Summer Flounder, Seabass and Scup Update and Action Items

[Gerry Zagorski]

A quick update here.... As you all know the ASMFC meeting which approves the options/example the states have submitted is going to take place on 3/24.

I would encourage you to attend that webinar and use this link to register https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/8045885664746620685

If you can't attend I would ask that you email the ASMFC comments@asmfc.org and encourage them to approve the NJ State Examples in their entirety, including the slot option for Summer Flounder This needs to be done by 3/16

See the attached for the options/example that state had submitted for Fluke and Seabass, all of which have passed technical approval but still need to be approved by the ASMFC at the meeting I mentioned above.

Even if these options are approved by the ASMFC it does not mean that these will be our final options. Our state committee and advisors will likely meet in a closed meeting the week of 3/28 and discuss the options they want to move forward with. The week of 4/4 the council will meet and vote on the option to adopt, this will be a public meeting which decides our regulations.

Note : The charts attached are a little confusing since they are organized by waves. Wave 3 is May/Jun, 4 is Jul//Aug, 5 is Sep/Oct and 6 is Nov/Dec.

[dakota560]

Gerry thanks for the heads up. Reply submitted this morning if anyone else is planning on replying and interested in the talking points.

From 1989 to 2004, the summer flounder fishery experienced its most prolific growth in history adding 120 million fish to the population. Those increases were fueled by harvest of the correct age classes. Over 90% of the harvest consisted of age groups 1 thru 2 meaning we were harvesting a higher percentage of sexually immature fish and proportionately more males by a 3:1 to 4:1 margin (reference below graph). The breeding stock wasn’t being exploited, recruitment levels per the below chart from NEFSC we’re strong and the female population as well as the spawn itself were de-facto protected as younger age groups were being harvested.

In 1997 when MAFMC passed Amendment 10 mandating the increase in commercial mesh sizes to protect juvenile fish and target commercial harvest on older age classes, the gender balance in this fishery started what has evolved into a complete change. Just read the Section titled “Sex Ratio” on page 60 of the 66th Stock Assessment to see how substantially female proportions have declined to the male population over the years. Amendment 10 coupled with the use of elevated size minimums in the recreational fishery caused a seismic change in the gender composition of this stock and killed recruitment levels ever since. Reference the below chart prepared for the last 40 years which proves two things. First, recruitment strength relative to the breeding stock fell off the cliff flat-lining in 1997 never recovering through today and second, for all the “steepness prognosticators” in this fishery, this chart alone proves that theory wrong since the relationship of new recruits to a declining biomass would have increased if there were any merit to that theory. It hasn’t, it’s actually worsened as the regulations have caused serious declines in the mature female population of the fishery as well as substantial declines in the size of the spawning stock.

Until the regulations start addressing issues which are threatening the fishery as opposed to issues addressing everything else, the stock will remain at risk. Options 3 and 4 will never be chosen because of reductions in season lengths. Season lengths are mandated to be reduced as part of these options because NEFSC and SSC models don’t properly reflect the impacts of harvesting younger age classes as they relate to gender composition, the benefits of harvesting younger age classes before natural mortality consumes those age groups at 25% annually and most important the impact on protecting females, the spawning stock and bolstering recruitment through the harvest of more males and more sexually immature fish. While Option 5 is the best option of the five presented, a slot between 17 and 17.99” will continue removing all sexually mature fish primarily females from the population and have little impact on the issues hurting the stock. It is however the best option of the five options given, will reduce discard mortality in the recreational fishery, give anglers at least a chance of catching a keeper and is without doubt a step in the right direction. It’s a start of addressing the issues confronting this stock which would represent a step in the right direction for the first time in two decades.

We had successful regulation in place in the 90’s that worked to perfection. The sooner we acknowledge that fact and work our way back to those regulations thoughtfully without causing undue economic hardship in the process, the sooner we’ll nurse this fishery back to health and sustainability and insure the future of the fishery and the associated benefits to all its constituents and businesses dependent on its survival.

[frugalfisherman]

16% increase in harvest and you want to screw it up with a slot fish. Not just one slot fish but two! Oy VEY!!!!

[hammer4reel]

16% increase in harvest and you want to screw it up with a slot fish. Not just one slot fish but two! Oy VEY!!!!

Guess you really don’t get it .

When you catch (10 ) 17 1/2” fish and throw them back . You get charged 40% mortality and get charged as IF you kept 4 fish .
So at years end they say you over fished (even while not boxing a fish )

Getting a slot fish allows you to actually keep a few of those fish .
And it takes some of the pressure of of the bigger female breeding fish .

Last year you were supposed to get a larger increase , instead because of overfishing they didn’t give us it .


.

[frugalfisherman]

[QUOTE=hammer4reel;567530]Guess you really don’t get it .

When you catch (10 ) 17 1/2” fish and throw them back . You get charged 40% mortality and get charged as IF you kept 4 fish .
So at years end they say you over fished (even while not boxing a fish )

How would anybody know if I caught 10 fish at 17 1/2 and threw them back? Or for that matter how many shorts were thrown back on any of the party boats, charters or any of the private boats fishing?

[bbfisherman]

@frugalfisherman. Surveys and inaccurate extrapolation is what they use.

[Dclark2]

Done

[hammer4reel]

@frugalfisherman. Surveys and inaccurate extrapolation is what they use.


EXACTLY
They talk to one person , and then count the number of guys getting off the boat

[dakota560]

16% increase in harvest and you want to screw it up with a slot fish. Not just one slot fish but two! Oy VEY!!!!

So instead you'd rather continue harvesting the breeding population and killing millions of smaller fish in the process while destroying the spawning stock and future recruitment of the stock.

That your opinion of what best benefits this fishery. And you're basically calling me an idiot.

Maybe you can explain one thing for me and others on the site in your infinite wisdom. Why then in the decade of the 90's when we were harvesting on average 14" fish at quotas almost twice todays did the stock increase in population by 70 million fish and for the years 2010 to 2017 when we were harvesting on average fish at 18.35" at half those quotas the stock declined by 67 million fish.

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain for the same periods why the spawning stock in the 90's increased by 29,000 metric tons (that's 2,204.62 lbs. per metric ton if you didn't know) and declined between 2010 and 2017 by 21,000 metric tons while the mature female population increased by 30 million in the 90's versus declining by 31 million between 2010 and 2017 and recruitment averaged 57 million new recruits a year in the 90's versus 38 million between 2010 and 2017.

Now tell us what option you think is best for the future of the fishery and back your opinion up with facts. If you can, I'll listen. If it's just your opinion with nothing to support it, then your perspectives are no better than those of fisheries management you so quickly and correctly criticize.

[dakota560]

@frugalfisherman. Surveys and inaccurate extrapolation is what they use.

Three biggest issues with the data used to manage fisheries are the following:

New MRIP is calculated generally speaking by using catch rate--the average number of fish caught per angler trip—through in-person interviews, and fishing effort—the number of fishing trips anglers take—through mail and telephone surveys. There's no way of knowing if those numbers are close to reality or representative of recreational catch.

Dead discards, same problem in how many discards there are and what percentage actually die. Example, between 2009 and 2011, the recreational sector was charged with catching 165 million fish to harvest 11 million meaning 154 million fish were discarded. Who really knows if those numbers are remotely representative but think about how much of the recreational quota is exhausted with dead discard assumptions based on those statistics all because of the use of increased size minimums to constrain recreational landings and even worse MRIP phone interviews trying to quantify those numbers.

Third, it's a known fact based on marine fisheries own federal observers, commercial dead discards are substantially greater than what's reported on vessel trip reports by commercial operators but management opted to sweep that information under the carpet as opposed to using it in quantifying commercial catch. It's empirical data collected by their own on board federal observers ignored for the commercial sector while we use highly speculative data for the recreational sector provided by questionable phone interviews conducted weeks if not months after angler trips without any means of verifying the accuracy of the information.

So yes like everyone else I agree the data being used to manage the fishery is speculative at best. BUT numbers aside, I still challenge anyone to defend the benefits of targeting the harvest of exclusively breeders of any fishery, kill juvenile fish in the process, cause discard mortality rates of unprecedented levels while destroying the breeding stock and recruitment in the process. If that's your opinion of how this or any fishery should be managed than choose the option that involves the harvest of the largest fish possible because those are the results that option will cause.

[togzilla]

Three biggest issues with the data used to manage fisheries are the following:

New MRIP is calculated generally speaking by using catch rate--the average number of fish caught per angler trip—through in-person interviews, and fishing effort—the number of fishing trips anglers take—through mail and telephone surveys. There's no way of knowing if those numbers are close to reality or representative of recreational catch.

Dead discards, same problem in how many discards there are and what percentage actually die. Example, between 2009 and 2011, the recreational sector was charged with catching 165 million fish to harvest 11 million meaning 154 million fish were discarded. Who really knows if those numbers are remotely representative but think about how much of the recreational quota is exhausted with dead discard assumptions based on those statistics all because of the use of increased size minimums to constrain recreational landings.

Third, it's a known fact based on marine fisheries own federal observers, commercial dead discards are substantially greater than what's reported on vessel trip reports by commercial operators but management opted to sweep that information under the carpet as opposed to using it in quantifying commercial catch. It's empirical data collected by their own on board federal observers ignored for the commercial sector while we use highly speculative data for the recreational sector provided by questionable phone interviews conducted weeks if not months after angler trips without any means of verifying the accuracy of the information.

So yes like everyone else I agree the data being used to manage the fishery is speculative at best. BUT numbers aside, I still challenge anyone to defend the benefits of killing breeders of any fishery, kill juvenile fish in the process, cause discard mortality rates of unprecedented levels while destroying the breeding stock and recruitment in the process. If that's your opinion of how this or any fishery should be managed than choose the option that involves the harvest of the largest fish possible because those are the results that option will cause.

Well said!

[frugalfisherman]

So i

Maybe you can explain one thing for me and others on the site in your infinite wisdom. Why then in the decade of the 90's when we were harvesting on average 14" fish at quotas almost twice todays did the stock increase in population by 70 million fish and for the years 2010 to 2017 when we were harvesting on average fish at 18.35" at half those quotas the stock declined by 67 million fish.

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain for the same periods why the spawning stock in the 90's increased by 29,000 metric tons (that's 2,204.62 lbs. per metric ton if you didn't know) and declined between 2010 and 2017 by 21,000 metric tons while the mature female population increased by 30 million in the 90's versus declining by 31 million between 2010 and 2017 and recruitment averaged 57 million new recruits a year in the 90's versus 38 million between 2010 and 2017.


This is easy. It doesn't take "infinite wisdom", all it takes is common sense (something they apparently don't teach in college).

First nobody knows how many fluke are down there. Do they go down and count them or just make up numbers? Ie the endangered dogfish. Stopped commercial fishing and now they probably out there murdering young fluke.

As far as percentages go. If the limit was 8 fish in the 90's and you kept 4 14's and 4 18+ breeders that would be 50/50%. The thing is nobody was throwing back the 18+ breeders and so now if you are keeping 3 18+ breeders and that's a 96% ratio it doesn't matter because you are keeping one less breeder.

We are getting a 16% increase so the powers that be must think we are going in the right direction but you guys want to screw it up with this slot fish nonsense.

PS Please don't ask me any more complicated questions. I can only type with one finger.

[frugalfisherman]

Just thought of something else while sitting on the throne (where most of my infinite wisdom comes from). If you get this crazy slot fish it means throwing back breeders. Mortality rate number crunchers?

[TwoDDs]

Dakota, I'd like to start by saying I very much enjoy reading your post and analysis on summer flounder. I can't even begin to imagine the time you must put into your analysis.

I struggle with the "Option 5" as the "best available", not because I would only be able to keep "one" fish over 18" and then need to find 2 fish to fill a "one inch" slot to fill my bag, but I view it as a continued sacrifice, to offset the continued exploitation by the commercial industry.
If I thought for one second that it was a step in the right direction and would save this industry, I'd be all-in, but I'm sorry, I just don't.
Just my opinion, but I'd rather see Option 3 adopted and view it as compatible to Option 5, without the perceived "sacrifice" and still maintaining the same number of fishing days as the "status quo" Option. I think the PB and For Hire industry would support this as well.

That being said, I personally don't believe this industry is heading for collapse, because of the recreational sector. I believe it is heading for collapse because of Fisheries mismanagement and the commercial sector's permitted and continuing exploitation, with indiscriminate harvesting during the spawn, unconscionable dead discards (i.e. like whiting) and then to top it off, having their quota increased by 3x over the last 5 years. I too think this industry is going to collapse, unless something is done to better manage the commercial sector and do not think regulations or additional sacrifices by the recreational sector, are going to right this ship. At the end of the day, I think the recreational sector and the economic engine that it drives, is going to be collateral damage to the mismanagement and exploitation by others.

JMHO

[dakota560]

Frugal, no more complicated questions but you're missing the point. How many fish are down there? Marine fisheries conducts Spring, Summer and Winter trawl studies just as Rutgers did when they conducted their Sex and Length Study. Rutgers might not have been as seasonal but trawl studies are the means of quantifying the population of the stock. They take the otolith to determine age and I believe use genetics or extract the gonads to determine sex. Shresearchdude could be more exact about that process but that's my understanding.

They don't teach common sense in college, you either develop it in life or you don't. Like I said previously, if you're against a slot, use data to support your position otherwise it's just an unsupported opinion.

For the thousandth time, the problem with the stock is we're harvesting older age classes, killing juvenile fish in the process, destroying the spawning stock and materially damaging recruitment. That's the story the data is telling. It's not suggesting it, it's screaming it.

You can question the data all you wish but the data, representative or not, is what's being used to make policy decisions and ultimately regulations. Sexually mature population between 2010 and 2017 declined by over 60 million fish of both genders losing half it's population. Think about that statistic and the impact on recruitment. Annual recruitment dropped by 30 to 40 million new recruits annually retracing to late 80's levels. Think about that as well. 30 years of sacrifices wiped out in 7 to 8 short years due to the mismanagement of the fishery. All changes in the stock driven by ineffective regulations.

As I said choose the option to continue with and promote the failed regulations over the last decade and the trend continues. Start the process of lowering harvest sizes and protect the spawn from commercial operations and the fishery stands a chance of recovering. Otherwise all this is a moot point and I assure you the 16% increase you think the recreational sector is getting will never be realized.

As Dan pointed out, it'll be absorbed by higher dead discard numbers or fictitious fishing effort through MRIP. Why else do you think the recreational quota which increased from 7.6 million lbs. in 2018 to 10.06 million lbs. in 2020 didn't change any of the recreational regulations for any state either with possession limits or size minimums? If a 31% increase didn't improve our regulations, why would you think a 16% increase will?

And for what it's worth, 8 fish in the late 80's or 90's wasn't 4 14's and 4 18's, it was more like 8 14's or 15's involving a completely different mix of males and females. If the fishery continues using size as a means of constraining recreational harvest and in the process incentivizes larger fish being harvested by the commercial sector without taking gender and maturity into consideration as well as protection of the spawn, this fishery will never reverse fortunes.

[dakota560]

Just thought of something else while sitting on the throne (where most of my infinite wisdom comes from). If you get this crazy slot fish it means throwing back breeders. Mortality rate number crunchers?

Every breeder harvested dies, 10% of recreational fish caught die. To answer your question from a mortality rate crunchers perspective, every breeder released has a 90% greater chance of survival versus no chance at all if harvested. Common sense would suggest that would benefit the fishery and bolster the spawning stock.

[dakota560]

Dakota, I'd like to start by saying I very much enjoy reading your post and analysis on summer flounder. I can't even begin to imagine the time you must put into your analysis.

I struggle with the "Option 5" as the "best available", not because I would only be able to keep "one" fish over 18" and then need to find 2 fish to fill a "one inch" slot to fill my bag, but I view it as a continued sacrifice, to offset the continued exploitation by the commercial industry.
If I thought for one second that it was a step in the right direction and would save this industry, I'd be all-in, but I'm sorry, I just don't.
Just my opinion, but I'd rather see Option 3 adopted and view it as compatible to Option 5, without the perceived "sacrifice" and still maintaining the same number of fishing days as the "status quo" Option. I think the PB and For Hire industry would support this as well.

That being said, I personally don't believe this industry is heading for collapse, because of the recreational sector. I believe it is heading for collapse because of Fisheries mismanagement and the commercial sector's permitted and continuing exploitation, with indiscriminate harvesting during the spawn, unconscionable dead discards (i.e. like whiting) and then to top it off, having their quota increased by 3x over the last 5 years. I too think this industry is going to collapse, unless something is done to better manage the commercial sector and do not think regulations or additional sacrifices by the recreational sector, are going to right this ship. At the end of the day, I think the recreational sector and the economic engine that it drives, is going to be collateral damage to the mismanagement and exploitation by others.

JMHO

Two DDs I couldn't agree more with your post. Recreational is mandated to harvest larger older age class fish. Commercial does it selectively because that's where the money is. I would choose Option 3 but from conversations I've had, recreational organizations will not support a shortened season so I can pretty much assure you that option will not prevail as it involved almost 28 less days in season length than Option 1 which doesn't include reducing size minimums. A huge mistake in my opinion.

The comments I've made and the recovery plans I've submitted to the ASMFC, MAFMC, State of NJ, Secretary of Commerce, NMFS and NOAA which have been completely ignored has indicated the recreational sector can contribute to the recovery by lower minimums. Since it would be virtually impossible to regulate the commercial sector to harvest smaller fish, in my opinion their sacrifice and contribution to this recovery effort needs to be in the form of ceasing harvest during the spawn to get more out of the spawn. Again bear in mind the below chart I posted earlier which is marine fisheries own chart. If we stop commercial harvest during the spawn and get 2 to 3 times more new recruits from the spawning stock, that number would translate into 30 - 60 million more new recruits annually and problem solved. Recreational efforts with lower size minimums would increase the spawning stock particularly females. Discontinuing commercial netting during the spawn, September through October, would greatly improve the efficacy of the spawn as the chart suggests and represent that sectors contribution to the rebuilding plan. That's always been my vision and believe the only answer to saving this fishery.

Commercial owners deserve a right to make a living from the sea, they don't deserve the right to make that living at the expense of the fishery and all other constituents. That's the best I can say it without being politically incorrect.

[dakota560]

Empirical data speaks for itself. Look at the graph from the 57th stock assessment which compares commercial discard rates reported by federal on board observers versus numbers reported on vessel trip reports by commercial operators. Black bars are federal observers, blue are commercial operators. Look at the discrepancies especially after Amendment 10 was adopted in 1997 causing the harvest of larger fish or what's referred to as selective harvest which will always result in higher discard levels.

Chart was no longer included after the 57th assessment. Wonder why, politics you think? The amount of dead discard in the commercial fishing operation is off the charts and science uses an 80% mortality rate for all fish brought up in the nets and discarded. In the winter when the commercial sector harvests the largest proportion of their quota, I'd have to believe the dead discard percentage of fish thrown back from hour long tows in over 100 feet of water with air temperatures below freezing carries a 100% mortality rate. Fish being retained are tended to first and then discards are swept overboard. No change one fish would survive those conditions.

Look at the disparities in rates reported especially in 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 and keep in mind these are numbers on trip with federal observers on board. Imagine what happens without observers.

[dakota560]

Last comments on the subject, I'd challenge anyone who enjoys this fishery to keep track on fish they harvest this year or fish harvested on for hire or party boats they fished on when filleted. I've kept a log over the last four years and of the fish harvested, not just ones I caught, of 542 fish 498 were females and that's at an 18" size minimum. Comes out to 92% females. Imagine NY, RI and Ct at 19", has to be between 95% to 100%. Any party and or for hire Captain would tell you the same. Bill Shillingford, an Advisory Panel Member for many years, did a similar study a few years back in south Jersey and of 189 fish harvested, all but one were females.

And commercial is following suit in the process of harvesting larger money fish. How in the world does this fishery survive with those statistics. Exactly why the mature female population of the stock declined by 30 million between 2010 and 2017, spawning stock imploded and recruitment crashed. This trend begins with the regulations put in place and the federal government for this fishery is failing the fishery by ignoring the facts and having their heads in the sand.

Read the two attached thumbnails about the decline in female proportions over the years for every relevant age group population of the stock. Yet marine fisheries insists more males are being harvested than females. It's a statistical impossibility and here's why.

Gender proportions of a stock are driven by three things, changes in recruitment characteristics proportionately of one gender over the other, changes in natural mortality and changes in harvest composition for the same reasons. If you take time, as I have, to read through the assessment, recruitment (age 0) and age 1 fish have shown no discernable change in trend involving gender proportions. Every other age class has experienced declines in the female proportion from significant to severe. Believe declines or strong declines in females proportions is mentioned 15 times (highlighted areas) in the excerpt.

Since age 0 (new recruits) aren't driving that change, it's safe to say gender changes in recruitment is having no impact. If you read the section regarding natural mortality (fish dying from predation and sickness) the assumed rate was changed in 2008 from 20% of the population every year to 25%. Within that 25%, it assumes 20% natural mortality for females (larger fish) and 30% a year for males (smaller fish). Makes sense as smaller fish get eaten by predators more readily than larger fish but the point is natural mortality is actuality increasing female proportion by removing more males from the population annually than females. Again this is all in the stock assessment and marine fisheries data delivered by their science and statistical committees. So if every major age class has declined significantly over the last two decades in the female proportion and it's not caused by changes in recruitment or natural mortality, there's only one other possibility remaining. Both sectors collectively are removing more females from the population than males through fishing related mortality (harvest and dead discards) all because of ineffective regulations mandating the harvest of larger fish recreationally and the selective harvest of larger fish commercially pursuing higher market value fish supporting greater catch values. Rutgers chart as previously posted illustrates that fact as does empirical on the water experience.

Yet the Monitoring Committee overseeing this fishery maintains more males are being harvested annually than females which based on the data is an impossibility refuted by their own data developed by their own science.

No one sees this data, no one discusses this data and we continue kicking the can down the street and using the same ineffective regulations year after year which have miserably failed the fishery. Again a start in changing sizes is just the beginning of what needs to be done to protect and sustain this stock and we absolutely need to stop the harvest commercially during the spawn. If 2022 regulations do not include the recreational harvest of fish smaller than the last 5 years, we're missing a golden opportunity and it means the philosophy of fisheries management has still not changed and organizations associated with the recreational sector don't understand the importance of that statement versus simply asking for more days in the season to fish. That's a short sided perspective which will lead to long term failure. MSA mandates data driven decisions, well we're using everything but data these days setting policy regulations.

So again for anyone who believe dismantling the female population and decimating the spawning stock population benefits the fishery, choose your options accordingly but don't for a second think about complaining when this fishery plummets to 1988 levels again which it will.

[TwoDDs]

Two DDs I couldn't agree more with your post. Recreational is mandated to harvest larger older age class fish. Commercial does it selectively because that's where the money is. I would choose Option 3 but from conversations I've had, recreational organizations will not support a shortened season so I can pretty much assure you that option will not prevail as it involved almost 28 less days in season length than Option 1 which doesn't include reducing size minimums. A huge mistake in my opinion.

The comments I've made and the recovery plans I've submitted to the ASMFC, MAFMC, State of NJ, Secretary of Commerce, NMFS and NOAA which have been completely ignored has indicated the recreational sector can contribute to the recovery by lower minimums. Since it would be virtually impossible to regulate the commercial sector to harvest smaller fish, in my opinion their sacrifice and contribution to this recovery effort needs to be in the form of ceasing harvest during the spawn to get more out of the spawn. Again bear in mind the below chart I posted earlier which is marine fisheries own chart. If we stop commercial harvest during the spawn and get 2 to 3 times more new recruits from the spawning stock, that number would translate into 30 - 60 million more new recruits annually and problem solved. Recreational efforts with lower size minimums would increase the spawning stock particularly females. Discontinuing commercial netting during the spawn, September through October, would greatly improve the efficacy of the spawn as the chart suggests and represent that sectors contribution to the rebuilding plan. That's always been my vision and believe the only answer to saving this fishery.

Commercial owners deserve a right to make a living from the sea, they don't deserve the right to make that living at the expense of the fishery and all other constituents. That's the best I can say it without being politically incorrect.


Curious as to why the NJ recreational sector would give up a 1/2 inch reduction in size minimums (going to 17 1/2"), to get 20 more days in Wave 5 (Sept/Oct), than what we had last year, when many PB in the North (Sandy Hook area) switched to bottom fishing before the closure last year, due to lack of fish?
Option 3 gets us 5 more days than we had last year, but would allow us to keep 17.5" fish.

[Rocky]

It will be #3. What do I win?

[frugalfisherman]

Everybody's forgetting seabass. All 13's with the longest season makes the most sense. Option 4.

[dakota560]

It will be #3. What do I win?

Rocky if Option 3 wins I hope you get a free year's supply of Old Bay for the crabs. Wouldn't be a bad option with slight reduction with size minimums and 5 more days in the season over current, a start in the right direction as I've said. Only reason I chose 5 over 3 is more days in season which I know is important to party boats and for hire and with option 5 and
you can't really cull with a one inch slot which means more of the larger females will be protected. Option 3 you can catch three fish in the morning at 17.5" and replace them with three 19" inch fish later in the day. Option 4 with three at 17 reduces the season too much and doesn't stand a chance. Also shows the models marine fisheries continues using doesn't accurately reflect the positive impacts harvesting younger age classes has over older age classes. 4 fish at 18" gets 137 days, 3 at 17" gets 101 or 36 less days in the season. Option 4 involves the removal of less females, reduced fishing related and natural mortality, improve recruitment, harvests lesser weight fish and still we lose 25% of the season. Absolute insanity. Option 4 with 4 fish at 18" might take it with 16 more days in the season and in my opinion would be the worse choice as it doesn't address reduced size fish harvested or catch composition (would actually worsen it removing more female breeders) but everyone's eyes light up on season lengths. I still believe option 5 is the correct choice for the short and long term benefit of the stock but since 2014 NJ has lived with an 18" size minimum and breaking that mold will be difficult even though it's exactly what has to start being done to change the fortunes of this fishery. You can see the conflict of going to a smaller size or slot in this thread which is truthfully shocking after all these years we've pushed for one.

DD to answer your question about Option 3, its a good question and good points since for the last 5-7 years fish have been heading offshore much earlier than in past. Rocky would certainly agree with you so we'll see. As mentioned, I still see the choice between Option 3 and or Options 1 or % coming down to the difference in season length whether the fish are here or already headed offshore.

[dakota560]

Everybody's forgetting seabass. All 13's with the longest season makes the most sense. Option 4.

Frugal not sure what's best for BSB. As you know, BSB are referred to as protogynous hermaphrodites, almost all are born females and a percentage change to males at ages 2-5 or lengths of 9" to 13". Details of how and why that happens are not completely understood. All the larger "knucklehead" sea bass are males and as in any fishery there has to be a balance between genders for maximum recruitment. Targeting all larger fish is by default targeting a higher proportion males and might poses long term recruitment consequences to the fishery.

Not sure what the best option is but in my opinion whatever option best supports recruitment is what should be chosen and like summer flounder or any species, measures should be put in place to at minimum protect the spawn from both commercial and recreational fishing activities.

[hammer4reel]

Imo option 5 will give us an even higher mortality on throw backs than the current system .
Too tight a slot .

I think option 4 and have them increase it a few days to give the full 16 1/2 percent increase .
.
The increase shouldn’t be cut when the total poundage will also decrease .

If not option 3 .

[dakota560]

Going to leave my parting opinion and then bow out of this madness for a while. Truthfully none of the options address the issues of overharvesting females and exclusively breeders as the proportions at 17", 17.5" and 18" are almost identical involving gender.

Dan understand your point about Option 5 but when the recreational sector is already operating at 93% release ratio, there's bound to be a number of 17" to 17'99 fish in those numbers already so not sure discards will increase appreciably. That's reality, how marine fisheries attempts to quantify it with MRIP is anyone's guess and it wouldn't surprise anyone if they increased the assumption by 10%. You know 150 days will be attractive to a lot of people and as I said a start.

Option 4 losing 20 days I'd bet is a deal breaker right out of the gates. Just the mind set of the sector. Would rather fish longer at the expense of the fishery than shorter and try rebuilding the stock. Winter flounder, ten month season but no fish to catch. That's where this fishery is headed.

Option 3 doesn't change enough by reducing size minimums a half inch. Like Rocky said, it might get some attention but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't address harvesting too many females and exclusively breeders. So 5 more days season but won't better manage the fishery or address the decade long problems causing it's decline.

Option 2 is a mirage. 4 possession limit will attract some attentions but currently 83% of angler trips can't harvest one keeper at 18" and another 9% only harvest one. Might as well make the possession limit 25 because if you can't catch one at 18", 4 @ 18" doesn't really change anything but blow smoke up the recreational sectors ass. Good fisherman would choose this option but the casual recreational angler it wouldn't do a thing and it won't help the stock.

Option 1 in my opinion will prevail and is a lost opportunity to address the problems facing the stock. And when the water is too cold in June and the fish leave early in September, another 23 days of season won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Was hoping to see an option for NJ and every state like 2022 - one fish between 14" and 16" and two over 18". 2023 two fish between 14" and 16" and one fish over 18". 2024 three fish or more based on the condition of the stock over 15" with removal of the slot. Do the same with every state, take one fish from current possession limit and move it to a reduced slot to promote the harvest of more males than female and move size minimums down. At the same time, stop netting during the spawn. Stock would come back as it did in the 90's.

Follow the flow of the money and you'll follow how this stock is being managed. The recreational sector has taken it on the chin for two decades while the commercial sector has had the benefit of every decision to protect their catch values. Their quotas like recreational have been slashed but to compensate they've been granted exclusive rights to harvest the money fish to protect their catch values. And Jim Lovgren has the balls to say the recreational sector is stealing quota and money from the commercial sector. Read his article in fishery nation. Absolute BS, link attached. This sector doesn't start wising up and putting some of the millions spent a year into lobbying and lawsuits, there won't be one fishery left worth fishing for.

https://fisherynation.com/archives/106999

The reality is the 2022 commercial quota at 15.53 million lbs. is the largest quota since 2010 with the exception of 2011 and almost three times greater than 2017 while the recreational sector is penalized just about every year.

Federal government has identified this as a commercial fishery and aside from strong lobbying efforts or a lawsuit by the sector with funds readily available with ASA and the Wallup / Bureau Trust from recreation spending on tackle, boats, motorboat gas and rod sales, the recreational sector will never get their fair share of the fishery. 3/24 will be here soon enough, get ready it's going to be another shit show

[hammer4reel]

Going to leave my parting opinion and then bow out of this madness for a while. Truthfully none of the options address the issues of overharvesting females and exclusively breeders as the proportions at 17", 17.5" and 18" are almost identical involving gender.

Dan understand your point about Option 5 but when the recreational sector is already operating at 93% release ratio, there's bound to be a number of 17" to 17'99 fish in those numbers already so not sure discards will increase appreciably. That's reality, how marine fisheries attempts to quantify it with MRIP is anyone's guess and it wouldn't surprise anyone if they increased the assumption by 10%. You know 150 days will be attractive to a lot of people and as I said a start.

Option 4 losing 20 days I'd bet is a deal breaker right out of the gates. Just the mind set of the sector. Would rather fish longer at the expense of the fishery than shorter and try rebuilding the stock. Winter flounder, ten month season but no fish to catch. That's where this fishery is headed.

Option 3 doesn't change enough by reducing size minimums a half inch. Like Rocky said, it might get some attention but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't address harvesting too many females and exclusively breeders. So 5 more days season but won't better manage the fishery or address the decade long problems causing it's decline.

Option 2 is a mirage. 4 possession limit will attract some attentions but currently 83% of angler trips can't harvest one keeper at 18" and another 9% only harvest one. Might as well make the possession limit 25 because if you can't catch one at 18", 4 @ 18" doesn't really change anything but blow smoke up the recreational sectors ass. Good fisherman would choose this option but the casual recreational angler it wouldn't do a thing and it won't help the stock.

Option 1 in my opinion will prevail and is a lost opportunity to address the problems facing the stock. And when the water is too cold in June and the fish leave early in September, another 23 days of season won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Was hoping to see an option for NJ and every state like 2022 - one fish between 14" and 16" and two over 18". 2023 two fish between 14" and 16" and one fish over 18". 2024 three fish or more based on the condition of the stock over 15" with removal of the slot. Do the same with every state, take one fish from current possession limit and move it to a reduced slot to promote the harvest of more males than female and move size minimums down. At the same time, stop netting during the spawn. Stock would come back as it did in the 90's.

Follow the flow of the money and you'll follow how this stock is being managed. The recreational sector has taken it on the chin for two decades while the commercial sector has had the benefit of every decision to protect their catch values. Their quotas like recreational have been slashed but to compensate they've been granted exclusive rights to harvest the money fish to protect their catch values. And Jim Lovgren has the balls to say the recreational sector is stealing quota and money from the commercial sector. Read his article in fishery nation. Absolute BS, link attached. This sector doesn't start wising up and putting some of the millions spent a year into lobbying and lawsuits, there won't be one fishery left worth fishing for.

https://fisherynation.com/archives/106999

The reality is the 2022 commercial quota at 15.53 million lbs. is the largest quota since 2010 with the exception of 2011 and almost three times greater than 2017 while the recreational sector is penalized just about every year.

Federal government has identified this as a commercial fishery and aside from strong lobbying efforts or a lawsuit by the sector with funds readily available with ASA and the Wallup / Bureau Trust from recreation spending on tackle, boats, motorboat gas and rod sales, the recreational sector will never get their fair share of the fishery. 3/24 will be here soon enough, get ready it's going to be another shit show

Option 5 would make fishing Oceanside a waste of time
95% of the fish would be oversize throw backs .
Slot fish should have been set to have 3 or 4” in the slot
Having it at less than 1 inch targets fish of one year class instead of spreading it out over a few years .

[dakota560]

Option 5 would make fishing Oceanside a waste of time
95% of the fish would be oversize throw backs .
Slot fish should have been set to have 3 or 4” in the slot
Having it at less than 1 inch targets fish of one year class instead of spreading it out over a few years .

Dan so I understand your point, you're suggesting 95% of fish oceanside right now are over 18"?

[dakota560]

Dan I agree with the low end of the slot size and spread of one inch is too little.
We'll still be harvesting mostly females and exclusively mature fish from the breeding stock of both genders. Refer to the Rutgers chart, the marine fisheries chart says the same thing.

You say 95% of oceanside fish under Option 5 would be oversized discards. Is that correct? If that were true than you're saying 95% of all fish you catch oceanside are over 18" and you basically catch your current 3 man limit with zero discards.

You're not a good example to use because you've been at this a long time and know where to fish but for most anglers I would absolutely disagree with that statement if I understand what your saying.

No one really knows what these numbers are but I've been on ocean trips with great captains and myself where shorts to keepers has been 30 or 40:1. Option 5 would allow people to keep a few of those fish, especially less experienced anglers. Plus it's 150 days which everyone should be tickled pink about. Again days doesn't help the health of the fishery one bit but it's important to some and believe it will draw some attention.,

[dakota560]

Dan I agree with the low end of the slot size and spread of one inch is too little.
We'll still be harvesting mostly females and exclusively mature fish from the breeding stock of both genders. Refer to the Rutgers chart, the marine fisheries chart says the same thing.

You say 95% of oceanside fish under Option 5 would be oversized discards. Is that correct? If that were true than you're saying 95% of all fish you catch oceanside are over 18" and you basically catch your current 3 man limit with zero discards.

You're not a good example to use because you've been at this a long time and know where to fish but for most anglers I would absolutely disagree with that statement if I understand what your saying.

No one really knows what these numbers are but I've been on ocean trips with great captains and myself where shorts to keepers has been 30 or 40:1. Option 5 would allow people to keep a few of those fish, especially less experienced anglers. Plus it's 150 days which everyone should be tickled pink about. Again days doesn't help the health of the fishery one bit but it's important to some and believe it will draw some attention.

Just fyi, a 17" to 17.99 slot would target either age 3 females or age 4-5 males, three age groups not one. Still agree with your comment that a one inch spread is ridiculous.

[dales529]

Tom
Couldn't agree more with these statements you made:

"Truthfully none of the options address the issues of overharvesting females and exclusively breeders as the proportions at 17", 17.5" and 18" are almost identical involving gender"

"Was hoping to see an option for NJ and every state like 2022 - one fish between 14" and 16" and two over 18". 2023 two fish between 14" and 16" and one fish over 18". 2024 three fish or more based on the condition of the stock over 15" with removal of the slot. Do the same with every state, take one fish from current possession limit and move it to a reduced slot to promote the harvest of more males than female and move size minimums down. At the same time, stop netting during the spawn. Stock would come back as it did in the 90's."

[hammer4reel]

Dan I agree with the low end of the slot size and spread of one inch is too little.
We'll still be harvesting mostly females and exclusively mature fish from the breeding stock of both genders. Refer to the Rutgers chart, the marine fisheries chart says the same thing.

You say 95% of oceanside fish under Option 5 would be oversized discards. Is that correct? If that were true than you're saying 95% of all fish you catch oceanside are over 18" and you basically catch your current 3 man limit with zero discards.

You're not a good example to use because you've been at this a long time and know where to fish but for most anglers I would absolutely disagree with that statement if I understand what your saying.

In most of the deep water areas shorts are 16/18” . A few trips you will see high short to keepers ratio , but most trips fish are well above 18” .
.
Many times we won’t have to measure fish for the entire boat limit .
.
If you were fishing closer to shore in say 35’ you would see more shorts .
Water we target is where the bodies of fish are well above keeper size .

.


No one really knows what these numbers are but I've been on ocean trips with great captains and myself where shorts to keepers has been 30 or 40:1. Option 5 would allow people to keep a few of those fish, especially less experienced anglers. Plus it's 150 days which everyone should be tickled pink about. Again days doesn't help the health of the fishery one bit but it's important to some and believe it will draw some attention.,


In most of the deep water areas shorts are 16/18” . A few trips you will see high short to keepers ratio , but most trips fish are well above 18” .
.
Many times we won’t have to measure fish for the entire boat limit .
.
If you were fishing closer to shore in say 35’ you would see more shorts .
Water we target is where the bodies of fish are well above keeper size .

[dakota560]

Dan I know that and I'm not challenging you or your abilities. We've fished for many years for fluke. All I'm saying is most recreational anglers don't fish deeper water and know the small pieces and catching shorts as opposed to keepers is more the norm than not. 20 million shorts are coming from somewhere, all I'm saying is I believe Option 5 will get serious consideration for the points already mentioned.

[No Keepers]

Are the briefing materials supplied to the Summer Flounder, Scup & Black Sea Bass Management Board members for Thursday's meeting public records. If so, how can I obtain a copy. Thanks.

[baseballman]

Tom
Couldn't agree more with these statements you made:

"Truthfully none of the options address the issues of overharvesting females and exclusively breeders as the proportions at 17", 17.5" and 18" are almost identical involving gender"

"Was hoping to see an option for NJ and every state like 2022 - one fish between 14" and 16" and two over 18". 2023 two fish between 14" and 16" and one fish over 18". 2024 three fish or more based on the condition of the stock over 15" with removal of the slot. Do the same with every state, take one fish from current possession limit and move it to a reduced slot to promote the harvest of more males than female and move size minimums down. At the same time, stop netting during the spawn. Stock would come back as it did in the 90's."

I couldn't find the original post on this, but the point on harvesting the females/breeders has always been my biggest bone to pick with both fluke and striped bass regs. I have never understood why either fishery doesn't use the slot to target a completely different set of fish than those of harvesting age. With striped bass in particular, I would have absolutely no issues keeping a 20-24" bonus slot fish (vs current), and this would spread mortality more balanced over populations and genders vs. slamming females of the same year class. It also makes sense for the recreational fishing business, too, which is struggling.

For the record - it is also a crime that the Fluke recreational quota goes up while the Sea Bass quota is going down. Short Sea Bass have become a PEST for people who fish year-round...they're willing to say the fluke stocks are healthier than the black sea bass stocks overall? I can't buy into it.

I'm willing to be educated tho if I'm wrong.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Are the briefing materials supplied to the Summer Flounder, Scup & Black Sea Bass Management Board members for Thursday's meeting public records. If so, how can I obtain a copy. Thanks.

Here you go http://www.asmfc.org/calendar/3/2022/Summer-Flounder-Scup-and-Black-Sea-Bass-Management-Board/1910

[dakota560]

Here you go http://www.asmfc.org/calendar/3/2022/Summer-Flounder-Scup-and-Black-Sea-Bass-Management-Board/1910

On the link you provided, I see a draft agenda and materials which include comments from all the states making up the Commission but not one public comment. Is that what our recreationally funded Commission has come to. Ace out public opinion and commentary or did I somehow miss public comments that were submitted.

[dakota560]

Gerry ignore my previous question. Public comments to be included in the briefing materials which goes out to all Commission Members with the full agenda package had to be submitted by 3/9. Your email to start this thread was made in 3/11 so any comments made after that date are only reflected in the supplemental comments which I'm sure Commission Members don't even read.

[No Keepers]

I would also preferred to see the excel spreadsheet submitted to the Technical Committee for review and analysis that is referenced in the NJ February 24, 2022 Memorandum. The information contained in the 4 Tables is missing so much data that you can't follow the math and see how they came up with the options.

[bigal427]

16% increase in harvest and you want to screw it up with a slot fish. Not just one slot fish but two! Oy VEY!!!!

5 would cause more mortality's with trying to find 2 fish in-between 17 and 17.99

[Angler Paul]

Personally, I would love to have 3 fish at 18" and a long season particularly extending it into the fall until sea bass season opens. I don't like the slot limit proposal at all. To me and the guys I know, that would be more of a restriction than a liberalization. It would kill ocean fluking if we could only keep 1 or 2 fish over 18". With the price of gas now it would not even be worth running out there. My friends and I catch far more fluke over 18" than in that narrow slot range of 17-18". I understand that some people struggle to catch their limit so I think going to 3 fish at 17 1/2" might be an acceptable compromise. I also asked our state to see if one over 17" and 2 over 18" might work. That way the less experienced fishermen might be able to keep a small one while still allowing the rest of us to keep 3 decent sized fish.
For sea bass I prefer going to 13" so that we can have have a relatively long season although we would still lose 9 days. We would lose a lot more days with any of the other options. Paul haertel

[frugalfisherman]

Personally, I would love to have 3 fish at 18" and a long season particularly extending it into the fall until sea bass season opens. I don't like the slot limit proposal at all. To me and the guys I know, that would be more of a restriction than a liberalization. It would kill ocean fluking if we could only keep 1 or 2 fish over 18". With the price of gas now it would not even be worth running out there. My friends and I catch far more fluke over 18" than in that narrow slot range of 17-18". I understand that some people struggle to catch their limit so I think going to 3 fish at 17 1/2" might be an acceptable compromise. I also asked our state to see if one over 17" and 2 over 18" might work. That way the less experienced fishermen might be able to keep a small one while still allowing the rest of us to keep 3 decent sized fish.
For sea bass I prefer going to 13" so that we can have have a relatively long season although we would still lose 9 days. We would lose a lot more days with any of the other options. Paul haertel

That makes perfect sense except for the part of loosing 28 days so you can keep 17 1/2 inch fluke. The longer the seasons the better.

[hammer4reel]

Personally, I would love to have 3 fish at 18" and a long season particularly extending it into the fall until sea bass season opens. I don't like the slot limit proposal at all. To me and the guys I know, that would be more of a restriction than a liberalization. It would kill ocean fluking if we could only keep 1 or 2 fish over 18". With the price of gas now it would not even be worth running out there. My friends and I catch far more fluke over 18" than in that narrow slot range of 17-18". I understand that some people struggle to catch their limit so I think going to 3 fish at 17 1/2" might be an acceptable compromise. I also asked our state to see if one over 17" and 2 over 18" might work. That way the less experienced fishermen might be able to keep a small one while still allowing the rest of us to keep 3 decent sized fish.
For sea bass I prefer going to 13" so that we can have have a relatively long season although we would still lose 9 days. We would lose a lot more days with any of the other options. Paul haertel

So all the crying for years to stop ruining the fishery by killing just female fish was for nothing .
Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to prove that point .

I was told on the weekend that it was agreed a less than 1” slot would double mortality and the proposed slot would be a few inches instead (we will see what actually shows )
Slot fish should be 17-20 imo , so those of us fishing in the ocean that normally have no problem catching larger fish do still have fish to be able to keep .

A longer season than the end of SEPTEMBER does not do much .
95% of the fluke are gone by the 10th of September every since Sandy .
Most boats won’t go for a boat ride to catch those few remaining fish .
.
Having a smaller size limit will benifit shore anglers , and anyone fishing the bays .
And should drastically lower mortality discards .

.

[Gumada]

If we don’t get the commercials off them when they are breeding any other changes mean NOTHING !