by a limited access privilege program. This study excludes the Pacific and North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Councils.
January 15, 2019

[dales529]

So what ever happened with this?
January 2019 Edition | Volume 73, Issue 1

Published since 1946

Modern Fish Act Enacted
On December 31, President Donald Trump signed into law legislation to update federal saltwater fisheries management. The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018 (Modern Fish Act) updates the federal law that oversees how ocean fisheries are managed. The new law improves management tools for recreational fisheries and helps to define the important differences between recreational and commercial fishing. The bill, led in the Senate by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) and in the House by Congressman Garret Graves (R-LA), passed unanimously in the Senate on December 17 and then passed the House by a 350 to 11 vote on December 19.

“This is historic for the recreational boating and fishing community, capping years of hard work to responsibly modernize recreational saltwater fisheries management,” said Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “The Modern Fish Act is a critical first-step solution towards establishing a framework for expanding access to recreational saltwater fishing, while ensuring conservation and sustainability remain top priorities in fisheries management. We thank President Trump and Congress for making the Modern Fish Act the law of the land and look forward to working with them in the coming years to advance policies that protect and promote recreational saltwater fishing.”

According to a statement by a coalition of sportfishing organizations, the final Modern Fish Act will provide more stability and better recreational fishing access by:

Providing authority and direction to NOAA Fisheries to apply additional management tools more appropriate for recreational fishing, many of which are successfully implemented by state fisheries agencies (e.g., extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices of native communities);
Improving recreational harvest data collection by requiring federal managers to explore other data sources that have tremendous potential to improve the accuracy and timeliness of harvest estimates, such as state-driven programs and electronic reporting (e.g., through smartphone apps);
Requiring the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the process of mixed-use fishery allocation review by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Councils and report findings to Congress within one year of enactment of the Modern Fish Act, and
Requiring the National Academies of Sciences to complete a study and provide recommendations within two years of the enactment of the Modern Fish Act on limited access privilege programs (catch shares) including an assessment of the social, economic, and ecological effects of the program, considering each sector of a mixed-use fishery and related businesses, coastal communities, and the environment and an assessment of any impacts to stakeholders in a mixed-use fishery caused by a limited access privilege program. This study excludes the Pacific and North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Councils.
January 15, 2019

https://www.sportfishingpolicy.com/2019-modern-fish-act-implementation-progress-report/
This for starters: