2024 and 2025 Fluke Options Poll

[Gerry Zagorski]

Sorry everyone but I screwed up AGAIN. Some of the dates on my initial poll were not correct and it could have changed the way you voted so we're going to start over and ask you to vote again....

These are the correct options the state will be submitting to the ASMFC that are expected to be approved. If they are approved, the state will be looking for public comments on them.

One very important thing this year that is different from past years, these regulations will be in place for 2 years.

Please take the poll and if you'd like, feel free to comment about the option you chose, why and please, lets try and keep politics out of it.

Further, if you really want your voice to be heard don't stop here, be sure to submit your comments during the formal comment period. I'll be sure to let you know when that is and how to go about it here.

I would also strongly suggest making your voice heard in the official meeting on 3/7 when the final regulations will be decided.

Please feel free to share this post by copying this link https://www.njfishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122433 and pasting it on to social sites or emailing it to other groups or organizations you belong to.

[Angler Paul]

JCAA voted unanimously to support the option with 3 fluke at 18". That gives us the longest season on both ends. It also closes the gap in the fall between when fluke season ends and sea bass season begins.

[cool hand fluke]

Agree Paul. And September was phenomenal fluking in 2023.

[hammer4reel]

I like the long season with 3 over 18” also .

But wouldn’t mind losing the 16 days (14 which are too early Oceanside anyhow) to allow the 17” fish caught from the surf state wide .

I think that allows non boaters to get in on the fun also .
And take something home for dinner

[Broad Bill]

Here's the irony of a brutal process. In 2021, regs were 3 fish at 18" and a 121 day season. That didn't work, so we switched to the regs of the last 2 years with two paper thin slots between 17" and 18" and one fish over 18" with a season length of 149 days. Still a 3 fish bag limit. That didn't work leading to a supposed 28% reduction in quota. So now the solution is to revert back to the regulations that didn't work in 2021 of three fish at 18 but instead of 149 days we're dropping it by a whopping four days to 145 and believe essentially the same regulations that didn't work in 2021 will now miraculously work in 2024 and 2025 and lead to an almost 30% reduction in quota.

Everyone wants longer season which many have said on this site will be used against the sector in future regulations because it increases fishing effort and mortality. Others have said they don't want short seasons because once you give in to a short season you'll never get those days back. That's the dilemma of regulations and why we live through these discussions every year and nothing changes because not one thing about any of this focuses on issues impacting the stock. In 2018, we said enough is enough and doing the same thing over and over again with the same or worse results is the definition of insanity. That's exactly what we're doing again by reverting back to 2021 regulations which didn't work then and now we're expected to believe will work over the next two years. Why?

Continue killing breeders and sexually mature fish, get penalized in landings and mortality rates associated with longer seasons while commercial fisheries continue to mop up the ocean targeting the breeding population and killing tens of millions of juvenile fish in the process. All management is doing is reshuffling the deck and there'll be a day when this philosophy catches up with them, us and the fishery. We're almost there now. No one likes doom and gloom predictions but continuing to use the same regulations that failed the fishery in past years makes sense why?

When the green hulled boat was having historic trips working a concentrated school in the fall last year until it got too far offshore, how many of the fish in those schools are going to get whipped out when the commercials find them before they have an opportunity to drop their eggs. Target breeders both recreationally and commercially, kill tens of millions of juveniles in the process and commercially pound the stock during the spawn, truthfully who cares what the regulations end up being. Our government and the regulatory bodies in charge of managing this stock have turned their back on the recreational angler and this fishery so choosing which bread crumbs option we want doesn't seem a priority when the stock is being mismanaged into the ground.

[hammer4reel]

Here's the irony of a brutal process. In 2021, regs were 3 fish at 18" and a 121 day season. That didn't work, so we switched to the regs of the last 2 years with two paper thin slots between 17" and 18" and one fish over 18" with a season length of 149 days. Still a 3 fish bag limit. That didn't work leading to a supposed 28% reduction in quota. So now the solution is to revert back to the regulations that didn't work in 2021 of three fish at 18 but instead of 149 days we're dropping it by a whopping four days to 145 and believe essentially the same regulations that didn't work in 2021 will now miraculously work in 2024 and 2025 and lead to an almost 30% reduction in quota.

Everyone wants longer season which many have said on this site will be used against the sector in future regulations because it increases fishing effort and mortality. Others have said they don't want short seasons because once you give in to a short season you'll never get those days back. That's the dilemma of regulations and why we live through these discussions every year and nothing changes because not one thing about any of this focuses on issues impacting the stock. In 2018, we said enough is enough and doing the same thing over and over again with the same or worse results is the definition of insanity. That's exactly what we're doing again by reverting back to 2021 regulations which didn't work then and now we're expected to believe will work over the next two years. Why?

Continue killing breeders and sexually mature fish, get penalized in landings and mortality rates associated with longer seasons while commercial fisheries continue to mop up the ocean targeting the breeding population and killing tens of millions of juvenile fish in the process. All management is doing is reshuffling the deck and there'll be a day when this philosophy catches up with them, us and the fishery. We're almost there now. No one likes doom and gloom predictions but continuing to use the same regulations that failed the fishery in past years makes sense why?

When the green hulled boat was having historic trips working a concentrated school in the fall last year until it got too far offshore, how many of the fish in those schools are going to get whipped out when the commercials find them before they have an opportunity to drop their eggs. Target breeders both recreationally and commercially, kill tens of millions of juveniles in the process and commercially pound the stock during the spawn, truthfully who cares what the regulations end up being. Our government and the regulatory bodies in charge of managing this stock have turned their back on the recreational angler and this fishery so choosing which bread crumbs option we want doesn't seem a priority when the stock is being mismanaged into the ground.

All these states are making regulations based on the states fisheries .
Yet the NC boats having quotas 5 to 10 times larger than any of them are also fishing just outside the 3 mile line are crushing every state north of them too .

IMO those boats being told to go anywhere they want are doing way more damage than we are .
.
Unless changes are made to that fishery , nothing we do will change anything .
..
We had plenty of fish smaller than 18” on the fillet table the last 2 seasons . We may have had 3 that weren’t females .
.
Knowing people who actually worked on the sexting studies , males and females were not normally together .

.

[No Keepers]

Here's the irony of a brutal process. In 2021, regs were 3 fish at 18" and a 121 day season. That didn't work, so we switched to the regs of the last 2 years with two paper thin slots between 17" and 18" and one fish over 18" with a season length of 149 days. Still a 3 fish bag limit. That didn't work leading to a supposed 28% reduction in quota. So now the solution is to revert back to the regulations that didn't work in 2021 of three fish at 18 but instead of 149 days we're dropping it by a whopping four days to 145 and believe essentially the same regulations that didn't work in 2021 will now miraculously work in 2024 and 2025 and lead to an almost 30% reduction in quota.

Everyone wants longer season which many have said on this site will be used against the sector in future regulations because it increases fishing effort and mortality. Others have said they don't want short seasons because once you give in to a short season you'll never get those days back. That's the dilemma of regulations and why we live through these discussions every year and nothing changes because not one thing about any of this focuses on issues impacting the stock. In 2018, we said enough is enough and doing the same thing over and over again with the same or worse results is the definition of insanity. That's exactly what we're doing again by reverting back to 2021 regulations which didn't work then and now we're expected to believe will work over the next two years. Why?

Continue killing breeders and sexually mature fish, get penalized in landings and mortality rates associated with longer seasons while commercial fisheries continue to mop up the ocean targeting the breeding population and killing tens of millions of juvenile fish in the process. All management is doing is reshuffling the deck and there'll be a day when this philosophy catches up with them, us and the fishery. We're almost there now. No one likes doom and gloom predictions but continuing to use the same regulations that failed the fishery in past years makes sense why?

When the green hulled boat was having historic trips working a concentrated school in the fall last year until it got too far offshore, how many of the fish in those schools are going to get whipped out when the commercials find them before they have an opportunity to drop their eggs. Target breeders both recreationally and commercially, kill tens of millions of juveniles in the process and commercially pound the stock during the spawn, truthfully who cares what the regulations end up being. Our government and the regulatory bodies in charge of managing this stock have turned their back on the recreational angler and this fishery so choosing which bread crumbs option we want doesn't seem a priority when the stock is being mismanaged into the ground.

Well said. If we are going to rebuild this fishery we need to stop targeting the breeders', increase recruitment as well as eliminate all harvesting during the spawn.

New Jersey made advancements with the introduction of a slot fish (although to tight of a slot). These efforts should the refined and strengthen. Not abandoned only to return to failed regulations of the past. It reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity also.

[hammer4reel]

Well said. If we are going to rebuild this fishery we need to stop targeting the breeders', increase recruitment as well as eliminate all harvesting during the spawn.

New Jersey made advancements with the introduction of a slot fish (although to tight of a slot). These efforts should the refined and strengthen. Not abandoned only to return to failed regulations of the past. It reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity also.

IMO thinking us throwing back fish larger than 18” only to have commercial draggers net them the same week is just as insane .

They are allowing NC boats much of the year 30000 pounds a week per boat .
Those boats destroyed the NC fishery , and now target their quota as far away as Massachusetts.

That doesn’t account for all the NJ boats targeting their weekly catch . Including when fish really stack up heading to spawn .

The only way recreational fisherman can make a change is in fisheries were we are the only ones fishing for the species .

The slot fish in NJ did not do anything but increase our poundage by adding increases mortality .

Guys need to look at the entire picture , not just a piece of it .

Start watching fish get filleted EVERY trip . See how many of the fish under 18” are still female fish , who just also did not get to spawn .

If they claim the biggest biomass of fish is under 18”
Letting them breed an extra year should also be beneficial.

While larger fluke will have more eggs , it’s claimed older fish carry eggs that are not as fertile .

It’s time for NMFS to start getting better info and work on what’s really the problem .

.

[hammer4reel]

NC commercial boats have pounded these fluke so hard the last month it’s dropped their live weight catch down to 60 cents a pound .
And sea bass down to 1.50 a pound .
Last summer they were getting over 4.50 a pound .

That should really shed some light on what’s really happening to the fisheries .
.

[reason162]

See how many of the fish under 18” are still female fish , who just also did not get to spawn .

If they claim the biggest biomass of fish is under 18”
Letting them breed an extra year should also be beneficial.


That's a point people seem not to understand - lowering size limits doesn't automatically mean harvesting more males. You could just as easily be killing females without giving them a chance to spawn.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think fluke generally start spawning at 16"? If so 18" gives them a couple of cycles.

[dales529]

That's a point people seem not to understand - lowering size limits doesn't automatically mean harvesting more males. You could just as easily be killing females without giving them a chance to spawn.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think fluke generally start spawning at 16"? If so 18" gives them a couple of cycles.

I think most recreational fishermen understand this, the "people" that need to start understanding this are those doing the " best science available" and suggesting regulations. I haven't had a chance to follow up but there was reports from the agencies that now some 18" + fluke are males and in larger numbers than previously thought, So it would also, to agree with your point that maybe smaller fish are females. Never understood why sex studies outside of the agencies are automatically rejected but they cant peer review their own as this is supposed to be about protecting a species. My guess is no sex studies are being done at the agency level.

[hammer4reel]

That's a point people seem not to understand - lowering size limits doesn't automatically mean harvesting more males. You could just as easily be killing females without giving them a chance to spawn.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think fluke generally start spawning at 16"? If so 18" gives them a couple of cycles.

15” as a three year old is supposed to be their first spawn .

[hammer4reel]

I think most recreational fishermen understand this, the "people" that need to start understanding this are those doing the " best science available" and suggesting regulations. I haven't had a chance to follow up but there was reports from the agencies that now some 18" + fluke are males and in larger numbers than previously thought, So it would also, to agree with your point that maybe smaller fish are females. Never understood why sex studies outside of the agencies are automatically rejected but they cant peer review their own as this is supposed to be about protecting a species. My guess is no sex studies are being done at the agency level.


99% of the fish I see filleted have a roe sack .and that’s everything from 17” to 30”
See very few male fish

[dales529]

99% of the fish I see filleted have a roe sack .and that’s everything from 17” to 30”
See very few male fish

Agreed.

[Togfather2530]

How about this. Let’s just close the fishery down for a year or two commercial and recreational. We will all live without eating a flounder. That will give the idiots two years to figure their shit out and use their college degrees and maybe their brains to actually come up with a plan that works. The fishery is in the toilet as far as I’m concerned. If recreational guys cared about the fishery like they act like they do on here all they have to do is catch and release the fish and enjoy just fishing. But instead most that go saltwater fishing have to take their limit home. Just shut it down for a year or two commercial and recreational and the fishing will be great. Hopefully by then they figure out that they can’t keep taking these breeders. It’s all stupidity. I’ll sell my boat when it really hits the toilet and it’s getting there.

[dales529]

How about this. Let’s just close the fishery down for a year or two commercial and recreational. We will all live without eating a flounder. That will give the idiots two years to figure their shit out and use their college degrees and maybe their brains to actually come up with a plan that works. The fishery is in the toilet as far as I’m concerned. If recreational guys cared about the fishery like they act like they do on here all they have to do is catch and release the fish and enjoy just fishing. But instead most that go saltwater fishing have to take their limit home. Just shut it down for a year or two commercial and recreational and the fishing will be great. Hopefully by then they figure out that they can’t keep taking these breeders. It’s all stupidity. I’ll sell my boat when it really hits the toilet and it’s getting there.

First of all what makes you believe that commercials would even consider to agree to a shut down and as I assume you are a private boater why would you ask recreational for hire boats to lose a year of pay for their families when its hard enough to make a living? Even if that were to happen there is no indication that the best available science would see better recruitment and we would never get quota back. CR would be acceptable to me but then they would adjust mortality even larger than the BS numbers now and again for hire boats would lose big time.
This is not the answer and why is it that some boats find the fluke consitently day after day if as you say they dont exist, They just dont exist where you are fishing!

[hammer4reel]

First of all what makes you believe that commercials would even consider to agree to a shut down and as I assume you are a private boater why would you ask recreational for hire boats to lose a year of pay for their families when its hard enough to make a living? Even if that were to happen there is no indication that the best available science would see better recruitment and we would never get quota back. CR would be acceptable to me but then they would adjust mortality even larger than the BS numbers now and again for hire boats would lose big time.
This is not the answer and why is it that some boats find the fluke consitently day after day if as you say they dont exist, They just dont exist where you are fishing!

X2
go to any fluke tournament all summer long .
All the boats are crushing fish .
.Fish are here just need to fish for them .


The amount of fluke caught daily in the rivers even in rental boats is very good .
Togfather just sounds like he is in the 90%.

..

[Broad Bill]

Good dialogue. The below graph is based on data right from the stock assessment, best available science, the horses mouth and peer reviewed. Summer flounder attain sexual maturity between ages 2 and 3. Based on the Mean Length by Sex and Age charts, a 3 year old female summer flounder's mean length is 17.65 inches, a males is 15.42 inches. So waiting until a female reaches 18" might give that fish one to maybe two years of spawning. Almost all male age groups through age 7 have a mean length less than 18". Age 6 in the graph for males makes no sense, must be flawed data of some kind used in their models. Point is males are significantly smaller in this stock and as such are more susceptible to being victims of natural mortality and extensive collateral damage from commercial netting.

Key point to keep in mind. Right or wrong, science assigns a 25% natural mortality rate to every age class from sickness, predation (stripers, seals etc.). Meaning if an age class started with 1,000 new recruits, it loses 250 in the first year. In the second year, that age class presumably has shrunk to 750 and loses another 187 (25% of 750) or round it up to 200 in year two and has now lost almost 50% of it's class just to natural mortality. Now add discard mortality, especially commercial related which is an enormous number carrying an 80% mortality rate and add recreational mortality plus fishing mortality from commercials who can retain these sizes or throw them back dead while recreational anglers can't. If these percentages are close to reality, we're losing 60% - potentially 80% of every age class within two years before they spawn once or can be harvested legally by the recreational sector. And since males are smaller in size, we're proportionately losing a higher percentage of males from each class which to Hammer's point is why I believe almost all fish harvested recreationally are females. Most males die early in their life cycle, victims of natural mortality or collateral damage from commercial fishing operations. Very few males make it over 18". And if these younger age classes end up in commercial nets, they're going back dead because the prime size commercials harvest are in the 16" - 18" range for the restaurant market. The true reason recreational regulations start at over 18" giving the commercial sector exclusive harvest rights to those size fish.

This fishery flourished in the 90's and early 2000 because we were harvesting the exact opposite age classes we're harvesting today. Harvesting them before they were succumbing to natural mortality and discard mortality, and protecting the spawning stock which made it through. Today's regulations allow these fish to succumb to 25% natural mortality yearly for the first two years, losing ~50% of each classes population, we kill millions of the younger age groups pursuing the harvest of the older age groups and science wonders why the spawning stock declined substantially and why recruitment statistics are approaching historic lows. How many marine biologists should it take to figure that out? Makes no sense if the powers to be are managing the fishery as opposed to what's best for the commercial sector which personally I believe is the prevailing problem regulatory decisions are being based on.

The attached graph shows males are substantially smaller than females, because they grow slower and live shorter lives.

[hammer4reel]

Good dialogue. The below graph is based on data right from the stock assessment, best available science, the horses mouth and peer reviewed. Summer flounder attain sexual maturity between ages 2 and 3. Based on the Mean Length by Sex and Age charts, a 3 year old female summer flounder's mean length is 17.65 inches, a males is 15.42 inches. So waiting until a female reaches 18" might give that fish one to maybe two years of spawning. Almost all male age groups through age 7 have a mean length less than 18". Age 6 in the graph for males makes no sense, must be flawed data of some kind used in their models.

Key point to keep in mind. Right or wrong, science assigns a 25% natural mortality rate to every age class from sickness, predation (stripers, seals etc.). Meaning if an age class started with 1,000 new recruits, it loses 250 in the first year. In the second year, that age class presumably has shrunk to 750 and loses another 187 (25% of 750) or round it up to 200 in year two and has now lost almost 50% of it's class just to natural mortality. Now add discard mortality, especially commercial related which is an enormous number carrying an 80% mortality rate and add recreational mortality plus fishing mortality from commercials who can retain these sizes or throw them back dead while recreational anglers can't. If these percentages are close to reality, we're losing 60% - potentially 80% of every age class within two years before they spawn once or can be harvested legally by the recreational sector. And since males are smaller in size, we're proportionately losing a higher percentage of males from each class which to Hammer's point is why I believe almost all fish harvested recreationally are females. Most males die early in their life cycle, victims of natural mortality or collateral damage from commercial fishing operations. Very few males make it over 18". And if these younger age classes end up in commercial nets, they're going back dead because the prime size commercials harvest are in the 16" - 18" range for the restaurant market. The true reason recreational regulations start at over 18" giving the commercial sector exclusive harvest rights to those size fish.

This fishery flourished in the 90's and early 2000 because we were harvesting the exact opposite age classes we're harvesting today. Harvesting them before they were succumbing to natural mortality and discard mortality, and protecting the spawning stock which made it through. Today's regulations allow these fish to succumb to 25% natural mortality yearly for the first two years, losing ~50% of each classes population, we kill millions of the younger age groups pursuing the harvest of the older age groups and science wonders why the spawning stock declined substantially and why recruitment statistics are approaching historic lows. How many marine biologists should it take to figure that out? Makes no sense if the powers to be are managing the fishery as opposed to what's best for the commercial sector which personally I believe is the prevailing problem regulatory decisions are being based on.

The attached graph shows males are substantially smaller than females, because they grow slower and live shorter lives.

I agree with some of that , but commercial guys are not targeting restaurant sized fish .
They want fish 4 pounds and up because in a good market they make 1 dollar more per pound .
So here in NJ when they are allowed say the 3000 pound weekly , they earn an extra 3k.


.

[Broad Bill]

I agree with some of that , but commercial guys are not targeting restaurant sized fish .
They want fish 4 pounds and up because in a good market they make 1 dollar more per pound .
So here in NJ when they are allowed say the 3000 pound weekly , they earn an extra 3k.


.

I know you have tight commercial connection but from commercial guys I know I've been told 16" to 18" is the prime fish they look for and it was to supply enormous demand from the restaurant markets. If they are looking for 4 lb. plus fish, then the 16" - 18" inch fish are going back dead. Either way, it's a problem since they're all breeders and a majority females.

[Broad Bill]

I agree with some of that , but commercial guys are not targeting restaurant sized fish .
They want fish 4 pounds and up because in a good market they make 1 dollar more per pound .
So here in NJ when they are allowed say the 3000 pound weekly , they earn an extra 3k.


.

Just curious, what part of the market does 4 lb. plus fluke cater to. Restaurants don't want fillets that hang off the plate. A 4 lb. fish is not what restaurants are buying because of size and thickness. Jumbos are maybe the target of sushi markets, but not the restaurant market and I'm assuming the restaurant market would swamp the sushi market in daily and year round demand. I agree jumbo size fish draw higher market prices but I believe the demand for 16" to 18" fish is much greater. I could be wrong but again what my sources have told me.

[hammer4reel]

Just curious, what part of the market does 4 lb. plus fluke cater to. Restaurants don't want fillets that hang off the plate. A 4 lb. fish is not what restaurants are buying because of size and thickness. Jumbos are maybe the target of sushi markets, but not the restaurant market and I'm assuming the restaurant market would swamp the sushi market in daily and year round demand. I agree jumbo size fish draw higher market prices but I believe the demand for 16" to 18" fish is much greater. I could be wrong but again what my sources have told me.

I have more than a few friends commercial fishing . They get more money for fish above 4 pounds .
A restaurant serves a portion , not a 1/4 fish in many places .
Otherwise patrons getting a white side fillet would complain about those others getting a brown side etc .
The THEORY that commercial guys target 16-18” fish is one started by recreational fisherman .
.
When better fish are around their paychecks are substantially larger .

When the market is overrun with fish when the 7 day boats are boating 30-35k a week of fish , small guys don’t even want to fish because it brings the price down to low to make a profit on the smaller state landings .

IMO if you follow NC landings for most of the year they are enormous, in a state that only has a 2 week recreational season .

Those boats are way overfishing all the states north of them to fill those quotas .
It’s not the local commercial boats fishing here with much more conservative bag limits .

[emcjim]

I agree with the most popular choice: 145 days, 3 fish @ 18. The party boats need the long season. We ae down to 3 in AHMH, unless a new boat moves into 1 of the 5 vacant slips. Any young captains out there that want to get into this business?

[FishingSinceIWasThree]

These poll numbers are totally different from yesterdays' poll numbers...TOTALLY DIFFERENT....more fake polls and votes

Our country and culture is totally corrupt....needs to be completely overhauled

# 2 was in the lead and the numbers have all been subtracted from #2

don't believe anything you see anymore

[frugalfisherman]

Sushi restaurants want the bigger fish and I imagine a lot if not the majority are shipped to Japan.

[Broad Bill]

These poll numbers are totally different from yesterdays' poll numbers...TOTALLY DIFFERENT....more fake polls and votes

Our country and culture is totally corrupt....needs to be completely overhauled

# 2 was in the lead and the numbers have all been subtracted from #2

don't believe anything you see anymore

Look at the OP's post. The poll from yesterday you're referring to had bad dates and was replaced with the current poll.

[hammer4reel]

17 voted with almost 800 views .
Shows how few guys actually get involved , yet will bitch when we get screwed with regs we may not want .

.

[Broad Bill]

I have more than a few friends commercial fishing . They get more money for fish above 4 pounds .

The THEORY that commercial guys target 16-18” fish is one started by recreational fisherman.

My point remains. If commercials are targeting 4 lb plus fish, 16" to 20" predominantly female breeders are falling victim to discard mortality especially during the winter when they're being towed from deeper waters and exposed to colder temperatures on deck. And how many 4 lb plus males do we honestly believe are being harvested as opposed to predominantly females.

My theory, as you refer to it about restaurant size 16" to 18" being the primary size fish targeted, isn't from recreational anglers, it's from one of the top commercial guys in the industry.

[Broad Bill]

That's a point people seem not to understand - lowering size limits doesn't automatically mean harvesting more males. You could just as easily be killing females without giving them a chance to spawn.

Proportionately yes it does. If you retain fish which it appears you do, how many 18" plus fish have you caught over the last 5 years that were males? I"d bet you could count them on one hand.

[Broad Bill]

If they claim the biggest biomass of fish is under 18”
Letting them breed an extra year l would think is beneficial.
While larger fluke will have more eggs , it’s claimed older fish carry eggs that are not as fertile .
.

In one breath you're saying commercials prime size fish to target are over 4 lbs. and then you say a majority of the biomass is made up of fish under 18 inches. How many 4 lb. 18 in fluke have you caught in your lifetime?

The people saying larger fish while having more eggs are less fertile than younger age classes are the same guys harvesting those older breeders to rationalize their catch. The juvenile female fluke when they first attain sexual maturity are said to produce approximately 400,000 eggs a year. Large breeders can produce up to 4 million a year.

There might be some truth to the fact that larger breeders on a relative basis are less fertile but there's no science that suggests that differential in fertility comes close to mitigating the incremental eggs a larger breeder is capable of producing.

[Gerry Zagorski]

These poll numbers are totally different from yesterdays' poll numbers...TOTALLY DIFFERENT....more fake polls and votes

Our country and culture is totally corrupt....needs to be completely overhauled

# 2 was in the lead and the numbers have all been subtracted from #2

don't believe anything you see anymore

The reason #2 was changed from the original poll was because I screwed it up and put down the incorrect higher number of days fishing.

This was the original 5/24-9/4, 3 @ 17.5 inches or more for 124 days
This is the revised 5/24-9/4, 3 @ 17.5 inches or more for 104 days

As you can see, the original as I posted it had 20 more days of fishing which was incorrect and the reason it was more attractive to many on here..

And let me take a wild guess that you preferred and still do prefer 17.5 inch fish/option 2 and since what you want is not polling as well, the survey is obviously rigged :rolleyes:

[hammer4reel]

In one breath you're saying commercials prime size fish to target are over 4 lbs. and then you say a majority of the biomass is made up of fish under 18 inches. How many 4 lb. 18 in fluke have you caught in your lifetime?

The people saying larger fish while having more eggs are less fertile than younger age classes are the same guys harvesting those older breeders to rationalize their catch. The juvenile female fluke when they first attain sexual maturity are said to produce approximately 400,000 eggs a year. Large breeders can produce up to 4 million a year.

There might be some truth to the fact that larger breeders on a relative basis are less fertile but there's no science that suggests that differential in fertility comes close to mitigating the incremental eggs a larger breeder is capable of producing.

You need to read slower . I said NMFS wants us to believe the largest part of the biomass is under 18” IMO they have no idea what it really is .
They have no idea what the break down per age year class is available in the fishery .
Nor do they have a breakdown of females vs males .
Your a graph and numbers guy, but you also have no idea whether info your using is actually accurate or not .
Bad info in is bad info out .

Only way we will ever have accurate information is when info is based on real life conditions , and not guesses from the hip .

[hammer4reel]

In one breath you're saying commercials prime size fish to target are over 4 lbs. and then you say a majority of the biomass is made up of fish under 18 inches. How many 4 lb. 18 in fluke have you caught in your lifetime?

The people saying larger fish while having more eggs are less fertile than younger age classes are the same guys harvesting those older breeders to rationalize their catch. The juvenile female fluke when they first attain sexual maturity are said to produce approximately 400,000 eggs a year. Large breeders can produce up to 4 million a year.

There might be some truth to the fact that larger breeders on a relative basis are less fertile but there's no science that suggests that differential in fertility comes close to mitigating the incremental eggs a larger breeder is capable of producing.

Commercial guys don’t care what the largest part if the biomass is . They care about filling their nets with the most profitable fish .
Instead of fishing with the minimum size net , they bump up the net size to target larger fish .

Bigger 7 day boats are making long steams to get to areas holding the biggest fish . It makes them an extra 30 grand a week to do so .

.

[Broad Bill]

You need to read slower . I said NMFS wants us to believe the largest part of the biomass is under 18” IMO they have no idea what it really is .
They have no idea what the break down per age year class is available in the fishery .
Nor do they have a breakdown of females vs males .
Your a graph and numbers guy, but you also have no idea whether info your using is actually accurate or not .
Bad info in is bad info out .

Only way we will ever have accurate information is when info is based on real life conditions, and not guesses from the hip .

My reading is fine. You wrote "If they claim the biggest biomass of fish is under 18”, letting them breed an extra year should also be beneficial. I don't see NMFS's name mentioned in your post and it sounds like you agree with the statement. Your words, not mine.

Their information, if you're referring to NMFS still, are their numbers and the accuracy of their data has been in questions for as long as their existence. No different than the accuracy of information you receive from your commercials cronies who will say anything that gives them the ability to further exploit the resource and increase catch values. You think they're concerned about long term conservation, maybe a few are but the vast majority could care less and are only concerned with how much money goes in their pockets every trip and they'll exploit, kill and discard as much of the resource as necessary to harvest the most valuable fish they can sell back at the docks. Don't be an alter boy.

Yeah I'm an analytical guy and much more, something you'll never be able to comprehend. What's your point? NMFS's information is sketchy but it's the information regulatory decisions are based on and I've used it to prove decisions made by NMFS are wrong based on that very data. Proof they ignore. And you believe your data from commercial guys you know who have a vested interest to provide only information which will serve their best interests is clean. Please, use the the common sense God gave you.

Please provide one fishery you're aware of which has flourished where the breeding population is pounded year round, younger juvenile fish are killed in the process by the millions and larger breeders of both genders are the mandated target of the recreational regulations and where large female breeders, based on your spot on intelligence, are the prime target of commercial netters. And add to that, the stock is actively mugged by commercial concerns during their spawn.

[Broad Bill]

Commercial guys don’t care what the largest part if the biomass is . They care about filling their nets with the most profitable fish .
Instead of fishing with the minimum size net , they bump up the net size to target larger fish .

Bigger 7 day boats are making long steams to get to areas holding the biggest fish . It makes them an extra 30 grand a week to do so .

.

Biomass means nothing to commercials but you missed my point by a mile. One point of your post we agree on is when mesh sizes were increased to facilitate the harvest of larger fish, the fishery went into a prolonged decline. That coincided with the continued increase in recreational size limit minimums to insure a large portion of the sexually mature biomass, fish between 15" and over, became the exclusive harvest of the commercial sector. Regulation shifted access of a substantial portion of the biomass from recreational to commercial. That's what size minimum increases have been about from day one. Problem is that's not a viable strategy and we're seeing the proof in recruitment, a decline in the biomass and a decline in the spawning stock. When nets get plugged, even with larger mesh sizes, they kill millions of underaged, smaller lesser market value fish which get thrown back dead. Fishing related mortality in the commercial fishery is arguably 5 times greater than reported and probably exceeds the commercial sector's entire annual quota. If as you say, 4 lb. fish are the primary target of commercial netters, they're targeting 22" and above fish. Imagine then how many 22" and below fish are being thrown back dead. That's the future of this stock and includes all the fish the recreational sector is mandated to release during our short 4 - 4 1/2 month season. You think that conservation minded actions by the commercial sector or effective regulations by NMFS, ASMFC or MAMFC?

[hammer4reel]

My reading is fine. You wrote "If they claim the biggest biomass of fish is under 18”, letting them breed an extra year should also be beneficial. I don't see NMFS's name mentioned in your post and it sounds like you agree with the statement. Your words, not mine.

Their information, if you're referring to NMFS still, are their numbers and the accuracy of their data has been in questions for as long as their existence. No different than the accuracy of information you receive from your commercials cronies who will say anything that gives them the ability to further exploit the resource of and increase catch values. You think they're concerned about long term conservation, maybe a few are but the vast majority could care less and are only concerned with how much money goes in their pockets every trip and they'll exploit, kill and discard as much of the resource as necessary to harvest the most valuable fish they can sell back at the docks. Don't be an alter boy.

Yeah I'm an analytical guy and much more, something you'll never be able to comprehend. What's your point? NMFS's information is sketchy but it's the information regulatory decisions are based on and I've used it to prove decisions made by NMFS are wrong based on that very data. Proof they ignore. And you believe your data from commercial guys you know who have a vested interest to provide only information which will serve their best interests is clean. Please, use the the common sense God gave you.

Please provide one fishery you're aware of which has flourished where the breeding population is pounded year round, younger juvenile fish are killed in the process by the millions and larger breeders of both genders are the mandated target of the recreational regulations and where large female breeders, based on your spot on intelligence, are the prime target of commercial netters. And add to that, the stock is actively mugged by commercial concerns during their spawn.

Since your so analytical think you would have caught the THEY part as to who we were talking about .

I have said the same in reference to commercials hammering this stock at times they shouldn’t be .
But imo it’s the NC fleet doing the damage to these stocks . The smaller guys aren’t allowed those huge landings .

Problem is currently there are no regulations to where the netters can go in federal waters .
Example would be NJ boats allowed to harvest 3000 pounds a week , and just make quota .
But a NC boat takes 30000 from the same area .
Our fishery suffers while they drive that load south .
.
Why or how can NJ landing limits help the fishery when all the rest of this is going on .
.
And as far as me not understanding your analytics , you can cherry pick anything you want . But you also can’t back it up with actual science because there really isnt any accurate information available to make an ACCURATE finding .

You only want to believe numbers that fit your narrative .
All these findings used for all the graph and chart are based on anecdotal info .

If I was to believe the fishery was just on my actual observations, I would think 20” fish are in abundance .
Reading other guys findings it’s 16” fish. Which possibly is accurate where they are fishing .

[Broad Bill]

Since your so analytical think you would have caught the THEY part as to who we were talking about .

I have said the same in reference to commercials hammering this stock at times they shouldn’t be .
But imo it’s the NC fleet doing the damage to these stocks . The smaller guys aren’t allowed those huge landings .

Problem is currently there are no regulations to where the netters can go in federal waters .
Example would be NJ boats allowed to harvest 3000 pounds a week , and just make quota .
But a NC boat takes 30000 from the same area .
Our fishery suffers while they drive that load south .
.
Why or how can NJ landing limits help the fishery when all the rest of this is going on .
.
And as far as me not understanding your analytics , you can cherry pick anything you want . But you also can’t back it up with actual science because there really isnt any accurate information available to make an ACCURATE finding .

You only want to believe numbers that fit your narrative .
All these findings used for all the graph and chart are based on anecdotal info .

If I was to believe the fishery was just on my actual observations, I would think 20” fish are in abundance .
Reading other guys findings it’s 16” fish. Which possibly is accurate where they are fishing .

First, word choice isn't analytics. I thought someone of your intelligence would understand that. I thought your reference to "they" meant commercials, not NMFS.

Second, I completely agree with your points about NC and always have. They destroyed the southern stock and will do the same without blinking to the remaining northern stock and should be removed from our waters. Plus the favorable weight assignments they receive are about 30 years outdated and a huge problem to every other state and major benefit to NC. That completely flies under everyone's radar screen and never receives any mention. Their allowable landings, which already represents a third of the commercial quota, is doubled because their weight assignments for fish are substantially lower than all other commercial states and the recreational sector.

Third, I'm not cherry picking a thing, my analysis is as comprehensive and objective as any done on NMFS data. Again it's their data, like it or not, decisions based on MSA are supposed to be based on and it's flawed in more ways than you can imagine. Just as much as I'm sure the data you receive from commercials is not verified by anyone but the commercial operators providing it who have a vested interest to have it support their best interests and their narrative. If anyone's data is cherry picked, it's theirs. Ask any of your buddies exactly what their average discard mortality rates to landings or catch are and compare it to the below chart which is data provided by independent federal observers. Compare the black lines, observer percentages of discards to the blue lines, %'s reported by operators on Vessel Trip Reports. Then compare to the red lines, actual landings. Objective and verifiable. The disparities are enormous.

I believe commercial mesh sizes were increased in the late 90's / early 2000, look at the spike in discard percentages. These statistics were from the 57th Stock Assessment and I'm sure infuriated the commercial sector and embarrassed NMFS so they simply removed the chart from subsequent assessments. Don't address the problem, just make the data disappear and sweep ,the problem under the rug. And if it was that bad back then, think about what it is today based on your own comments and the pursuit of fish over 4 lbs. It's a huge problem in this fishery which NMFS has turned a blind eye on.

My conclusions are based on 20 years of historical data, relationships and trends, something well beyond your paygrade. If you can't grasp it, that's understandable, but don't insult me by saying it's my narrative. Or we can use your extensive on water experience and believe what your commercial buddies are telling you which you apparently accept face value as empirical data while the fishery continues it's declines. LMFAO.

[hammer4reel]

Your conclusions are based on portions of their data
Which anyone spending 5 minutes on the water knows isn’t accurate

They do trawl studies where the operator tells them they will never find the results they are looking for
Then act as though it’s accurate
They have no idea the actual mortality of our releases
No actual data except when observers are in the commercial boats ( and I’m told most time never even leave the cabin ) to actual discards

They estimate everything
Even actual landings are allowed to be off 10%

Then throw in all the bicatch while commercial are fishing for other species etc

So IMO there really isn’t accurate info

As far as who to believe
Commercial guys are actually on the water 300 plus days a year . Seeing what’s coming up in the nets
Your charts are based off bean counters who probably couldn’t tell you how to get to the ocean ,
That’s why they have failed at every fishery there is .

Insanity is you now thinking their way of managing the resources from their charts will get any better

[hammer4reel]

Bill if your data was extremely accurate .
Why is it that most party boats , and charter boats have no problems catching limits day after day ?
Why is it that guys fishing tournaments are mostly limited out by 8 am and have to leave spots open while fishing for a tourney fish ?

Most all why is Nj having such a tough time with 18” fish when states Just south of us , and every state north of us isn’t having a problem catching 18” fish ?

[Broad Bill]

Insanity is you now thinking their way of managing the resources from their charts will get any better

My conclusions are based on many factors. I posted two charts, sex and length comparison, which if you've been on the water for the years you have, you know males are smaller, grow slower and live shorter lives. Or do you wish to dispute that as well? I also posted INDEPENDENT information from federal observers to information provided by commercial operators based on the honor system which shows a major disparity in discard rates reported. Do you dispute that? Reported commercial mortality rates in the SAW range between 10% - 26% of catch and 13% to 36% of landings. Independent Federal Observer data, not questionable science, indicates it could exceed 100% of catch and 200% of landings. Do you dispute that? If that data is remotely close to being true, it means the commercial fishery can kill twice if not more of their annual landings quota in the pursuit of culling the size fish they want to retain which bring the highest catch values. Do you dispute that?

I never said managing the resource from the charts will get any better, I've actually said the opposite which is managing the resource in the manner NMFS has over the last two decades will insure one thing, the ultimate failure of this fishery.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less. You can have the last word, I've said my piece and I'm done with this discussion. Just keep this exchange in mind when NJ's regulation are 2 fish daily at 22" with a 60 day season.

[hammer4reel]

My conclusions are based on many factors. I posted two charts, sex and length comparison, which if you've been on the water for the years you have, you know males are smaller, grow slower and live shorter lives. Or do you wish to dispute that as well? I also posted INDEPENDENT information from federal observers to information provided by commercial operators based on the honor system which shows a major disparity in discard rates reported. Do you dispute that? Reported commercial mortality rates in the SAW range between 10% - 26% of catch and 13% to 36% of landings. Independent Federal Observer data, not questionable science, indicates it could exceed 100% of catch and 200% of landings. Do you dispute that? If that data is remotely close to being true, it means the commercial fishery can kill twice if not more of their annual landings quota in the pursuit of culling the size fish they want to retain which bring the highest catch values. Do you dispute that?

I never said managing the resource from the charts will get any better, I've actually said the opposite which is managing the resource in the manner NMFS has over the last two decades will insure one thing, the ultimate failure of this fishery.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less. You can have the last word, I've said my piece and I'm done with this discussion. Just keep this exchange in mind when NJ's regulation are 2 fish daily at 22" with a 60 day season.

So if you take your eyes off your data charts for 5 minutes , you would actually see that’s pretty much of what I wrote .
Basing charts off inaccurate data gets us no where .

IMO it makes no difference that recreational fisherman here are keeping fish above 18” because if we weren’t the commercial guys will .
IMO the small local commercial boats are also not the problem .
As they don’t get a ton of bycatch in their drags . , because their daily limit is so small .
The bigger 7 day fleet is absolutely the problem . Both sheer quantities being taken from every states resource . As well as much more discards due to longer drags because of high volume .

Making recreational fishing regs that actually closed the season will do nothing IF those larger fish quotas in NC aren’t changed .

With fluke down to 60 cents a pound last week , is even more proof the fluke were over fished through the spawn this winter . Commercially

So stop trying to make it a recreational fisherman’s problem .

.

[Broad Bill]

Making recreational fishing regs that actually closed the season will do nothing IF those larger fish quotas in NC aren’t changed .
So stop trying to make it a recreational fisherman’s problem.
.

Please tell me you have me confused with someone else's post on this thread. I've lobbied and advocated for years to change the hardships recreational anglers have endured with these asinine regulations. After everything we've discussed and everything I've posted on this site you think I'm suggesting this is a problem caused by recreational fisherman, you have to be oblivious to what my position has been. If you mean it's a problem recreational anglers have been forced to pay the consequences for, I completely agree. If you're suggesting I've said it's a problem caused by recreational fisherman you're out of your &*^%$%! mind. Sorry to the other members on the site, wasn't expecting such an asinine response.

[frugalfisherman]

Lots of charts and science here but I follow the real scientist.

[reason162]

If you retain fish which it appears you do, how many 18" plus fish have you caught over the last 5 years that were males? I"d bet you could count them on one hand.

I kept one fluke in the last 2 years - caught and released 14 fluke over 6lbs from shore last year, 2 over 7lbs 1 over 8. But I'm not your typical fluke angler - I actually see them as game fish and target them as such :)

The point is even if you lower the size limit to 16", we'll probably still be seeing majority females retained. Further point is, does it even matter re recruitment. Then we circle back to what you consider unreliable data and what the actual scientific community consider settled science.

[reason162]

And let me take a wild guess that you preferred and still do prefer 17.5 inch fish/option 2 and since what you want is not polling as well, the survey is obviously rigged :rolleyes:

Sounds apropos to the age we live in.

[mikdel]

3 at 171/2

[hammer4reel]

Looks like the whole list was accepted by ASMFC as written .
See those that care at the meeting in March

[Broad Bill]

Looks like the whole list was accepted by ASMFC as written .
See those that care at the meeting in March

Does the March meeting really matter? The below schedule is from the 2023 NOAA Management Track Assessment Report. Hammer I'd appreciate it if you didn't go ballistic for posting data or schedules real policy decisions are being based on. Note the change in landings between 2013 and 2022 between the commercial and recreational sectors. The commercial sector went from 5,696 metric tons landed in 2013 to 5,683 metric tons in 2013 or essentially status quo. Their catch values however, as they've targeted the harvest of larger higher market value fish, have actually increased over that same period. Main reason recruitment and the spawning stock have taken huge hits. The recreational sector, on the other hand, has declined from 8,806 metric tons in landings for 2013 to 3,916 in 2022, an almost 60% decline and based on the options we're faced with for 2024 and 2025 which mimic 2021 regulations or 6.35 million lbs. in landings, we're headed for an approximate 70% decrease relative to 2013. That would be the lowest landings level for the recreational sector in five decades short of one year in 1989 when landings were 2,566 metric tons. To put that in perspective, in the 80's the commercial sector averaged annual landings of 30 million lbs. or 13,500 metric tons a year. The fishery has never recovered from that onslaught.

So 3 fish at 17.5" with a shorter season, 3 fish at 18" with a longer season, a paper thin slot, no slot, different regulations for southern and northern NJ or different regulations for shore based anglers versus party boats and for hire, does it really matter in the big picture?

Decisions have already been made regarding 2024 and 2025 and March's meeting is simply a check the box procedural requirement based on MSA. We can't fight Town Hall, certainly can't fight the Federal government or compete with the commercial sectors funds and lobbying efforts. I don't mean to be a wet rag but whatever is said or decided at the March meeting is irrelevant to the damage already done to this fishery over the last 25 years and it's only getting worse.

[hammer4reel]

Does the March meeting really matter? The below schedule is from the 2023 NOAA Management Track Assessment Report. Hammer I'd appreciate it if you didn't go ballistic for posting data or schedules real policy decisions are being based on. Note the change in landings between 2013 and 2022 between the commercial and recreational sectors. The commercial sector went from 5,696 metric tons landed in 2013 to 5,683 metric tons in 2013 or essentially status quo. Their catch values however, as they've targeted the harvest of larger higher market value fish, have actually increased over that same window. Main reason recruitment and the spawning stock have taken huge hits. The recreational sector, on the other hand, has declined from 8,806 metric tons in landings for 2013 to 3,916 in 2022, an almost 60% decline and based on the options we're faced with for 2024 and 2025 which mimic 2021 regulations or 6.35 million lbs. in landings, we're headed for an approximate 70% decrease relative to 2013. That would be the lowest landings level for the recreational sector in five decades short of one year in 1989 when landings were 2,566 metric tons. To put that in perspective, in the 80's the commercial sector averaged annual landings of 30 million lbs. or 13,500 metric tons a year. The fishery has never recovered from that onslaught.

So 3 fish at 17.5" with a shorter season, 3 fish at 18" with a longer season, a paper thin slot, no slot, different regulations for southern and northern NJ or different regulations for shore based anglers versus party boats and for hire, does it really matter in the big picture?

Decisions have already been made regarding 2024 and 2025 and March's meeting is simply a check the box procedural requirement based on MSA. We can't fight Town Hall, certainly can't fight the Federal government or compete with the commercial sectors funds and lobbying efforts. I don't mean to be a wet rag but whatever is said or decided at the March meeting is irrelevant to the damage already done to this fishery over the last 25 years and it's only getting worse.

Unless the states can come up with a way to stop commercial boats from fishing in Federal waters and taking those landings back to states such as NC . I honestly could care less .
I see NO reason for recreational fisherman to throw back fish those boats end up taking .
Every year they try and put cut backs on the backs of recreational fisherman while allowing a total disregard to those fleets .

I truelly don’t understand how the small commercial fisherman aren’t up in arms about it .
As I said here a ton of times , a NJ based boat can catch 3000 pounds a week while a NC boat can fish right next to them and take 30000 a week .
Makes ZERO sense .

Quotas in States no longer having a fishery need to be addressed . As their only taking from all the rest of the states’


AND if you really look at those numbers can you honestly believe recreational discards are double what the commercial are ?
Thats saying they discard 1/10 , and we discard 1/4
Bad info in , bad info out

[Broad Bill]

Hammer we're in complete agreement on this. No way are recreational discards anywhere near commercial discards in either absolute numbers or as a percentage of catch or landings. North Carolina and Virginia make up just about 50% of the annual commercial harvest and I assume the 7 day boats you're referring to are from those states. They destroyed the southern stock, fish primarily during fall / winter months as well as during the spawn when fish are in highly concentrated schools and most vulnerable to netting. The waste from their netting I'd bet the ranch exceeds their entire catch quota for the entire year which is a disgrace in how this fishery is being managed. And yes, fish the recreational sector are forced to release are harvested or killed by commercials in their offshore migration in the fall, inshore migration in the spring or while stacked up wintering offshore. It's exactly the same reason we lost the winter flounder fishery, no stock can be pounded year round and during the spawn and survive. This one won't either so truthfully next week's meeting to me is anti-climatic because decisions as always have already been made and none of the options will address what's ailing this fishery if management doesn't address commercial regulations and the multitude of negative impacts their practices are having on the stock. In the big picture once again, the recreational angler is going to get the proverbial short end of the stick and nothing is being done for two more years to address the issues effecting the fishery.

[Broad Bill]

AND if you really look at those numbers can you honestly believe recreational discards are double what the commercial are ?
That's saying they discard 1/10 , and we discard 1/4
Bad info in , bad info out

Here's the problem. Your numbers based on what I posted are correct, that is what they assume. Their own discard statistics from federal observers prove commercial numbers reported on trip reports and used in setting quotas are wrong.

Two other issues. With lower recreational possession limits of 3 coupled with the ridiculous paper thin slot the last two years, if you catch 20 fish in a day trying to get your three keepers and their models assume one of those 20 die, you're already at a 1:3 or 33.33% dead discard to landings percentage. If the models assume three die, then the ratio is 3:3 or 100% dead discards to landings which translated means the recreational quota would be set at 50% landings and 50% discard mortality. Meaning the recreational harvest limit "RHL" would decrease substantially leading to more reduced possession limits, further increases to size limits or even shorter seasons. It's the insanity of how these models work and how the unfathomable use of size minimums to manage the fishery have not only hurt the stock but backed the recreational sector into a corner. In the words of the Perfect Storm, "It's not going to let us out!"

Commercial on the other hand have statistics which show actual dead discard to landings is substantially higher than what operators report on their trip reports. Instead of addressing those issues or charging the commercial sector with those higher percentages in establishing quotas, NMFS swept those statistics under the carpet. The mortality percentage NMFS uses in their models assumes 80% mortality of discards that come up in the nets. Does anyone with a brain honestly believe that translates into as you said 1 dead discard for every 10 fish harvested. I'd bet since size plays such an integral part in commercial fish harvested and catch values, the actual ratio is greater than 1 dead discard for every 1 fish harvested for the commercial sector which would exceed 100% of landings. The negative implications of this alone on the fishery are enormous.