How many going to fluke meeting

[hammer4reel]

So how many guys going to show up at the meeting Thursday evening ?

[togzilla]

I'll be on the webinar

[Fishin Dude]

Attending online, I'm convinced the decision is already made and they are just going through the steps. Many changes over the past 20 years, from 8 fish at 16.6 inches with a 156 day season, to this. Heard promises, attended meetings, rallies, donated $$$ to the cause, still getting hosed, still fishing. I'm also in on the State Trout Meeting Webinar scheduled on the same night, not to further divide or anything I'm sure.

[pddmd]

I'll be there
I can promise you things have not been decided

[Gerry Zagorski]

Attending via webinar and for those of you who don’t know, pddmd ^^^ is one of the council members who gets to decide the regulations.

[Broad Bill]

I agree with Gerry, PDDMD is one of the good guys. I'll say it up front, I'm not attending the meeting and here's my reason. We go through this process every year and the discussions which should matter most are never discussed, and that's what's best to nurse the fishery back to health and address egregious issues caused by outdated regulations used for the last two decades. No one ever discusses fisheries management which is the exact opposite of how fresh water fisheries are managed. These meetings, I'm sorry to say, don't accomplish what you'd hope they would. They're a requirement of MSA and if decisions haven't been made, when they are they'll be made as always for reasons that have nothing to do with the management of the stock. So where I agree an official decision hasn't been made, the foundation of that decision has and it has nothing to do with how many people attend the meeting in person or virtually or what those people have to say. This starts with the federal government having their heads in the sand and favoring commercial catch values and the lack of focus on actual fisheries management and the states are essentially forced to follow the trickle down effects of a federal system which bases their decisions on sectors, heavily slanted towards the commercial sector, and not what's best for the stocks under their management. I spend my time on matters that can benefit from my involvement, these meetings don't check that box. Some will say that's a defeatist attitude, history will support it's a realistic attitude. That's the frustration the general public and recreational community has with this process and it's well supported because basically every year we get screwed.

[dales529]

Comments submitted and will be attending via webinar.

[tautog]

I will wait for the sea bass meeting next year and be bringing 2 flasks and bail money.

[dales529]

I agree with Gerry, PDDMD is one of the good guys. I'll say it up front, I'm not attending the meeting and here's my reason. We go through this process every year and the discussions which should matter most are never discussed, and that's what's best to nurse the fishery back to health and address egregious issues caused by outdated regulations used for the last two decades. No one ever discusses fisheries management which is the exact opposite of how fresh water fisheries are managed. These meetings, I'm sorry to say, don't accomplish what you'd hope they would. They're a requirement of MSA and if decisions haven't been made, when they are they'll be made as always for reasons that have nothing to do with the management of the stock. So where I agree an official decision hasn't been made, the foundation of that decision has and it has nothing to do with how many people attend the meeting in person or virtually or what those people have to say. This starts with the federal government having their heads in the sand and favoring commercial catch values and the lack of focus on actual fisheries management and the states are essentially forced to follow the trickle down effects of a federal system which bases their decisions on sectors, heavily slanted towards the commercial sector, and not what's best for the stocks under their management. I spend my time on matters that can benefit from my involvement, these meetings don't check that box. Some will say that's a defeatist attitude, history will support it's a realistic attitude. That's the frustration the general public and recreational community has with this process and it's well supported because basically every year we get screwed.

BB: Keep in mind this is as I am sure you are aware a NJMFC meeting and their obligation is to decide on the options dictated by ASMFC and MAMFC to be compliant so no reason not to weigh in on the options at this meeting.
The larger issue as you stated is on the federal level but we all can at least support the for hire, tackle shops and related service industries that could benefit most from the options dumped down to our state.
I opt for # 32 / 3 @ 18 / 145 days ,the longest season for economic and moral support to those NJ industries.

The Feds admit MRIP data on the recreational side is flawed up to 40% relative to NJ recreational effort, mortality and landings so it appears NJ recreational fishing for summer flounder has little to no proven effect on recruitment or biomass of the stock.
While I don't like the options for the overall stock this meeting is what's available for NJ at this given time and the rest is another battle which I agree we have been fighting way too long with little results on the Federal level.

Either way NJ Rec Fishermen should still make comments and attend the meeting to support the best option in their opinion so NJMFC can hear and make the best decision possible. I hope its what appears to be overwhelming support for option #32.

Having said all that I understand that the whole "keeping 18" females " is against rebuilding a stock in decline and agree with your opinion that protecting the spawn and further commercial regulation is mandatory just remain in my opinion its not this meeting.

[hammer4reel]

BB: Keep in mind this is as I am sure you are aware a NJMFC meeting and their obligation is to decide on the options dictated by ASMFC and MAMFC to be compliant so no reason not to weigh in on the options at this meeting.
The larger issue as you stated is on the federal level but we all can at least support the for hire, tackle shops and related service industries that could benefit most from the options dumped down to our state.
I opt for # 32 / 3 @ 18 / 145 days ,the longest season for economic and moral support to those NJ industries.

The Feds admit MRIP data on the recreational side is flawed up to 40% relative to NJ recreational effort, mortality and landings so it appears NJ recreational fishing for summer flounder has little to no proven effect on recruitment or biomass of the stock.
While I don't like the options for the overall stock this meeting is what's available for NJ at this given time and the rest is another battle which I agree we have been fighting way too long with little results on the Federal level.

Either way NJ Rec Fishermen should still make comments and attend the meeting to support the best option in their opinion so NJMFC can hear and make the best decision possible. I hope its what appears to be overwhelming support for option #32.

Having said all that I understand that the whole "keeping 18" females " is against rebuilding a stock in decline and agree with your opinion that protecting the spawn and further commercial regulation is mandatory just remain in my opinion its not this meeting.

This meeting is about our access to the fishery while maintaining the 28% cut
.
All approved option meet the standard being imposed for rebuild .

So now it’s all about how we want the seasons access to break down .

.

[dales529]

This meeting is about our access to the fishery while maintaining the 28% cut
.
All approved option meet the standard being imposed for rebuild .

So now it’s all about how we want the seasons access to break down .

.

Exactly: Apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

[hammer4reel]

Exactly: Apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

You were on access portion ,
But it’s also meeting the rebuild requirements

[Broad Bill]

Dales and Hammer, I agree with both your posts. And Dales I know the problem starts at the federal level and as I said trickles down to the states from there. I've been to too many of these meetings where the voice of the recreational angler is essentially ignored with decisions made counter to what overwhelmingly was favored at the meeting. And we usually find out later it was a handful of people involved in the decision making process with a completely different agenda than the overall recreational angling community.

I'm not suggesting people don't attend, I guess maybe I'm just beaten down by the number of times our opinions have fallen on deaf ears which I know is what many (not all) involved in this process, both at a federal and state level, want.

I hope the majority gets what they want, just don't be surprised if a different option at the last minute comes out of left field. No one ever sees it coming.

[Broad Bill]

Someone help me understand the logic here. Option 32 is 3 fish at 18" for 145 days. Option 24 is for 3 fish, one a micro slot again between 17" and 18" and 2 over 18" with a 89 day season or 56 days less of fishing effort or an ~40% shorter season. EVERYTHING about recreational catch and MRIP is based on fishing effort so we have 56 days less fishing effort, same possession limit albeit one fish a slot and the projected reduction in catch is higher for option 24 by only 8/10th of a percent from 28.2% to 29%!

How do the models remove 56 days from a season, still keep a three fish possession limit and the only difference is one allows the third fish to be over 18" and the other the third fish has to be between 17" and 18", which will probably result in more fish killed being discarded, and there's only an 8/10th of a percent difference in projected catch!

Compare the same between option 32 and 23 with three fish at 17.5" and 41 less days in the season. Everyone complained this year about how hard it is to find fish between 17" and 18" yet 41 days less in a season by giving up a half inch in size minimum equates to the same conservational equivalency as option 32. Lose 30% of the season for three size fish that are hard to come by and the percentage reduction in catch mirrors option 32. I'd love to see how these models work because on the surface from a relative perspective they don't make any sense.

[hammer4reel]

Someone help me understand the logic here. Option 32 is 3 fish at 18" for 145 days. Option 24 is for 3 fish, one a micro slot again between 17" and 18" and 2 over 18" with a 89 day season or 56 days less of fishing effort or an ~40% shorter season. EVERYTHING about recreational catch and MRIP is based on fishing effort so we have 56 days less fishing effort, same possession limit albeit one fish a slot and the projected reduction in catch is higher for option 24 by only 8/10th of a percent from 28.2% to 29%!

How do the models remove 56 days from a season, still keep a three fish possession limit and the only difference is one allows the third fish to be over 18" and the other the third fish has to be between 17" and 18", which will probably result in more fish killed being discarded, and there's only an 8/10th of a percent difference in projected catch!

Compare the same between option 32 and 23 with three fish at 17.5" and 41 less days in the season. Everyone complained this year about how hard it is to find fish between 17" and 18" yet 41 days less in a season by giving up a half inch in size minimum equates to the same conservational equivalency as option 32. Lose 30% of the season for three size fish that are hard to come by and the percentage reduction in catch mirrors option 32. I'd love to see how these models work because on the surface from a relative perspective they don't make any sense.


Add in totals are based on tonnage , so 17 1/2” fish weigh less .
So you should be able to harvest more. .


So has to be based on throwing back more fish (which are heavier ) to find the shorter fish .

We have said if for years , throw back 10 shorts with their 40% mortality and you over fished by 30 % and didn’t take a fish home .
.

Then throw in the belief that the majority of the male fish stay well offshore all year . Meaning most fish targeted here will be females no matter what the size is .

[Broad Bill]

Hammer I know a 17 1/2" or 17" fish usually weigh less but again that depends on its gender and the slot will cause higher discard mortality while in theory a straight 17 1/2" should reduce discard mortality. The decrease in fishing effort by 56 or 41 days should cause substantially greater catch reductions than what the models are calculating relative to a straight 3 fish at 18". 17" or 17 1/2" don't weigh 30% - 40% less than 18" inch fish. I especially don't understand the marginal difference in catch reduction between options 32 and 23 with a season shortened by 41 days or 30%, a 1/2 inch reduction in size minimum with 30% less days to fish should produce significantly greater catch reductions than a fraction of a percentage.

The other point in you post regarding males hanging further offshore. Recreational is an inshore fishery and from a relative standpoint will have equal impact on all options whether we're harvesting mostly makes or females. Commercial's catch is highly geared around spring, fall and winter when the stock is schooled up so they're harvesting more females than males at that time. I had a few friends years back working in processing plants and asked them how many fluke in the fall coming in are females versus males. Females have to make the migration offshore just like males. Their answers were in September and October, the majority of fish they processed were females loaded with eggs.

[pddmd]

Just a thought
We just spent 2 years focusing our catch on a small component of the fishery
17"-18" fish
That will greatly impact the expected success of landing 18"-19"fish this year
Dropping down to a slot sized fish will be impacting a year class that we have been releasing throughout
Just a thought as it is a question I have asked earlier

I always think of the quote...
"There are 3 types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.."

[hammer4reel]

Just a thought
We just spent 2 years focusing our catch on a small component of the fishery
17"-18" fish
That will greatly impact the expected success of landing 18"-19"fish this year
Dropping down to a slot sized fish will be impacting a year class that we have been releasing throughout
Just a thought as it is a question I have asked earlier

I always think of the quote...
"There are 3 types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.."

absolutely, but hopefully all the 20-22 fish we threw back the last 2 years make up the difference .

Would have been nice to see a longer season for 17” size limit to come into play .
IMO not worth losing 12 weeks if fishing the next 2 years .
Hopefully everything adjusts itself after this coming season .
.

[pddmd]

The 2 year plan is a huge reason why I will vote the way I do. I wish I wasn't as cynical as I am, but I think I am naive to believe that a relaxation of Sea Bass regulations are coming next year. If we don't push for a long fluke season now, the gap in September '25 could be untenable. Party/Charter boats, bait and tackle shops will not survive a gap of more than a few days. Fluke and Sea Bass drive the bus. The eventual plan is to handle Fluke, Sea Bass, and Porgy at the same time. But for now we have to handle things this way.

[Gerry Zagorski]

The 2 year plan is a huge reason why I will vote the way I do. I wish I wasn't as cynical as I am, but I think I am naive to believe that a relaxation of Sea Bass regulations are coming next year. If we don't push for a long fluke season now, the gap in September '25 could be untenable. Party/Charter boats, bait and tackle shops will not survive a gap of more than a few days. Fluke and Sea Bass drive the bus. The eventual plan is to handle Fluke, Sea Bass, and Porgy at the same time. But for now we have to handle things this way.

Agreed. I'll trade higher sizes limits for a longer season every time. To me and I think a lot of others here, it's about access. We want access to the resource for as many days as possible so we at least have an opportunity to go out and fish for something.

I know the NJ Council's hands are tied on Seabass liberalization. A real shame that we don't get some relief from the fisheries managers there..

[Broad Bill]

Just a thought
We just spent 2 years focusing our catch on a small component of the fishery
17"-18" fish
That will greatly impact the expected success of landing 18"-19"fish this year


You're comment assumes those fish haven't been mopped up by the commercial sector as has been mentioned more than a few times on this site

[Broad Bill]

And I still don't understand how two options with a 30% and 40% reduction in fishing efforts results the same projected catch reductions as 3 fish at 18" and a 145 day season. Makes zero sense and lesser weight for fish a 1/2 inch or inch smaller is not enough to explain these statistics.

[hammer4reel]

And I still don't understand how two options with a 30% and 40% reduction in fishing efforts results the same projected catch reductions as 3 fish at 18" and a 145 day season. Makes zero sense and lesser weight for fish a 1/2 inch or inch smaller is not enough to explain these statistics.

The guy who ran all the models will be there . Good time to go and ask .

.

[pddmd]

This won't be the day to ask questions like that. Currently we have 70 people signed up to comment on webinar, plus an expected crowd in person. That will allow for 1 minute per person. this will allow for 2+ hours of public comment before Council begins deliberations. If you submit a question via email it will be answered

[Duffman]

So how many guys going to show up at the meeting Thursday evening ?

306 East Jimmie Leeds Rd Galloway. Ya ****ing kidding me right? Then ask how many guys will attend? Such a joke.

[Gerry Zagorski]

On the Webinar right now and the councils preferred option is 32 which is 3 fish at 18 inches or better from 5/4 - 9/25 which affords us the longest season.

Most every public comment supported option 32 as well, both written and at the meeting/webinar.

Great to see so many people made comments, the council mentioned this was the most comments they ever received and appreciated the public input.

Job well done and option 32 was chosen!

[hammer4reel]

306 East Jimmie Leeds Rd Galloway. Ya ****ing kidding me right? Then ask how many guys will attend? Such a joke.

Guess depends on how much the fishery means to you .
Guys drove there from Pa , I know when I lived west of Clinton I still made that drive .
Was many guys there from 2 hours away or more

Webinar seemed to run well , but that hasn’t always been the case .
.

It has been asked that they get a more central location .
But being within an hour of where most northern guys fish didn’t make it that bad.

.