2024 Fluke Regs

[Gerry Zagorski]

Putting this here as a place holder to keep track of things and possible actions needed as the process unfolds.

Right now we're looking at a 28% reduction for all states and it looks as if Public Comments on NJ options will be just ahead of and at the NJMFC meeting on 3/7/24 where they vote on and finalize our regs.

[Broad Bill]

Putting this here as a place holder to keep track of things and possible actions needed as the process unfolds.

Right now we're looking at a 28% reduction for all states and it looks as if Public Comments on NJ options will be just ahead of and at the NJMFC meeting on 3/7/24 where they vote on and finalize our regs.

Not trying to stir the pot but can someone reference a recent situation when public comments were actually listened to or influenced decisions made by NJMFC, NMFS, ASMFC or MAMFC in prior year regulations. Not trying to be a wet blanket but recreational anglers seemingly go through this process every year, which appears to be nothing more than an MSA mandated check the box process, only to be disappointed when the final regulations are set due to a handful of politically connected individuals with their own personal agendas. If the decisions were for the betterment of the fishery and both sectors no one would care but this fishery has been in a decline and regulations year over year more restrictive for longer than most people here can remember.


Talk about how many times you walk into the same wall before you realize you have to use the door. I hope this year is different but there's no reason whatsoever to believe it will be as we just keep following the same broken process.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I hear you Bill.

Last time we had an opportunity to choose Fluke options was 2022 and there were a fair amount of people who showed up on the webinar and voiced their preference followed by a lively discussion among the council. I think it changed some of the Council members minds and that option was chosen.

Human nature to think if the option you spoke up for and support is voted against, you think your voice was not heard.

Does the Council have a pre disposed favored option and do they discuss it prior to the meeting? Pretty sure they do which means you need get to the council members ahead of time too...

I also advocate a more open, formal and transparent way of collecting and tallying which options the public supports. The decision is ultimately still the council's but at least we'll know what the public wanted and everything is out in the light of day for all to see...

[hammer4reel]

I hear you Bill.

Last time we had an opportunity to choose Fluke options was 2022 and there were a fair amount of people who showed up on the webinar and voiced their preference followed by a lively discussion among the council. I think it changed some of the Council members minds and that option was chosen.

Human nature to think if the option you spoke up for and support is voted against, you think your voice was not heard.

Does the Council have a pre disposed favored option and do they discuss it prior to the meeting? Pretty sure they do which means you need get to the council members ahead of time too...

I also advocate a more open, formal and transparent way of collecting and tallying which options the public supports. The decision is ultimately still the council's but at least we'll know what the public wanted and everything is out in the light of day for all to see...

That’s really not accurate .
Pat also explained it as such here after that meeting .

There is a preferered option before the deciding meeting . Anyone liking that option had ZERO need to listen to the webinar or call in .

Way more people were happy with a lengthy season at (3) above 17 1/2”
Than the handful of phone ins liking the longer season was well underscored by how many didn’t get to talk at that meeting , and signed a petition against its results the same night . Over 2000 signatures the next day


It came out well in advance of that meeting there was going to be a push for the longest season , no matter what the cost .(by a member of the council )
And many phone calls were made during the weeks preceding it .

The slot of less than 1” just so happened to be part of getting the longest season .


Then we get to 2023 regs and they state if we open up discussion for fluke regs to change them . We will also be opening other species of the master plan using the new management options .
Well what happens after another season of the slot , they still take away sea bass quota weeks later .

There has not been an honest input allowed for fluke since the original meeting where Kirby Roots was present at in 2017

It’s honestly very sad how quickly we have lost a huge majority of what we are allowed to fish for in just the past 15 years .

NMFS has done nothing correctly to stop the crash , and if anything they continue to make more mistakes yearly accelerating it .

.

[dales529]

Lets be brutally honest IMHO here.
There are basically a handful like 3 / 4 recreational fishermen responding in detail to these posts! All great stuff which I mainly agree with yet its "groundhog day"

What I believe ( Have posted and been involved often in "regulation bs" since 2008. No matter what "Model", "Formula", "Algorithm" put in to make us feel someone more intelligent is managing our fish the below is the same.
1) Any data on RHL is way over calculated
2) Any data on Mortality rate is double way over calculated
3) Any data on Recreational fishing EFFORT is triple way over calculated
3) Any data on trawl surveys for SSB / recruitment also BS as its not done properly or at all.

So all public input / all meetings by MAMFC. ASMFC, NJMFC etc should be held on 02/02/24. GROUNDHOG DAY!

Until the large sum of a few hundred thousand NJ recreational fishermen get off their ass and stop pretending that complaining or offering logical regulations on the internet is going to work than its "Groundhog Day" again for 2024.

Dont ask me what to do either, its all out there so just get off your ass and do it.

[hammer4reel]

Lets be brutally honest IMHO here.
There are basically a handful like 3 / 4 recreational fishermen responding in detail to these posts! All great stuff which I mainly agree with yet its "groundhog day"

What I believe ( Have posted and been involved often in "regulation bs" since 2008. No matter what "Model", "Formula", "Algorithm" put in to make us feel someone more intelligent is managing our fish the below is the same.
1) Any data on RHL is way over calculated
2) Any data on Mortality rate is double way over calculated
3) Any data on Recreational fishing EFFORT is triple way over calculated
3) Any data on trawl surveys for SSB / recruitment also BS as its not done properly or at all.

So all public input / all meetings by MAMFC. ASMFC, NJMFC etc should be held on 02/02/24. GROUNDHOG DAY!

Until the large sum of a few hundred thousand NJ recreational fishermen get off their ass and stop pretending that complaining or offering logical regulations on the internet is going to work than its "Groundhog Day" again for 2024.

Dont ask me what to do either, its all out there so just get off your ass and do it.

I agree with a lot of that Dave , but feel the way input is both collected and ALLOWED. To be used is not what anyone believes .
If looking for input from everyone wanting to be involved current format and timelines doesn’t allow it .

And just like anything else if we actually got 10% to be involved that would be huge .

Friends I have at FG did a decent survey last year after having success doing so in the freshwater formats .
The saltwater one after extensive work was not used

Currently hearing many models are being run , and a moderate season with a decent bag limit may still be able to happen .
So hopefully we get a little lucky and don’t loose as badly as we have been ,

[dales529]

I agree with a lot of that Dave , but feel the way input is both collected and ALLOWED. To be used is not what anyone believes .
If looking for input from everyone wanting to be involved current format and timelines doesn’t allow it .

And just like anything else if we actually got 10% to be involved that would be huge .

Friends I have at FG did a decent survey last year after having success doing so in the freshwater formats .
The saltwater one after extensive work was not used

Currently hearing many models are being run , and a moderate season with a decent bag limit may still be able to happen .
So hopefully we get a little lucky and don’t loose as badly as we have been ,

Capt Dan. Thanks and I agree with a lot you have posted especially the split seasons as we could all wait until June for NJ Ocean fluke. But again its too logical,
Also agree with what's allowed on input! Having said that if 10% filled out the count my fish survey accurately per trip it could help.

The salt water registry gives NJ an idea ( although some are against it) with zero repercussion on NJ anglers that put tackle, fuel and participation into NJ Recreational Salt fisheries yet less sign up than fresh water licenses even though its free. I could agree more may get involved with a salt license but again against it as the fee would go somewhere else than fisheries.

FG does a great job and IF a Salt survey were allowed it would be great.

I am hearing from my people the same that it may not be that bad for fluke this year.

[Broad Bill]

Politics is a dirty business, corrupt and all too often criminal and today is more based on self indulgence than public service. Fisheries management is politics and even worse for salt water concerns it reports up through the Secretary of Commerce as opposed to the Department of the Interior as it did in the 70's. That's the Secretary of Commerce, not the Secretary of Fisheries and Wildlife Management.

Someone once posted on this site, and you know who you are, that until fisheries management starts managing fisheries and not the sectors or industry who utilize those fisheries, decisions will continue being made for the wrong reasons and stocks will suffer which is exactly what we've been seeing for decades.

2024 regulations will be here soon enough and we'll see what they bring. My opinion based on decades of failed management practices and continuous disparities in the fair and proportionate allocations of these resources between sectors gives me no hope or reason to believe 2024 or any year will be different. The only time regulations change is after it's too late. Case in point, whiting, ling, blackfish, weakfish, cod, stripers, winter flounder, makos and soon to be summer flounder. That's not management, that's exploitation.

This isn't a democratic or republican issue before anyone questions my political affiliation, it's the result of an inherently broken process which will continue producing the same failed results until and if ever radical changes are made from the top down. Everything else is just window dressing. We can't continue ignoring tell tale signs of struggling fisheries until it's too late and in the same breathe talk about sustainable fishery practices. It's a contradiction of terms which has unfortunately led to the disappearance of too many great fisheries in our lifetime.

I remember in 2009 and 2010 when NY went to a 2 fish possession limit at 21". I don't think anyone believed it could happen then and certainly no one thought it would ever happen in New Jersey. Well 15 years later, we're quickly approaching those same regulations which will kill more mega female breeders and cause even more discard mortality from the recreational sector. It's unconscionable anybody continues to stick with management practices that have led to nothing but failed results over the last 20 years.

[Dclark2]

I can’t believe that anyone in this day and age would still think that a person goes fishing to put meat on the table. Those days are long gone when they started having limits. No one would get up in the middle of the night to get on their favorite boat to reserve THEIR spot. That has nothing to do with how many fish you are bringing home. You choose your boat for service provided, friends, mates and captain. GOOD DAY OUT..

I do believe that states that border each other should have the same regulations and seasons as close to possible.

If the breeders are in fact over 18 inches then that limit should be 1 fish and the lesser size should be higher.

Gerry could you help with posting a pole on your site as to people that would like certain size limits ex. 2 fish under 18 and one over just an example....

[hammer4reel]

I can’t believe that anyone in this day and age would still think that a person goes fishing to put meat on the table. Those days are long gone when they started having limits. No one would get up in the middle of the night to get on their favorite boat to reserve THEIR spot. That has nothing to do with how many fish you are bringing home. You choose your boat for service provided, friends, mates and captain. GOOD DAY OUT..

I do believe that states that border each other should have the same regulations and seasons as close to possible.

If the breeders are in fact over 18 inches then that limit should be 1 fish and the lesser size should be higher.

Gerry could you help with posting a pole on your site as to people that would like certain size limits ex. 2 fish under 18 and one over just an example....

I would say older anglers are more apt to pay for a good day on the water . Not caring as much about what’s going home .

Younger anglers still working harder to make ends meet need to. Have something going home to justify the expense .

Just one look at how railed sea bass and other bottom boats get , where it’s about filling the freezer .
.
Basing fisheries management can’t just be done on what size breeders are when we are also allowing a commercial catch .

Why should good anglers Oceanside , Get charged a huge mortality of discard when throwing 20” size fish back
Looking for smaller fish , that are also mopped up by a commercial boat that same night .

At their required 40% mortality , if we throw back 10 fluke we over fish by 30% without even taking a fish home


There are drastically different bodies of fish in the vast amount of fishable areas .

Letting commercial boats drag for fluke when they move offshore getting ready to spawn is about as stupid as it gets .
Having them throwing back by catch while fishing for other fish , sometimes in higher numbers than their quotas are is even more ridiculous.
.
If we are trying to protect resources for future generations a whole redo of current practices has to happen .
What we have lost in 15 years , will turn to a wipe out in another 5.
.


Only way I see it changing is if lawsuits get filed against NMFS , and if that happens it will probably be strictly a commercial endeavor. Because recreational fisherman don’t want to throw 10 bucks a piece towards fighting for their rights .


More research to know what the actual break down of each fishery is made up of would be huge .
Are there more females , more males . More sub 18” fish , more 18” plud sized fish .
What’s the actual number .
Good decisions need all available information , not based on one of 10 parts .

.

[Broad Bill]

First I completely agree with everything on Hammers post. And there's still so much more seriously broken with how sector quotas are set and how the fishery in general is being managed but I won't bore you with those details even though they're substantial. And I'd guarantee, after extensive research, almost no one knows how these statistics are put together to arrive at annual regulations. That's how NMFS, ASMFC and MAMFC want it so the basis of their misguided decisions never see the light of day.

I want to add a few key points to what Hammer said and comment briefly on Dclark2's question about 18" fish. Remember we once had a successful management formula and effective regulations for this fishery which promoted historical growth in the 90's. The stock went from an estimated 78 million population in 1988 at a 13.5" size limit to 183 million population in 2004 before the recreational size minimum started being increased by NMFS with yearly increases raising the then 15" - 15 1/2" size limit in 2001 to an average of 18" to 19" coastal wide today. 105 million fish were added to the stock population in 16 years, if we retained those regulations the stock based on analytics would exceed 300 million fish today and both the commercial and recreational sector would be benefitting from that growth and the stock would be the healthiest its ever been. Why did we switch? Some have an opinion, here's mine. Larger fish, older age classes, bring materially higher market values to commercial operators and NMFS's primary goal for the commercial sector, as stated, is to protect and increase commercial catch values.

What's the easiest way to accomplish that? Increase recreational size minimums so that a substantial portion of the entire summer flounder biomass is now only harvestable by commercial operators by pushing access to and the harvest of those classes from the recreational sector to the commercial sector. Classes which would accomplish NMFS's goal of increasing catch values to the commercial sector. That's entirely what this has been all about for the last 25 years. Adding insult to injury, commercial operators maintained their right to harvest fish at 14" minimums which obviously recreational anglers can't so they have the best of both worlds and since they don't want 14" fish as that's not where the money is they simply get thrown back dead. That's where this fisheries problems began.

Second problem this change of philosophy transformed the fishery from the practice of harvesting younger age classes, protecting the spawning stock and letting the breeders insure the future of the stock to harvesting all sexually mature fish, killing God only knows how many sexually immature juvenile age fish in the process. Fish which represent the future of this and any stock. Short term greed at the expense of long term sustainability of the resource. A management philosophy which will never work providing us the dire regulations we've had forced down our throats for years along with another fishery struggling to survive.

Dclark2, to answer your question, now that the average size minimum of all states is in the area of 18 to 18 1/2", if you do your own research or clean your own fish you'll realize that 100% of fish over 18" are sexually mature fish. And over 95% of fish over 18" are female, compounding the problem, and one reason we've been seeing lower recruitment numbers for decades. NMFS's own data says so as does other independent studies conducted on the fishery.

If you look at male / female size to age class tables, an 18" fish on average is a 6-year old male since they grow slower and don't grow as large as females or a 4-year old female. Now factor in, which most people don't realize, the 25% per year natural mortality rate assumed in this and most fisheries. Think through what that means, it's significant. Year 1, for every 100 fish, the assumption is 25% are lost to just natural mortality, sickness, predation etc., which would bring every new recruitment class from 100 to 75 after the first year. After year two that same class goes to 56. Year three that class, just based on natural mortality, goes to 42 and by year 4 the population of that age class is now 31 fish. After year five, the population loses another 25% or approximately 8 fish and drops to 23 and after year 6 you lose another 6 fish and the age classes population drops to 17 fish. So by increasing size minimums for recreational anglers, NMFS has not only allowed but guaranteed 70% to 85% of every recruitment class will succumb to natural mortality alone, before factoring in the impacts of fish related mortality, before the recreational sector can harvest those classes. Assuming those statistics are remotely accurate, it's amazing there's any 18" fish left for the recreational sector to harvest. This is a very questionable, dangerous and proven failed approach to managing this stock. It's actually counter-intuitive to how most stocks are managed. NMFS and North East Fisheries Science Center "NEFSC" need to seriously rethink their approach to managing the summer flounder fishery. Their argument is current regulations are the best means of managing catch in the recreational sector and gives age classes more years to spawn. The reality is those fish, which we release all season long, get annihilated by commercial netters during their spawn and migration in the fall to their offshore wintering grounds and for the fish that survive the gauntlet of nets, no one managing this fisheries has any idea what impact dragging nets through spawning fish has on the efficacy of the spawn which could be causing massive impacts to annual recruitment. These fish are so stressed out someone at least needs to explore the implications of dragging during the spawn. Why do so many other fisheries have closed seasons during the stocks spawn but with this fishery management refuses to address that issue. Because the fish are still in shore and the powers to be want the commercial sector to have access to them without having to travel 50 to 70 miles offshore two months later and they want the commercial sector to have a 12-month year-round fishery to promote catch values which everyone else pays the price for. As I've stated before, short sided management decisions not for the benefit of the stock itself will only lead to long term problems and that's what we're dealing with here.

Until, if ever, we change this thought process, the management of this fishery will never change and the results we've been seeing over the last two to three decades will follow suit and continue in a downward spiral. Revert back to harvesting younger age classes before natural mortality kills 70% - 85% of those classes, stop targeting the harvest of exclusively sexually mature fish, let the large breeders insure the future of the stock and protect the yearly spawn from the current onslaught by the commercial sector. The population will increase exponentially, landings will follow suit, we'll substantially reduce the harvest of sexually mature fish, reduce discard mortality rates and recruitment will sky rocket higher. Change the regulations to promote the harvest of younger age classes before losing those classes to natural mortality, stop all commercial netting in September and October and this fishery within three years will explode to levels never before seen.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I can’t believe that anyone in this day and age would still think that a person goes fishing to put meat on the table. Those days are long gone when they started having limits. No one would get up in the middle of the night to get on their favorite boat to reserve THEIR spot. That has nothing to do with how many fish you are bringing home. You choose your boat for service provided, friends, mates and captain. GOOD DAY OUT..

I do believe that states that border each other should have the same regulations and seasons as close to possible.

If the breeders are in fact over 18 inches then that limit should be 1 fish and the lesser size should be higher.

Gerry could you help with posting a pole on your site as to people that would like certain size limits ex. 2 fish under 18 and one over just an example....

I'd be happy to post a poll, the problem is there are so many variables, like bag limits, size limits, season length, start and stop dates as well as how many slots and how narrow the slot size is that there could be well over 20 or 30 options. EG you change the bag or size limits and the season length changes or visa versa... That and all those options have to be submitted by that states to the feds to see if they meet the conservation equivalency, in other words, would those options when fed into a model with a bunch of assumptions over exceed a given quota. EG some people might prefer 3 fish at 17 inches and a long season and that might not even get approved as an option because when feed into the model it would project that we'd exceed our quota. So, why even ask people's opinion on an option that will never get approved? This is why the states submit options for approval and once approved it's those options are discussed and eventually put out for public comment.

As far as neighboring states having the same regs, be careful what you wish for... We in NJ can't even agree on what we'd like our own regs to be and now you'd have to include NY in those discussions?? The further you push those decisions out geographically the more disappointed everyone will be since no one will get what they'd prefer. In fact, I think some in our state would even prefer that North and South NJ have different regulations to better serve their local preferences. South usually prefers an earlier Fluke start date and North a later. When you have to make one decision to try and serve both, there has to be compromises and that means neither gets closer to what they want. Can you imagine if NY was involved in this mix too? Would it be great if I were fishing in Raritan bay and didn't have to worry about adhering to the NY and NJ regs? Yes but would it be worth the trade off and compromises that would have to be made? I don't think so. Bottom line is I feel the more local the decisions are made the more it serves the local differences and preferences.

[Detour66]

A 28% reduction?? I thought they admitted that they over estimating the Recreational Angler catch last year by 30-40%? Now this slap in the face!! https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/noaa-overestimates-recreational-catch-data/

[Broad Bill]

A 28% reduction?? I thought they admitted that they over estimating the Recreational Angler catch last year by 30-40%? Now this slap in the face!! https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/noaa-overestimates-recreational-catch-data/

It wouldn't surprise me this is how it's spun. "New Procedures" indicate we're overfishing the FMP so a 40% cut is required. However, since MRIP has previously overstated historical recreational catch levels by 30% - 40%, instead of reducing quotas by 40% we're ONLY reducing them by 28% representing a 30% benefit to the recreational sector. Smoke and mirrors. They control the data, take no accountability for the integrity of the data and can essentially say anything they want to create the narrative they need to support the result they want and in no case will those results be for the benefit of the recreational sector.

If you complain to the state, they tell you they're constrained by ASMFC and MAMFC. If you go to ASMFC or MAMFC, they tell you they're constrained by NMFS. If you go to NMFS, they'll tell you they're bound by MSA or any of the subsequent modifications. So what's left is lobby or sue the federal government, NOAA and the Secretary of Commerce, and good luck with that. It's a very sad state of affairs involving so much money and corruption that truthfully I don't think there'll ever be decisions made for our benefit or the health of many fisheries and I don't believe our opinions or concerns are even on the radar screen of the people pulling the strings and ultimately responsible for the decisions being made about how these fisheries are being managed.

[Gerry Zagorski]

A 28% reduction?? I thought they admitted that they over estimating the Recreational Angler catch last year by 30-40%? Now this slap in the face!! https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/noaa-overestimates-recreational-catch-data/

I hear you and everyone, including the scientists know how flawed MRIP is. Unfortunately it's what we're stuck with for now and according what was spit out when they spun the MRIP prize wheel for last year, we apparently did not exceed our quota. The 28% reduction is more about the declines in the current and future estimated biomass.

[pddmd]

The 28% reduction is based on the biomass being at a level where the previously projected quota falls below the confidence level. There are no comments in the MAFMC press release concerning individual state conservation equivalency.
That being said, this is the timeline going forward on fluke
1) NJMFC fluke committee will meet to discuss possible options for 2024
Including
2 slots 1 over season reduction
1 slot 2 overs season reduction
3 over a single size season +/-
2) Committee will decide on several options to bring to ASMFC for approval
3) if a consensus can be reached by the Council members on the committee it will move forward as the "preferred" option
4) As that is the preferred option, it goes to the full Council as a motion with a second to enable debate
5) Council votes and it goes to the Commissioner for his signature

Gerry has said 2022 the people who wanted the slot stacked the comments, reached out to Council, to get what they wanted. Not the preferred option

[hammer4reel]

While no individual data , their worksheet (which contradicts itself a few times )
Claims the stocks aren’t overfished , but over fishing did occur in 2022 , and continued at a higher level in 2023 estimated landings .


Copy of summer flounder track assessment

draft working paper for peer review only
Summer flounder
2023 Management Track Assessment Report
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
Compiled 06-08-2023

This assessment of the Summer flounder ( Paralichthys d entatus) s tock i s a n u pdate o f t he e xisting 2021 Management Track Assessment (NEFSC 2022). Based on the previous assessment the stock was not overfished and overfishing w as n ot o ccurring. T his 2 023 M anagement Track A ssessment u pdates fi shery ca tch da ta, research survey indices of abundance, the ASAP assessment model, and biological reference points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.
State of Stock: Based on this updated assessment, the Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) stock is not overfished and overfishing is occurring (Figures 1-2). Retrospective adjustments were not made to the model results. Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) in 2022 was estimated to be 40,994 mt which is 83% of the biomass target for this stock (SSBMSY proxy = 49,561; Figure 1). The 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.464 which is 103% of the overfishing threshold proxy ( FMSY p roxy = 0.451; Figure 2).
Table 1: Catch and model results for Summer flounder. All weights are in (mt), recruitment is in (000s), and FFull is the fishing mortality on fully selected
age 4. Model results assessment.
2013
are unadjusted values from the current updated ASAP
Commerciallandings Commercial discards Recreationallandings Recreationaldiscards 2,119 Catch for Assessment 17,483
Spawning Stock Biomass 52,155 FFull 0.473 Recruits (age 0) 35,208
2014
4,989 830 7,364 2,092 15,275
47,841 0.439 38,700
2015
4,858 703 5,366 1,572 12,498
2016 2017
Data
3,537 2,644 772 906 6,005 4,565 1,482 1,496 11,796 9,611
2018 2019
2,787 4,109 979 783 3,447 3,537 1,003 1,379 8,216 9,808
37,599 38,846 0.304 0.37 43,028 39,933
2020
4,282 1,163 4,571 1,141
11,157
43,024 0.417 35,629
2021
4,936 873 3,092 997 9,898
41,615 0.371 42,323
2022
5,683 680 3,916 1,336 11,615
40,994 0.464 38,371
5,696 863 8,806
Model Results
42,424 39,209 37,040 0.427 0.428 0.345 27,000 30,551 38,876
Table 2: Comparison of biological reference points
assessment and from the current assessment update. An F35% proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and SSB and MSY proxies were based on long-term stochastic projections.
estimated in the previous
2021
2023 0.451 49,561 (38,181 - 64,301) 14,097 (11,020 - 18,114) 46,966 Yes No
0.422 55,217 15,872 49,954
No No
FMSY proxy
SSBMSY (mt)
MSY (mt)
Median recruits (age 1) (000s) Overfishing
Overfished
Projections: Short term projections of catch (OFL) and Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) were derived by sampling from an empirical cumulative distribution function of the 12 most recent recruitment estimates from the ASAP model results (2011-2022). The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights at age used in projections are the most recent 5 year averages; no retrospective adjustments were applied in the projections.
2023 Management Track Assessment Summer flounder draft working paper for peer review only 1

Table 3: Short term projections of total fishery catch (OFL) and Spawning Sstock Biomass (SSB) for Summer flounder based on a harvest scenario of fishing atFMSY proxybetween2024and2025.Catchin2023wasassumedtobe1 5,023 (mt).
Year 2023
Year 2024 2025
Catch (mt) 15,023
Catch (mt) 10,422 10,839
SSB (mt)
37,233 (30,000 - 46,000)
SSB (mt)
38,541 (32,000 - 46,000) 39,127 (33,000 - 46,000)
FF ull 0.622
FF ull 0.451 0.451
Special Comments:
ˆ What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass, F, recruitment, and population projections).
Declining trends in growth rates and changes in the sex-ratio at age may change the productivity of the stock and in turn affect estimates of the biological reference points. Changes in growth, maturity, and recruitment may be environmentally mediated but mechanisms are unknown.
ˆ Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted SSB or FF ull lies outside of the approximate joint confidence region for SSB and FF ull
The 7-year Mohn’s ρ, relative to SSB, was 0.03 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.06 in 2022. The 7-year Mohn’s ρ, relative to F, was 0.01 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.03 in 2022. No retrospective adjustment of SSB or F in 2022 was required.
ˆ Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Summer flounder are reasonably well determined.
ˆ Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.
No major changes, other than the addition of three years of data, were made to the Summer flounder assessment for this update. Minor changes to the survey input CVs and fishery and survey input Effective Sample Sizes improved model diagnostics but had limited affects on the model results.
ˆ If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Overfishing status has changed since the last assessment for Summer flounder. The stock status remains
as not overfished but overfishing is occurring.
ˆ Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The current fishing mortality rate is near the threshold, and so recent near-average recruitment has
resulted in relatively stable SSB. SSB is projected to remain relatively stable in the short term at current fishing rates.
ˆ Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this stock assessment in the future.
The Summer flounder assessment could be improved with more intensive and comprehensive sampling of the fishery catch by sex.
ˆ Are there other important issues?
Sufficent length and age sampling of the fishery catch needs to be maintained.
2023 Management Track Assessment Summer flounder draft working paper for peer review only 2

References:
NEFSC. 2022. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Management Track Assessment June 2021. US Dept Comm

[hammer4reel]

Oh well I tried to copy the download . Anyone else looking to see it can find it on the NOAA site looking under summer flounder

[frugalfisherman]

You guys must have gone to college.

[dales529]

The 28% reduction is based on the biomass being at a level where the previously projected quota falls below the confidence level. There are no comments in the MAFMC press release concerning individual state conservation equivalency.
That being said, this is the timeline going forward on fluke
1) NJMFC fluke committee will meet to discuss possible options for 2024
Including
2 slots 1 over season reduction
1 slot 2 overs season reduction
3 over a single size season +/-
2) Committee will decide on several options to bring to ASMFC for approval
3) if a consensus can be reached by the Council members on the committee it will move forward as the "preferred" option
4) As that is the preferred option, it goes to the full Council as a motion with a second to enable debate
5) Council votes and it goes to the Commissioner for his signature

Gerry has said 2022 the people who wanted the slot stacked the comments, reached out to Council, to get what they wanted. Not the preferred option

Pat
Really appreciate you posting here. Been too long that someone was willing to stick their neck out a little. Thanks
I know its a little early in the game but any idea what season reduction would look like for the options that "MAY" be presented? Front end of the season or back end?
2 slots and 1 over would benefit the Biomass depending on slot range of course so any idea on slot range?
What data is the committee going to use knowing the input data is flawed when developing these options?

[Gerry Zagorski]

By the way for those of you who don't know pddmd who posted above is Dr Pat who serves on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council as one of the Sportfish Representatives.

You should also know these are not paid positions and there are 2 important recreational positions on the council that have remained open for several years now.


This from the NJ DEP website

Marine Fisheries Council
Richard N. Herb, Acting Chair (Sportfish)
Dr. Eleanor Ann Bochenek (Public)
Dr. Patrick Donnelly (Sportfish)
Warren Hollinger (Del. Bay Shellfish Council)
Jeff Kaelin (Processor)
Walter L. Johnson, III (Atl. Coast Shellfish Council)
Joe Rizzo (Commercial)
Robert R. Rush, Jr. (Sportfish)
Kevin Wark (Commercial)
Vacant (Public)
Vacant (Sportfish)

[Broad Bill]

Any idea why the two positions have remained open for that length of time? Is it lack of applicants or the Councils unwillingness to fill the positions or politics?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Any idea why the two positions have remained open for that length of time? Is it lack of applicants or the Councils unwillingness to fill the positions or politics?

This from the NJ Fish and game website

The members of the Fish and Wildlife Councils and Committees in New Jersey are unpaid volunteers who act in the best interest of the state’s fish and wildlife resources on behalf of the public. The councils help create and finalize each year’s hunting and fishing regulations and enable the professional and scientific management of our resources. The Governor, with the consent of the Senate, appoints each member.

Pretty sure there were candidates, I know people questioned and pushed to get these seats filled, so maybe it just isn't a priority for this administration?

[pddmd]

The process is
nomination made to Governors office
Approval/interview with local legislators
Sign off by Governor
Sent to NJ Senate Judiciary Committee for approval

My first appointment(1997) this took 2 months
My second appointment(2018) took 2+years
The delay starts at the Governors office, and stalls at the office at the 2nd time

Right now we are down 1 recreational, 1 at-large
Delaware Bay Shellfish Council is short 2
Atlantic Coast Shellfish Council short 2

WE have been told there are vetted people ready for Senate approval but that committee has not met recently

[Gerry Zagorski]

The process is
nomination made to Governors office
Approval/interview with local legislators
Sign off by Governor
Sent to NJ Senate Judiciary Committee for approval

My first appointment(1997) this took 2 months
My second appointment(2018) took 2+years
The delay starts at the Governors office, and stalls at the office at the 2nd time

Right now we are down 1 recreational, 1 at-large
Delaware Bay Shellfish Council is short 2
Atlantic Coast Shellfish Council short 2

WE have been told there are vetted people ready for Senate approval but that committee has not met recently

Thanks Pat - I assume at large is public? If so, I would guess depending on the person to be assigned, this would be more of a recreational representation?

If there's anything we can do to help move this along please let us know.

[pddmd]

At Large is normally either an Academic or a Scientist. Dr Bochenek has worked for NJ Seagrant on topics such as research set asides. But she is a saltwater angler. It could also be a politician, but normally not someone with specific sector ties.

[Gerry Zagorski]

At Large is normally either an Academic or a Scientist. Dr Bochenek has worked for NJ Seagrant on topics such as research set asides. But she is a saltwater angler. It could also be a politician, but normally not someone with specific sector ties.

Gotcha but it sure couldn't hurt to bring more people into the council to round it out and I hope we get some more representation from Central and Northern NJ too :D

Thanks once again for posting here and keeping us up to date Dr Pat. This is exactly the kind of candid and open communications we need to keep people informed and involved.

[hammer4reel]

Hutch’s report said these 2 options seemed to be the most talked about at the last meeting

Option 23) 5/24-9/4 (3) fish at 17 1/2”

Option 30) 5/5- 9/23 (3) fish at 18”


Option 30 gets you in the water early for bays and rivers and keeps you alive in the ocean longer .
.
But I def like these options better than the slot we have had the last 2 years .

[Bigadam119]

Hutch’s report said these 2 options seemed to be the most talked about at the last meeting

Option 23) 5/24-9/4 (3) fish at 17 1/2”

Option 30) 5/5- 9/23 (3) fish at 18”


Option 30 gets you in the water early for bays and rivers and keeps you alive in the ocean longer .
.
But I def like these options better than the slot we have had the last 2 years .

Would these options work given the reduction we’re facing? If so, I don’t necessarily think they are that bad.

[hammer4reel]

Would these options work given the reduction we’re facing? If so, I don’t necessarily think they are that bad.

Yes , both options exceed the 28% reduction needed

[Broad Bill]

Question, Hammer on the initial thread you wrote JH wrote in the Fisherman the quota in 2024 would be cut as follows:

In terms of summer flounder, the 2023 management track assessment indicated that the fluke stock was not overfished but overfishing was occurring in 2022 which is expected to result in a reduction of the recreational harvest limit (RHL) by nearly 40% – from 10.62 million pounds to 6.35 million pounds – for the 2024 season. As a side note, I love how they spin doctor this by saying "the fishery is not overfished but overfishing is occurring requiring a 40% landings reduction". Only the government could make a contradictory statement like that and get away with it.

Back to my question, in 2017 actual RHL was reported at 10.06 million pounds and New Jersey's daily possession limit was 3 fish @ 18". Season was 5/25 through 9/5 or 103 days.

If the management track assessment is reducing RHL by almost 4 million lbs. in 2024 versus 2017 to 6.35 million lbs., how would NMFS allows the same daily possession and minimum size limit as 2017, 3 fish at 18", and increase days and fishing effort to 141 days or 38 more days in the 2024 season under Option 30? Makes no sense. Lets leave the bag limit and size minimums the same but increase the season length by 37% to reduce landings by 4 million lbs. That's the thought process of the people tasked with making decisions about the health and well being of these fisheries.

Also it resolves issues many have with the slot by doing away with it, other than for party boats and shore based anglers who benefit from a slot. But it continues the practice of killing almost exclusively all female breeders which is at the heart of the problem with the fishery. I agree a paper thin slot serves no purpose but Option 30 will continues the regulations which contrubuted to this mess in the first place. Remember short term decisions cause long-term problems and this is not a long-term solution to the health of this fishery. It might be the best option for 2024 and 2025 on the table but it misses the mark of managing the stock once again by a mile. EVERY AGE CLASS IN THE FISHERY HAS DECLINED IN THE GENDER PROPORTION OF FEMALES TO MALES DUE TO THE ONGOING TARGET OF HARVESTING LARGER FISH WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY (OVER 90%) FEMALES. Until that changes, how does recruitment ever rebound to sustain and grow the stock?

[reason162]

EVERY AGE CLASS IN THE FISHERY HAS DECLINED IN THE GENDER PROPORTION OF FEMALES TO MALES DUE TO THE ONGOING TARGET OF HARVESTING LARGER FISH WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY (OVER 90%) FEMALES.

Whatever happened to that Rutgers sex ratio study - did it pass peer review?

If not...why are we talking about keeping smaller fish as if it's settled science?

[Broad Bill]

The stock assessments for this fishery have all the peer reviewed data you need regarding how the gender composition of the stock has drastically changed over the years at the detriment of females commensurate with changes to increases in size minimums over the last two decades. My above comments aren't based on Rutgers Study, they're based on data from science contained in SAW's.

Common sense would also tell you in any fishery, especially one with a significant commercial presence, if you target exclusively the spawning stock you won't have a fishery for long. That and the fact that the only time this fishery grew in the last 5 decades is when both sectors were harvesting younger age classes and not targeting exclusively older sexually mature age classes made up disproportionately of females. Something current management might want to consider. What fisheries can you speak of which exclusively target breeders, don't protect the spawn, kill millions of juveniles in the process every year which you'd consider sustainable. If you put as much effort and energy into educating yourself with the data that exists as you do into criticizing those who do, one day we might actually be able to have a productive discussion. Until then, keep advocating for peer review as if it's the holy grail of fisheries management since it's done absolute wonders for this fishery over the last 40 years and other stocks which have been wiped out and why we're faced with the strong possibility of a two fish limit in New Jersey next year and a 28% or greater quota cut.

[Togfather2530]

Why are we even talking about all this nonsense. The fluke fishing sucks in nj. It’s been getting worse every year for 10 years. Just close the whole fishery down for a year or two commercial and recreational and we will have a great fishery again. I’m sure we will all survive. It’s not a big deal lmao. Then open it back up and let me keep a 16 inch fish. So stupid that people that are educated are so slow at figuring things out.

[Togfather2530]

Imagine if no one kept a fish for a year or two. 🤣🤣🤣. Humans will be their own demise

[hammer4reel]

Why are we even talking about all this nonsense. The fluke fishing sucks in nj. It’s been getting worse every year for 10 years. Just close the whole fishery down for a year or two commercial and recreational and we will have a great fishery again. I’m sure we will all survive. It’s not a big deal lmao. Then open it back up and let me keep a 16 inch fish. So stupid that people that are educated are so slow at figuring things out.

More than likely because not everyone has that sentiment .
Some of us have enjoyed very good fluke fishing .
Hardest part was throwing back 20” fish looking for slots .

.

[Togfather2530]

Yeah, we all caught a 20 inch fish. I’ve caught plenty. I think the general consensus that most accept and that I hear from other fishermen is that the fluke fishing is in the toilet. Also, if the fisherman really cared about the fishery, they would not even consider keeping a 20 inch fish. After all, all you hear from them is “they’re making us keep the breeding females”. You basically proved my point with that comment. Most fisherman really don’t do what’s right when you come down to it unless they’re forced to throw back a fish over 18” say.

[hammer4reel]

Yeah, we all caught a 20 inch fish. I’ve caught plenty. I think the general consensus that most accept and that I hear from other fishermen is that the fluke fishing is in the toilet. Also, if the fisherman really cared about the fishery, they would not even consider keeping a 20 inch fish. After all, all you hear from them is “they’re making us keep the breeding females”. You basically proved my point with that comment. Most fisherman really don’t do what’s right when you come down to it unless they’re forced to throw back a fish over 18” say.


2 ways to look at it . If the biggest body of fish is less than 18” . Leaving fish go until they are 20” leaves all of those fish spawn another 2 years .
, though I would think larger fish will carry more quality eggs .

Point is there are guys who aren’t catching fish who want to preach gloom and doom . Instead of going to places not producing . Go look for areas holding bait and you will find the fish .
I know way more guys who had great seasons than those who didn’t .
But it’s pretty solid that 10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish .

We don’t catch a few 20” fish we pound fish . But I have no issue burning gas to find them .

Friends I have that are limited to small tin boats , absolutely crushed fish in skinny water last year .
.

Manasquan , Shrewsbury , Shark , and navasink were loaded with fish.

.

[frugalfisherman]

[QUOTE=Togfather2530; I think the general consensus that most accept and that I hear from other fishermen is that the fluke fishing is in the toilet.[/QUOTE]

Huh?

[Gremlin2009]

No matter what the commercial guys always win. The recreation angler gets screwed over. In my opinion who ever has the money has the power. Basically what im saying is " Money talks " . Out of respect i will not say the rest

[reason162]

The stock assessments for this fishery have all the peer reviewed data you need regarding how the gender composition of the stock has drastically changed over the years at the detriment of females commensurate with changes to increases in size minimums over the last two decades. My above comments aren't based on Rutgers Study, they're based on data from science contained in SAW's.

Common sense would also tell you in any fishery, especially one with a significant commercial presence, if you target exclusively the spawning stock you won't have a fishery for long. That and the fact that the only time this fishery grew in the last 5 decades is when both sectors were harvesting younger age classes and not targeting exclusively older sexually mature age classes made up disproportionately of females. Something current management might want to consider. What fisheries can you speak of which exclusively target breeders, don't protect the spawn, kill millions of juveniles in the process every year which you'd consider sustainable. If you put as much effort and energy into educating yourself with the data that exists as you do into criticizing those who do, one day we might actually be able to have a productive discussion. Until then, keep advocating for peer review as if it's the holy grail of fisheries management since it's done absolute wonders for this fishery over the last 40 years and other stocks which have been wiped out and why we're faced with the strong possibility of a two fish limit in New Jersey next year and a 28% or greater quota cut.

Yeah I don't care about gender composition - I only care about recruitment. You and others who want lower size regulations grasped the sex ratio straw years ago and continue to talk about it as if it's settled science. It's not. "Common sense" is not science, no matter how much it makes sense in your own head.

Fish are not pandas, "breeding females" means nothing when a species' steepness is close to 1. And even if protecting "breeding females" is a valid goal (again, zero evidence that it makes any difference with fluke and most fish), lowering the size limit is no guarantee that you achieve that goal. It's just as likely a 16" fluke is female. In which case you removed a breeding female 2 spawn cycles earlier than otherwise if the regs stayed at 18".

And once again I must point out that there has been zero mention of the obvious elephant in the room - a warming Atlantic that is driving every species northwards for the past few decades. If regulators and biologists aren't taking that into account when they tinker with their models, then you really have something to bitch about.

[hammer4reel]

Yeah I don't care about gender composition - I only care about recruitment. You and others who want lower size regulations grasped the sex ratio straw years ago and continue to talk about it as if it's settled science. It's not. "Common sense" is not science, no matter how much it makes sense in your own head.

Fish are not pandas, "breeding females" means nothing when a species' steepness is close to 1. And even if protecting "breeding females" is a valid goal (again, zero evidence that it makes any difference with fluke and most fish), lowering the size limit is no guarantee that you achieve that goal. It's just as likely a 16" fluke is female. In which case you removed a breeding female 2 spawn cycles earlier than otherwise if the regs stayed at 18".

And once again I must point out that there has been zero mention of the obvious elephant in the room - a warming Atlantic that is driving every species northwards for the past few decades. If regulators and biologists aren't taking that into account when they tinker with their models, then you really have something to bitch about.

Actually I have written and asked that question here in many threads .
As recently as the other regulations thread . Why no one is addressing NC commercial landings crushing stocks there , when even a recreational season was only 2 short weeks long .
One day if the migration that’s showing is accurate that would be our stocks here .

Just as states east of us ask for Nj to have stricter guidelines to protect stripers in their states . We should be pushing to protect stocks south of us in the same manner .

[reason162]

Actually I have written and asked that question here in many threads .
As recently as the other regulations thread . Why no one is addressing NC commercial landings crushing stocks there , when even a recreational season was only 2 short weeks long .
One day if the migration that’s showing is accurate that would be our stocks here .

Just as states east of us ask for Nj to have stricter guidelines to protect stripers in their states . We should be pushing to protect stocks south of us in the same manner .

I thought the NC comms had to steam way north and even then they couldn't fill their quotas? The biomass was right off the NC coast when those quotas were decided decades ago.

If the northward trend holds we might become the southern tip of the range for fluke in a few years regardless of what we do on the management side.

And don't get me started on NJ voting down the emergency SB measures last year. Every state's managers/biologists looked at the same data and were sufficiently alarmed to take drastic action - every state except NJ. Absolutely shameful.

[hammer4reel]

I thought the NC comms had to steam way north and even then they couldn't fill their quotas? The biomass was right off the NC coast when those quotas were decided decades ago.

If the northward trend holds we might become the southern tip of the range for fluke in a few years regardless of what we do on the management side.

And don't get me started on NJ voting down the emergency SB measures last year. Every state's managers/biologists looked at the same data and were sufficiently alarmed to take drastic action - every state except NJ. Absolutely shameful.

That’s my point . Allowing those boats to go anywhere they want outside of 3 miles to fill a 30k a week quota should be the first thing changed to this fishery .
I know guys working on those 7 day boats , and for about a month of the season they are as far north as Massachusetts.
.

As far as the striped bass , guys can’t see past how great a fishery we have here in NJ .
But at least other states understand the Hudson stocks are only supposed to make up 25% of the fishery east of us .
If Chessy stocks aren’t there the Hudson strain gets all the pressure and could easily be hurt quickly .
.
But more needs to be done by states south of us to correct issues there to make the chessy stocks rebuild solidly .
Might be one of the fisheries they are actually doing the right thing .
As every other inshore fishery we have has been crushed to all time record lows .
.

[Broad Bill]

Yeah I don't care about gender composition - I only care about recruitment. You and others who want lower size regulations grasped the sex ratio straw years ago and continue to talk about it as if it's settled science. It's not. "Common sense" is not science, no matter how much it makes sense in your own head.

Fish are not pandas, "breeding females" means nothing when a species' steepness is close to 1. And even if protecting "breeding females" is a valid goal (again, zero evidence that it makes any difference with fluke and most fish), lowering the size limit is no guarantee that you achieve that goal. It's just as likely a 16" fluke is female. In which case you removed a breeding female 2 spawn cycles earlier than otherwise if the regs stayed at 18".

And once again I must point out that there has been zero mention of the obvious elephant in the room - a warming Atlantic that is driving every species northwards for the past few decades. If regulators and biologists aren't taking that into account when they tinker with their models, then you really have something to bitch about.

Another Charles Witek, Peer Review, blind faith disciple. I'll be the first to say the world would be lost without science guiding us, any other mindset would be foolish. Science provides us with data, it's incumbent on us to interpret that data and make smart decisions. God gave us a brain, the use of which is to make those smart decisions. If you believe the management of this fishery has used data from Peer reviewed models and techniques intelligently AND are making smart decisions destroying one of the greatest and most important fisheries the Mid-Atlantic states have ever had, then lets agree to disagree. NMFS and the other Councils and Commissions tasked with managing this fishery are destroying it with asinine policy decisions. The results are all anyone needs to see that.

There's a 20 - 25 year trend, if you take time to do the research, that shows an inverse relationship between size minimum increases, the erosion of females and sexually mature fish across every age class, a proportionate, simultaneous and substantial decline in recruitment levels and a sharp decline in the overall population of the stock. Don't start with steepness, science itself isn't in agreement it has any bearing on this fishery. And the reason I know is I've been involved in those discussions. Next you'll be citing the Tony DiLernia school of management deception by talking about the impacts of ocean acidification on this stock which is absolute BS. You live in a world of theory, I live in a world of analyzing data which is what MSA mandates. The data couldn't be more telling why this fishery is struggling. When a stock declines by 60,000,000 fish or more than a third of its population, it's not due to climate change and neither is the decline in gender composition of females across every age group by 20% - 50%.

Back to Hammers initial post, do you honestly believe the protected commercial fishery would have quotas cut to the degree he posted and NMFS talking about a 28% - 40% decrease in quota if this was climate change. Climate change is maybe impacting stock movements and spatial distribution, it's not causing 60,000,000 fish to disappear from the stock over a relatively short period of time. You wrote "There's no evidence protecting breeding females makes any difference with fluke or any species".....really! So you're of the opinion if the regulations were changed to disallow commercial netting during the spawn and sectors regulations were changed to harvest younger more gender balanced age classes currently succumbing to an assumed 25% annual natural mortality rate the fishery wouldn't be better off? There's no logic in that statement.

Instead of talking about theories, steepness and panda bears, maybe you can share some hard facts as to why you believe the stock is down and we're staring at quotas and regulations reverting to levels in 2024 that could represent 50 year lows. As I've said before, it's easy criticizing others posts. State your case why this fishery in your opinion continues to decline and is in the dire position it is and support those opinions with facts instead of citing people or institutions that caused us to be looking at essentially emergency measures being adopted next year.

You wrote "I don't care about gender composition, I only care about recruitment" That's like saying I don't care about murder rates, I just care about public safety. How do you separate the two? What you're explicitly saying is a biomass made up of, for argument sake, 100 million sexually mature fish with a gender composition of 10% females and 90% males will have the same effects on recruitment as the same biomass made up of 50% males and 50% females. Is that based on settled science which has passed Peer Review? I don't think so and if it is maybe you can point everyone in the right direction where that's been stated.

You also wrote, "Common sense" is not science, not matter how much sense it makes in your own head". After over two decades of a declining fishery, more restrictive regulations almost every year, potential pending cuts which will bring this fishery to regulations the most restrictive in our lifetimes and recruitment levels not seen since the 80's, maybe we should reconsider basing policy decisions on common sense and not the science and Peer Review process you hold in such high esteem in your head as it's resulted in an epic failure with this fishery.

[hartattack]

Here are the choices that NY anglers are facing. These same regs need to be followed by NJ anglers who fish/travel NY waters...... it appears that larger females are doomed SMH
Below are six recreational summer flounder options that will achieve the required minimum 28% reduction. Only one of these options will be chosen to achieve the minimum 28% reduction. Please select your 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice option for the six options listed.

2023 Regulations: 4 fish at 18.5in Open Season: May 4 - Oct 9 (158 days)

Option 1: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Sep 8 (130 days) 28% reduction

Option 2. 3 fish at 19in May 5 - Sep 14 (132 days) 28% reduction

Option 3: 3 fish at 19in May 17 - Sep 20 (126 days) 28% reduction

Option 4: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Jul 24 and Aug 4 - Oct 9 (120 days) 30% reduction

Option 5: 4 fish at 19.5in Apr 1 - Oct 31 (213 days) 37% reduction

Option 6: 3 fish at 18.5in Jun 12 - Aug 28 (77 days) 28% reduction

[Broad Bill]

I remember Kiley Dancy's power point presentation years ago saying increasing size minimums is the best way to manage recreational catch. They've been wrong for decades and they're still wrong. This has been the root problem of this fishery for years causing a radical decline in recruitment and decrease in the spawning stock. As hartattack points out, NY will be harvesting even more females, discard mortality rates will go through the roof and we've been forced yet again by the *******s at NMFS to give the commercial sector exclusive harvest rights to a higher percentage of the overall biomass. Many people will go right to the 4 fish at 19.5" option and an extended season. Looks great on the surface but we're killing this fishery every year we increase size minimums and every year recreational minimums go up we give fish between 14" and those increased minimums exclusively to the harvest of the commercial sector. Shore fisherman get crushed, this is a complete f****** disaster for anyone interested in the conservation of this stock. Absolute f****** morons, won't be long before we're at 6 fish at 24" minimum and a year round season even though we can only access the fishery 4 months out of the year.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Here are the choices that NY anglers are facing. These same regs need to be followed by NJ anglers who fish/travel NY waters...... it appears that larger females are doomed SMH
Below are six recreational summer flounder options that will achieve the required minimum 28% reduction. Only one of these options will be chosen to achieve the minimum 28% reduction. Please select your 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice option for the six options listed.

2023 Regulations: 4 fish at 18.5in Open Season: May 4 - Oct 9 (158 days)

Option 1: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Sep 8 (130 days) 28% reduction

Option 2. 3 fish at 19in May 5 - Sep 14 (132 days) 28% reduction

Option 3: 3 fish at 19in May 17 - Sep 20 (126 days) 28% reduction

Option 4: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Jul 24 and Aug 4 - Oct 9 (120 days) 30% reduction

Option 5: 4 fish at 19.5in Apr 1 - Oct 31 (213 days) 37% reduction

Option 6: 3 fish at 18.5in Jun 12 - Aug 28 (77 days) 28% reduction

Seems like NY usually leans towards bigger fish so they get the longest season so my bet is they go with option 5.. My preference would be option 3.

[frugalfisherman]

Seems like NY usually leans towards bigger fish so they get the longest season so my bet is they go with option 5.. My preference would be option 3.

If you live in northern Long Island option 5 is great. Coney Island fishing Raritan Bay not so good.

[Gerry Zagorski]

If you live in northern Long Island option 5 is great. Coney Island fishing Raritan Bay not so good.

For sure a very different fishery up that way....