Fluke Stock Theory

[Broad Bill]

Don’t want to cannibalize other threads so starting a new one about the state of the fluke fishery from my perspective based on reports, time on the water, and research I’ve done for almost 10 years now. South winds, regulations, cold water, harvesting the breeding stock, impact of commercial fishing, no protection for the spawn, year round commercial pressure, advancements in commercial fishing technology, substantial build-up of the offshore winter commercial fleet especially from southern states like North Carolina and Virginia, increases in wholesale prices for larger fish, regulations mandating the harvest of larger sexually mature age groups or the mega breeders of the stock, bias by regulatory agencies favoring the commercial sector and insane amounts of commercial discard mortality etc. are all factoring into the decline of this fishery.

As many have said in prior posts, we’ve had south winds forever. The frequency of south winds is what’s changed this year but the Jersey Shore and south winds have always gone hand in hand and it no doubt effects the bite. Years ago, they usually came up in the afternoon coinciding with rising air temperatures throughout the day. This year they seem to be an all-day occurrence and for weeks on end. I remember years ago fishing the Long Branch pier when we’d be hammering fluke of all sizes every cast. If the wind shifted to the south, the bite stopped immediately as if someone hit a switch. The impact can be that extreme and happen that quickly. I’ve seen it too many times to believe it’s a coincidence. BUT with that said, if shorts are feeding, larger specimens should be as well. The problem we’re seeing is the older age class groups of this stock have been pounded far too long, regulations have caused that portion of the biomass to materially decline and there’s no stock that can sustain itself under those conditions as recruitment levels are destroyed which is what we’ve seen over at minimum the last decade.

Fish are still being caught. Problem is with continued emphasis on harvesting 18” and larger fish both commercially and recreationally, the stock has gone through a transformation of age groups and gender composition. On water studies support both and aren’t disputable. The biomass overall has declined otherwise we wouldn’t have seen a decrease in commercial quotas this year from 15.5 million lbs. in 2023 to 8.8 million lbs. in 2024 or a 43% decrease. Half that commercial quota is allocated to Virginia (1.8 million lbs.) and North Carolina (2.4 million lbs.) who harvest almost exclusively during the fall / winter months off our coast. That decrease in commercial quota alone should concern everyone as that sector has always received preferential treatment in the management of this stock so if they’re taking that degree of a haircut from NMFS, what does that tell us about the overall health of the fishery. When conditions are more favorable, you’ll see fish caught but the biomass isn’t there anymore. That’s a leading indicator a fishery is in decline and coupled with the fact the larger age groups are disappearing from the stock for multiple reasons, this stock has a limited and bleak future.

We can talk about the impacts a slot, size slot, the fact the last two year NJ had a ridiculously thin 17” - 18” slot, which by the way tremendously helped party and for hire vessels, may have led to the elimination of an age group but I don’t agree with that theory. As far as I know, NJ is the only state that implemented a slot. NJ has approximately 23% of the recreational quota and if we think the NJ slot based on those numbers killed an entire age group, I disagree that two years for one state with a slot and a 20% portion of the recreational quota would have that dramatic an impact. At the same time, if you adhere to that theory, you'd have to agree for the same reason that harvesting 18" plus fish since 2008 due to size minimum regulations has had the same impact on the mega breeders of the stock.

Look at the below chart (first graph) which I’ve posted here before. Black bars are on board federal observer percentages of commercial discard to landings, even though it says catch. Blue bars are percentages from operator’s VTR (Vessel Trip Reports) to landings which operators are required to provide every trip on an honor system basis. They can put any percentage on the VTR they wish and its completely unsubstantiated. Chart was from the 57th stock assessment and removed from every stock assessment since because of the picture it paints about the waste commercial netting causes in this fishery. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, dead discard was reported by independent observers at 85%, 145% and 95% of landings. Commercial landings (in lbs.) for those years were 13.9 million, 10 million and 9.2 million. That means for those three years alone if NMFS used their own observers discard percentage statistics for dead discard mortality as opposed to arbitrary VTR percentages from commercial operators which you know are intentionally understated, the commercial sector killed 11.8 million, 14.5 million and 8.75 million pounds of less desirable fish or 35 million pounds in total to harvest 33 million pounds. More than 100% discard mortality in the harvest of their allowable quota. If the fish discarded averaged 1.5 pounds, the future of the fishery, in three years the commercial sector killed 23 million fish in the process of harvesting 33 million pounds of higher value fish!

Notice how the range changes between blue and black bars in 2000. Why? Because when size minimums started being used in the recreational sector to handicap recreational harvest and ultimately push 14” to 18” fish to the exclusive harvest of the commercial sector, commercial operators started harvesting those larger more valuable fish and killing the younger age classes caught in their nets. It’s called “selective harvest” and it will always result in substantially higher discard rates and waste in any fishery.

A table I created from stock assessment data (second graph) used to set and manage quotas is attached depicting weight assignments of fish. Most people never get to this level of understanding exactly how the recreational sector is being screwed and the fishery itself is being mismanaged. The table shows unexplained weight disparities of fish caught commercially versus the same age class weights assigned to fish caught recreationally. There's two parts of the analysis, for some reason NMFS assigns different weight values to fish harvested commercially from Maine to Virginia than they do for fish harvested by North Carolina. What makes this disparity even more ridiculous is North Carolina is harvesting almost 100% of their fish from our local waters and weights should be identical to recreational. We’re all fishing essentially the same body of fish at this point other than maybe commercials operating from Gloucester and points north. There’s a 40% to 60% discrepancy in the weights assigned to identical age classes between sectors. If you consider the overall annual quota is allocated 60/40 in favor of the commercial sector along with the fact assigned weight values range between 40% to 60% lower for the commercial fishery for identical age class fish, the commercial fishery is actually getting closer to a 75% allocation of every year’s overall quota versus 25% for the recreational sector. Now add the above discard percentages associated with commercial netting, no closed season during the spawn and NMFS or the NEFSC having no idea what the impact is of commercial netting during the spawn on recruitment coupled with the year round pounding of the stock commercially and the problem this fishery is facing is obvious. The stock is in a freefall and it won’t rebound unless there’s a complete overhaul in how it’s being managed which won’t happen until it’s too late. Anyone expecting this to reverse trend next year because we don’t have a slot in New Jersey this year I think will be very disappointed. And when the commercial fleet does the same to the Mid-Atlantic stock which they did to the Chesapeake stock and move further north to Massachusetts and the last remaining Southern New England biomass, it’s game over.

Sorry to be the wet rag here but it doesn’t take science or a genius to realize you can’t target the breeding population of a stock, kill substantial portions of younger age classes in the process, completely disrupt the spawn without understanding the consequences and have a year round commercial fishery providing no protection to the stock whatsoever and think any fishery will survive those conditions. This fishery will fail unless corrective measure are taken to manage it as opposed to exploiting it. Management doesn’t like using words like “collapse” or “fail” but that’s exactly what we’re witnessing and will continue to experience with this stock.

[JettiCrawler85]

Great post Broad Bill!

Sitting on the couch right now with not a thing to do. I would be fishing but it’s been total crap!

Maybe I’ll go sink some crabs and try to muster up a Tog.

Time to break out the tip ups and rearrange the jet sled. Get me on the ice!

Oh wait - there won’t be any of that this year either!

SMH !!!

[hammer4reel]

If your info was accurate (which I don’t believe it’s even close )
Then NMFS would have to take those ridiculously high discards into account in landings .
Just like they add release mortality into ours .

They don’t just drag and drag until their nets are over full . And then throw back as many dead fish as they keep .
To them every fish is money .

Actually look at reports from Long Island and all the states above us .
Why are they experiencing the best fluke fishing they have ever seen ?

It’s pretty evident there is a movement of the main biomass of this fishery .

The movement that should have been filling in here. Was absolutely crushed by the commercial fleets from the Carolina’s .
.

While fishing here def isn’t good by any means , this year there has been more commercial presence in our area than ever . And they definitely are catching their weekly quotas here .
So fish are here , even if recreational guys aren’t catching

[Broad Bill]

If your info was accurate (which I don’t believe it’s even close )
Then NMFS would have to take those ridiculously high discards into account in landings .
Just like they add release mortality into ours .

They don’t just drag and drag until their nets are over full . And then throw back as many dead fish as they keep .
To them every fish is money .

Actually look at reports from Long Island and all the states above us .
Why are they experiencing the best fluke fishing they have ever seen ?

It’s pretty evident there is a movement of the main biomass of this fishery .

The movement that should have been filling in here. Was absolutely crushed by the commercial fleets from the Carolina’s .
.

While fishing here def isn’t good by any means , this year there has been more commercial presence in our area than ever . And they definitely are catching their weekly quotas here .
So fish are here , even if recreational guys aren’t catching

H4R, I'm not makin the discard information up, the graph is from federal on board observers. Who should we believe, you or someone whose job includes among other things monitoring discards and compliance among commercial vessels? My money is on the on board observers.

NMFS would have to take these ridiculously high discard numbers into account in their landings. This says the man who has maintained all these years every number published by NMFS can't be correct but now this number had to be added to commercial landings why, because you say so. First it should be added to discard mortality, not landings, and second if you do the research it wasn't reported as you know what commercial landing have been running at commercially for years. I'm sure NMFS just posted the information to piss off the commercials and open themselves up to another lawsuit by that sector.

I agree, to them every fish is money. But at the same time every fish that brings the highest catch value back at the dock is more money. This coming from someone who not long ago posted that commercials target the largest fish because that's where the money is. Can't have it both ways my friend. I'm sure their nets aren't geared to catch only the largest and miss the massive amount of younger age classes that become collateral damage and tossed back overboard dead. NEFSC maintains an 80% mortality rate for commercial discards per tow. I'm sure it's higher and in the winter it's 100% as fish harvested are taken care of first and then the fish being discarded are shoveled overboard. How many fish coming up from 100 plus ft. depths in 30 degree temps do you actually think survive after being towed around and left on deck for a half hour?

It’s pretty evident there is a movement of the main biomass of this fishery. The movement that should have been filling in here was absolutely crushed by the commercial fleets from the Carolina’s .

Thank you, you're making my point. Commercials are killing the southern portion of the biomass in our waters and eventually they'll be forced to move north when they do the same thing to our local biomass they did to the Chesapeake biomass years ago. Then they'll have no choice but to move further north and target the last remaining biomass that's left. The northerly biomass isn't growing, the southerly portion is contracting, exactly what I've been saying. And I thought you said the biomass wasn't back filling here because of New Jersey's recreational slot limit, now you're saying it is in fact because of local commercial pressure which I agree with among other things. Got it, thanks for the clarification and getting it right.

Again yes there's more commercial presence this year than ever and they are catching their quotas which were reduced by 43%. You honestly believe they're keeping smaller less valuable fish after taking a 43% haircut in quota. It's economics 101 my friend, and you question the accuracy of my information and opinions. Not going to get into a debate, stated my theory and time will tell whether it's correct or not but as I said, this fishery can't be managed the way it is and survive.

Name one other fishery that kills all breeders, has a year round commercial presence, kills millions of younger age classes in the processes, pounds the stock not only during their spawn but year round, has insane amounts of waste involved and God only knows how much illicit netting is taking place and I'll be more prone to listen to your arguments. Just name one fishery which has survived those conditions? That shouldn't be a difficult request for someone of your talents and pulse on the fishery.

[reason162]

Actually look at reports from Long Island and all the states above us .
Why are they experiencing the best fluke fishing they have ever seen?

I agree that the biomass is shifting north, but asides from a couple of SS bays the fluke fishing in NY and northern states has been abysmal this year.

[Broad Bill]

I agree that the biomass is shifting north, but asides from a couple of SS bays the fluke fishing in NY and northern states has been abysmal this year.

Roger I agree the biomass is and has always been moving north. I believe it's a natural progression of the fish which do get through the gauntlet of commercial netting and get larger, enhanced by less fishing pressure for now overall in northern waters and to some degree which is difficult to quantify warming ocean temperatures. With that said, I believe geographical expansion of the stock is not what we're talking about here to your point about abysmal fishing north of here, I think it's as I've been saying for years symptoms of a fishery in dire trouble.

[hammer4reel]

H4R, I'm not makin the discard information up, the graph is from federal on board observers. Who should we believe, you or someone whose job includes among other things monitoring discards and compliance among commercial vessels? My money is on the on board observers.

NMFS would have to take these ridiculously high discard numbers into account in their landings. This says the man who has maintained all these years every number published by NMFS can't be correct but now this number had to be added to commercial landings why, because you say so. First it should be added to discard mortality, not landings, and second if you do the research it wasn't reported as you know what commercial landing have been running at commercially for years. I'm sure NMFS just posted the information to piss off the commercials and open themselves up to another lawsuit by that sector.

I agree, to them every fish is money. But at the same time every fish that brings the highest catch value back at the dock is more money. This coming from someone who not long ago posted that commercials target the largest fish because that's where the money is. Can't have it both ways my friend. I'm sure their nets aren't geared to catch only the largest and miss the massive amount of younger age classes that become collateral damage and tossed back overboard dead. NEFSC maintains an 80% mortality rate for commercial discards per tow. I'm sure it's higher and in the winter it's 100% as fish harvested are taken care of first and then the fish being discarded are shoveled overboard. How many fish coming up from 100 plus ft. depths in 30 degree temps do you actually think survive after being towed around and left on deck for a half hour?

It’s pretty evident there is a movement of the main biomass of this fishery. The movement that should have been filling in here was absolutely crushed by the commercial fleets from the Carolina’s .

Thank you, you're making my point. Commercials are killing the southern portion of the biomass in our waters and eventually they'll be forced to move north when they do the same thing to our local biomass they did to the Chesapeake biomass years ago. Then they'll have no choice but to move further north and target the last remaining biomass that's left. The northerly biomass isn't growing, the southerly portion is contracting, exactly what I've been saying. And I thought you said the biomass wasn't back filling here because of New Jersey's recreational slot limit, now you're saying it is in fact because of local commercial pressure which I agree with among other things. Got it, thanks for the clarification and getting it right.

Again yes there's more commercial presence this year than ever and they are catching their quotas which were reduced by 43%. You honestly believe they're keeping smaller less valuable fish after taking a 43% haircut in quota. It's economics 101 my friend, and you question the accuracy of my information and opinions. Not going to get into a debate, stated my theory and time will tell whether it's correct or not but as I said, this fishery can't be managed the way it is and survive.

Name one other fishery that kills all breeders, has a year round commercial presence, kills millions of younger age classes in the processes, pounds the stock not only during their spawn but year round, has insane amounts of waste involved and God only knows how much illicit netting is taking place and I'll be more prone to listen to your arguments. Just name one fishery which has survived those conditions? That shouldn't be a difficult request for someone of your talents and pulse on the fishery.


How longs it been since you actually caught a fluke , and filleted it ?
Even when we had the slot the last two years all the fluke had eggs in them .
There were no males out of hundreds of fish we caught .

Newer study’s believe males hardly come inshore . So should we make it a minimum of 15 miles before you’re allowed to fluke ?

I agree they allow commercials to fish at times when they are stacked up , and easier to catch including the spawn .
But you’re constantly stretching even your own imagination to double or triple what actually happens .

Fg monitors pretty well what goes on here with local boats , not so sure how well with out of state boats .

As far as them only catching their quotas because it was lowered , there are more boats fishing here daily than ever .
Reason is most guys that scalloped now aren’t because of those quota cuts .
Fluke is the only thing available , so they are doing that .

.
I also didn’t say fish weren’t filling in here because of the slot .
I said the absence of age class fish that would be 18” was hammered the last two years .
Plenty of fish above 19” and under 17”

Data charts are only as good as the info used to make them .
Your data is always skewed , and that’s why it never got the traction it should have recieved .

[hammer4reel]

I agree that the biomass is shifting north, but asides from a couple of SS bays the fluke fishing in NY and northern states has been abysmal this year.

I definitely don’t agree with that .
Ny, RI and Massachusetts have been having awesome fluking this year .
Many claiming the best ever .

Massachusetts normally has a slow period from mid June to August .
They have had solid catches weekly .

[reason162]

I definitely don’t agree with that .
Ny, RI and Massachusetts have been having awesome fluking this year .
Many claiming the best ever.

I don't know what to say - that is the polar opposite from what I hear from people who fish from Montauk on north (regular patrons of party/charter boats + captains).

[Broad Bill]

How longs it been since you actually caught a fluke , and filleted it ?
Even when we had the slot the last two years all the fluke had eggs in them .
There were no males out of hundreds of fish we caught .

Newer study’s believe males hardly come inshore . So should we make it a minimum of 15 miles before you’re allowed to fluke ?

I agree they allow commercials to fish at times when they are stacked up , and easier to catch including the spawn .
But you’re constantly stretching even your own imagination to double or triple what actually happens .

Fg monitors pretty well what goes on here with local boats , not so sure how well with out of state boats .

As far as them only catching their quotas because it was lowered , there are more boats fishing here daily than ever .
Reason is most guys that scalloped now aren’t because of those quota cuts .
Fluke is the only thing available , so they are doing that .

.
I also didn’t say fish weren’t filling in here because of the slot .
I said the absence of age class fish that would be 18” was hammered the last two years .
Plenty of fish above 19” and under 17”

Data charts are only as good as the info used to make them .
Your data is always skewed , and that’s why it never got the traction it should have received .

How long has it been since I've caught and filleted a fluke, July of this year.
What's your point?

I've always said most fish over 18" are females so not sure what your comment is responding to. You can revisit all my prior posts if you wish. Do males typically stage offshore more than females, maybe that's today's conventional wisdom after all these years but it's not what Rutgers study showed. When's the last time you filleted a fish under 18" to see if it was male or female? Couldn't be later than 2007 which was the last time the minimum size limit was less than 18" in New Jersey at 17". I do however know back then many fish that size and smaller when the regulations allowed the recreational sector to harvest those smaller sizes many more fish being harvested were males and yes that was from filleting many fluke.

An 18" male fluke is about 8-9 years old, how many male fluke do you think in todays world actually live that long between natural mortality and year round commercial onslaught? About five years ago, two male fluke were given honorable mention in trawl studies in a presentation Kiley Dancy gave in Delaware. Their sizes were 20" and 21"! Even if males have a tendency of staging more offshore which I'd question, harvesting 18" plus fish will continue killing off almost exclusively female breeders which will be the ultimate death of this fishery.

Stretching my imagination, really. Question, when party boats catch hundreds of shorts and return to the docks with 7 keepers, how many of those same fish do you think commercials would kill if they worked that same patch of fish. I know commercials can keep 14" and up but that's not the size they're after, they retain the largest fish to get the highest catch value. So if you think federal observer numbers are wrong and commercials are reporting accurate discard percentages on VTR's or their discard to landing ratio is anywhere near what's being reported, you can keep believing that delusion.

FG monitors landings, they have no idea what discards at sea are and they're too stretched out to control illegal harvest by commercials. It's a problem in every state and one boat can do tremendous damage to the stock. Codfather and more recently Montauk FV New Age, owner operator Christopher Winkler, to mention a few. Black market commercial netting is rampant.

Commercials only catching their quota because it was lowered, I'm not even sure what you're responding to since I never brought that up. I do agree that fluke are getting pounded more than ever because of cuts in other fisheries so we agree on that.

I used NMFS data against them to illustrate the flaws in their policies. My essential conclusions were increased size limits to recreational pushed more access of the overall fishery to commercial at the recreational sector's expense. That's a fact. I showed that increases in size minimums had a direct correlations every year since 2000 to reductions in the proportion of females to males in the stock based on their own studies. That's a fact and one anyone whose fished this stock will attest to. And as the female population got clobbered, recruitment followed suit. That would seem to be common sense, kill the breeders and recruitment will suffer dearly. Females grow larger and live longer, a fact that's been supported by many independent studies so when you increase minimums and incent selective harvest by the commercial sector to maximize catch values as quotas are being cut, you're asking for huge problems.

I'm not a construction worker and don't profess to be. You're not a technical or analytical guy so don't try to be. I've done more research on this fishery than you ever will with select data I believe is representative of the fishery, passed peer review, years on the water, sources I have in the industry and common sense. Do I believe MRIP is accurate, not at all. Do I believe 25% natural mortality is accurate, I have no idea. Do I believe recreational discard percentages are correct, I think anything involved with MRIP is questionable at best. But my analysis isn't made up of that data. The trends I've shown in the fishery coinciding with regulations, changes in the biomass, reductions in size and possession limits, reduction in recruitment etc. are reflective of what we're seeing in the fishery so if you wish to opine on something you know nothing about that's your prerogative. My work turned a lot of heads but never got the traction it deserved because it challenged the decisions being made managing this fishery which showed those decisions are actually hurting it more than helping it and being made for the benefit of economics and not fisheries management. Politics in other words. You think Mark Terceiro, Mike Luisi, Kiley Dancy, Chris Batsavage, Chris Moore, Brandon Muffley, or any of the other decision makers from NMFS, NEFSC, ASMFC or MAMFC will admit to their mistakes over the last two decades managing this fishery or any other? Too much money changing hands. Doesn't work that way, just as Michael Waine from ASA decided to play politics instead of addressing the issues we discussed with him years ago.

Instead we've gone from one of the most robust fisheries ever to continued declines in the biomass, quotas and regulations to the recreational sector over the last two decades coinciding with the continued use of increased size minimums as the preferred method to manage recreational catch. This year's massive quota cuts, an abysmal season to date and you want us to believe this happened because of what? Since you probably filleted more fish than me this year, almost all females I'm sure, I'll bow to your ultimate wisdom of the fishery as to why this is all happening and what needs to be done to correct it. I'll do that if you answer the one question I asked in my earlier post which is name one fishery being managed the same way this fishery is which is sustainable and growing. You can't because there aren't any.

[Broad Bill]

I don't know what to say - that is the polar opposite from what I hear from people who fish from Montauk on north (regular patrons of party/charter boats + captains).

And its the polar opposite of people I know in the charter business and private boat owners north of NY / NJ as well.

[hammer4reel]

How long has it been since I've caught and filleted a fluke, July of this year.
What's your point?

I've always said most fish over 18" are females so not sure what your comment is responding to. You can revisit all my prior posts if you wish. Do males typically stage offshore more than females, maybe that's today's conventional wisdom after all these years but it's not what Rutgers study showed. When's the last time you filleted a fish under 18" to see if it was male or female? Couldn't be later than 2007 which was the last time the minimum size limit was less than 18" in New Jersey at 17". I do however know back then many fish that size and smaller when the regulations allowed the recreational sector to harvest those smaller sizes many more fish being harvested were males and yes that was from filleting many fluke.

An 18" male fluke is about 8-9 years old, how many male fluke do you think in todays world actually live that long between natural mortality and year round commercial onslaught? About five years ago, two male fluke were given honorable mention in trawl studies in a presentation Kiley Dancy gave in Delaware. Their sizes were 20" and 21"! Even if males have a tendency of staging more offshore which I'd question, harvesting 18" plus fish will continue killing off almost exclusively female breeders which will be the ultimate death of this fishery.

Stretching my imagination, really. Question, when party boats catch hundreds of shorts and return to the docks with 7 keepers, how many of those same fish do you think commercials would kill if they worked that same patch of fish. I know commercials can keep 14" and up but that's not the size they're after, they retain the largest fish to get the highest catch value. So if you think federal observer numbers are wrong and commercials are reporting accurate discard percentages on VTR's or their discard to landing ratio is anywhere near what's being reported, you can keep believing that delusion.

FG monitors landings, they have no idea what discards at sea are and they're too stretched out to control illegal harvest by commercials. It's a problem in every state and one boat can do tremendous damage to the stock. Codfather and more recently Montauk FV New Age, owner operator Christopher Winkler, to mention a few. Black market commercial netting is rampant.

Commercials only catching their quota because it was lowered, I'm not even sure what you're responding to since I never brought that up. I do agree that fluke are getting pounded more than ever because of cuts in other fisheries so we agree on that.

I used NMFS data against them to illustrate the flaws in their policies. My essential conclusions were increased size limits to recreational pushed more access of the overall fishery to commercial at the recreational sector's expense. That's a fact. I showed that increases in size minimums had a direct correlations every year since 2000 to reductions in the proportion of females to males in the stock based on their own studies. That's a fact and one anyone whose fished this stock will attest to. And as the female population got clobbered, recruitment followed suit. That would seem to be common sense, kill the breeders and recruitment will suffer dearly. Females grow larger and live longer, a fact that's been supported by many independent studies so when you increase minimums and incent selective harvest by the commercial sector to maximize catch values as quotas are being cut, you're asking for huge problems.

I'm not a construction worker and don't profess to be. You're not a technical or analytical guy so don't try to be. I've done more research on this fishery than you ever will with select data I believe is representative of the fishery, passed peer review, years on the water, sources I have in the industry and common sense. Do I believe MRIP is accurate, not at all. Do I believe 25% natural mortality is accurate, I have no idea. Do I believe recreational discard percentages are correct, I think anything involved with MRIP is questionable at best. But my analysis isn't made up of that data. The trends I've shown in the fishery coinciding with regulations, changes in the biomass, reductions in size and possession limits, reduction in recruitment etc. are reflective of what we're seeing in the fishery so if you wish to opine on something you know nothing about that's your prerogative. My work turned a lot of heads but never got the traction it deserved because it challenged the decisions being made managing this fishery which showed those decisions are actually hurting it more than helping it and being made for the benefit of economics and not fisheries management. Politics in other words. You think Mark Terceiro, Mike Luisi, Kiley Dancy, Chris Batsavage, Chris Moore, Brandon Muffley, or any of the other decision makers from NMFS, NEFSC, ASMFC or MAMFC will admit to their mistakes over the last two decades managing this fishery or any other? Too much money changing hands. Doesn't work that way, just as Michael Waine from ASA decided to play politics instead of addressing the issues we discussed with him years ago.

Instead we've gone from one of the most robust fisheries ever to continued declines in the biomass, quotas and regulations to the recreational sector over the last two decades coinciding with the continued use of increased size minimums as the preferred method to manage recreational catch. This year's massive quota cuts, an abysmal season to date and you want us to believe this happened because of what? Since you probably filleted more fish than me this year, almost all females I'm sure, I'll bow to your ultimate wisdom of the fishery as to why this is all happening and what needs to be done to correct it. I'll do that if you answer the one question I asked in my earlier post which is name one fishery being managed the same way this fishery is which is sustainable and growing. You can't because there aren't any.

We just had 2 full seasons of keeping fish smaller than 18” not back to 2007.
This was 2022 and 2023. 17” fish were still all females when we cut them up .
While you are the analytical one you REFUSE to see why all your data isn’t viewed in entirety , as when you say commercials discard rate is as high as their landings and they know it isn’t, it’s clouds all the good you did in the rest of your research .
You have always tried to double or even quadruple those discards .

Just as you,never knew about larger fluke drawing more money .
Then automatically want to claim they throw even more discards back for a higher profit .
Thats not even close to how they go,about the fishery .

Do I believe anyone involved in the fisheries management will admit they did something wrong .
Hell no, and stated that at the meeting when I said their data showed their miss management .

I believe a certain sector of the commercials are crushing the stocks , but it’s not our local ones ,
It’s the larger 7 day boats .
If they didn’t allow them to land fish outside of NC to complete their landings there , we more than likely wouldn’t be having the issues we have today .
.
My main argument is why should,recreational fisherman take the hit while those big cutting houses kill the resource ?
I think if they are allowing them to ruin that fishery , we should take every fish we can before they do .
Because if we don’t they made even more money on the fish we return .

[hammer4reel]

As to your question , there isn’t 1 fish that has been managed correctly .
One look at the limits of every fish we could catch here just 15 years ago , we can’t keep 1/3 of those limits today .

To see boats that used to catch boatloads of 15# bluefish daily , be happy to catch 2 pounders is sickening .

Sea bass are everywhere , can’t get away from them and they keep cutting those limits .

.only way fisheries management will ever happen correctly is if they do a clean sweep of everyone involved.

But it’s been well known for decades they would rather see us all stop fishing.
Goes back to catch share hearings with G Bush jr.

.and now with all the bullshit push for the wind turbines all over the oceans , they want you out there even less .
.
Put all the pieces together of why they hope every fishery dries up .

.

[AndyS]

In North Carolina they don't rod and reel fluke, it's all spear fishing, which by the way is becoming more and more popular here in N.J.

[hammer4reel]

In North Carolina they don't rod and reel fluke, it's all spear fishing, which by the way is becoming more and more popular here in N.J.

NC. Closed their recreational season for 2024 , and last year it was only 2 weeks long

[Broad Bill]

We just had 2 full seasons of keeping fish smaller than 18” not back to 2007.
This was 2022 and 2023. 17” fish were still all females when we cut them up .
While you are the analytical one you REFUSE to see why all your data isn’t viewed in entirety , as when you say commercials discard rate is as high as their landings and they know it isn’t, it’s clouds all the good you did in the rest of your research .
You have always tried to double or even quadruple those discards .

Just as you,never knew about larger fluke drawing more money .
Then automatically want to claim they throw even more discards back for a higher profit .
Thats not even close to how they go,about the fishery .

Do I believe anyone involved in the fisheries management will admit they did something wrong .
Hell no, and stated that at the meeting when I said their data showed their miss management .

I believe a certain sector of the commercials are crushing the stocks , but it’s not our local ones ,
It’s the larger 7 day boats .
If they didn’t allow them to land fish outside of NC to complete their landings there , we more than likely wouldn’t be having the issues we have today .
.
My main argument is why should,recreational fisherman take the hit while those big cutting houses kill the resource ?
I think if they are allowing them to ruin that fishery , we should take every fish we can before they do .
Because if we don’t they made even more money on the fish we return .

Now we have the foundation of an intellectual conversation. Your correct, I overlooked the '22 and '23 slot at 17" and yes I'm sure high 90 percent were females.

As far as commercial discard rates are concerned, I shouldn't generalize but that chart wasn't made by me, it was made by NMFS from on board federal observers. Do I think they fudged the numbers, no because the commercial sector would retaliate and sue so instead they buried the chart from future stock assessments because it hurts the narrative they want. I haven't tried to state anything regarding commercial discards other than what a published chart showed.

And here's what I believe based on your comment regarding local operators versus out of state. Smaller local multi generational operators will protect their local resources and are more prone to play by the rules. Out of state operators with ten times the quota or capacity will rape the ocean clean and North Carolina, Chris Batsavage specifically, has publicly said he will not give up one lb. of quota to any state and they will take as much of another states local resources without hesitation. Maryland and Virginia have damaged this fishery more than any other states and the fact they have 50% of the quota for a fishery which isn't in there local waters is a travesty and failure of the agencies managing this stock but that's a whole different conversation. Quotas based on statistic from 40 or 50 years ago is insane. I believe most operators understand if there's no resources there's no quotas but I also believe there's too many that could care less and will take everything they can at any cost and move on to the next resource if there is one. If people are offended by that truth, they should find another business or do something about the bad apples that place a black eye on their trade.

Do you honestly believe, I mean honestly believe, I haven't known for quite some time there's a small, medium, large and jumbo size category in this fishery and the larger sizes typically fetch higher wholesale prices and prices fluctuate daily based on supply and demand. I've been saying that for years. And then there's the sushi market or I think what they refer to as the bled market which has it's own set of values which I also believe are at the high end price spectrum. So please don't say I didn't know that as it simply isn't true.

The last three paragraphs of your reply, I agree with 100%. Some common ground, good lord:) Dan my analysis was flawless and meticulously put together. I probably have 1,500 hours or more in building data tables and analyzing trends. No one that matters, to my knowledge, has ever said my findings are wrong. They simply won't acknowledge publicly that my conclusions might in fact be right. There's simply too much money and power involved in fisheries allocations and no one is going to break ranks and risk career suicide.

[Broad Bill]

NC. Closed their recreational season for 2024 , and last year it was only 2 weeks long

Is that for summer flounder or southern flounder?

[Broad Bill]

As to your question , there isn’t 1 fishery that has been managed correctly .
One look at the limits of every fish we could catch here just 15 years ago , we can’t keep 1/3 of those limits today .

To see boats that used to catch boatloads of 15# bluefish daily , be happy to catch 2 pounders is sickening .

Sea bass are everywhere , can’t get away from them and they keep cutting those limits .

.only way fisheries management will ever happen correctly is if they do a clean sweep of everyone involved.

But it’s been well known for decades they would rather see us all stop fishing.
Goes back to catch share hearings with G Bush jr.

.and now with all the bullshit push for the wind turbines all over the oceans , they want you out there even less .
.
Put all the pieces together of why they hope every fishery dries up .

.

Again I agree with every point you've made. And if the fluke fishery continues being managed the way it is, it will fail. In my opinion, it's an absolute certainty. Have to go out and buy a lottery ticket:) There's still hope for both of us!

[hammer4reel]

Again I agree with every point you've made. Have to go out and buy a lottery ticket:) There's still hope for both of us!

Let’s go catch some flatheads

[hammer4reel]

Is that for summer flounder or southern flounder?

Southern

[Broad Bill]

Let’s go catch some flatheads

Any time you need a partner let me know. Love flathead fishing.

[Broad Bill]

Southern

That's what I thought.

[FISHGERE]

Nailed it very true I’m done gonna be a big fishing sale in brick soon fluking sucks due to everything u stated

[dales529]

Some difference of opinion on the data between you and Capt Dan but well thought out discussions and data.

My question is what would you guys like to do with the data? Broad Bill / Capt Dan.we have discussed this many times but rather than keep posting here what are next steps??????

Arrange a meeting with Council members? Phone call? I could arrange with 1 council member but again it has to be both sides open to each other or call gets shut down.
You guys apply for the open council memberships (2) Open on NJMFC or MAMFC (not sure whats open) etc.

Yes I get that's a dead road to you and many others as NJMFC and last few Governors have been reluctant to appoint ANY applicants from recreational but this has to go farther than these posts to get anywhere.

Shame lack of recreational fishermen support defuncted many recreational known support groups and the Facebook groups that popped up also have accomplished nothing.

Always comes back to many opinions and minimal support by recs so it goes year after year with tons of data and many tons of opinion but in the end its just talk.
How do we move talk to legislation? Have to start in NJ IMHO

Please no one say "lobbyists" as we have had those and no one supported them to the $$ they needed.

[hammer4reel]

Some difference of opinion on the data between you and Capt Dan but well thought out discussions and data.

My question is what would you guys like to do with the data? Broad Bill / Capt Dan.we have discussed this many times but rather than keep posting here what are next steps??????

Arrange a meeting with Council members? Phone call? I could arrange with 1 council member but again it has to be both sides open to each other or call gets shut down.
You guys apply for the open council memberships (2) Open on NJMFC or MAMFC (not sure whats open) etc.

Yes I get that's a dead road to you and many others as NJMFC and last few Governors have been reluctant to appoint ANY applicants from recreational but this has to go farther than these posts to get anywhere.

Shame lack of recreational fishermen support defuncted many recreational known support groups and the Facebook groups that popped up also have accomplished nothing.

Always comes back to many opinions and minimal support by recs so it goes year after year with tons of data and many tons of opinion but in the end its just talk.
How do we move talk to legislation? Have to start in NJ IMHO

Please no one say "lobbyists" as we have had those and no one supported them to the $$ they needed.

I was originally told they wanted to see all his work at a time other than seasons discussions .
And he did exactly that .
IMO the only way it will get an honest look is if NMFS gets a complete over haul .
Or a real lawsuit is filed .

Sadly recreational fisherman won’t ever have the resource to do that .
Known fact most won’t even donate a buck .

At the big round table with Chris Megan at that time the head of the ASA who does have the resource to bring lawsuits . He and Mike Waine acted like they would get involved .
It was a big stroke show as they didn’t do squat .

It’s sad that a fishery that’s so important to NJ , where billions of dollars are spent means nothing to the powers to be .

.
As far as NJ council doing anything , I don’t see it being able to do much .
I think they try their best to manage what’s left of the resource for our best interests . But major change has to come from a federal level








.

[Broad Bill]

I'd first like to share a post from a well respected charter Captain in Massachusetts who runs a very successful business and has been at this for over 25 years and then Dave I'll reply to your post from yesterday. I asked Captain Jason how the fluke season has been this years and his reply is below. I think his words are very telling regarding the state of the fishery and what the future holds in store if NMFS doesn't switch gears soon and radically in how this incredibly vital stock for the Mid-Atlantic / New England region is being managed. Keep in mind, Massachusetts regulations for 2024 from a vessel is a 5 fish daily limit at 17.50", not even the 18" limit we have in New Jersey:

Tom,

I agree with you 100% on the discard mortality from the commercial sector. Here in Ma. inshore waters I have given up completely on fluke for the first time in 20 years (as long as I have been working out of Westport in the summer). The fluke fishing has been going downhill for the past decade and the "circling of the drain" seems to be in it's final stages. Funny how management works: They will say that the rec fishermen are obviously catching too many so they will cut what we can catch (they could increase what we "could" catch, it would make no difference) but they will not do anything to slow down the draggers until there is absolutely nothing. Then they will say fun things (I hear these all the time) like: "couldn't see that coming" or "it must be something else like predators or pollution or global warming but not the draggers, they couldn't be hurting the fish populations".

I'm told by some charter captains I know who fish Nantucket Shoals that they are seeing more and more draggers out there and they are getting closer and closer to where the rod and reel guys are fishing as they deplete each area. Those big fluke are the last of the breeding stock and they are all but gone now. Worse than that (if you can believe it) is the pounding the fluke get over the winter while they are holding in deep water offshore. Each state has a insane "winter quota" that they try to catch and when they are not catching them fast enough the states increase the trip limits to 'help" the draggers catch the quota faster rather stopping to think that perhaps those quotas were not justified in the first place. Then there is the fear that if they do not make the quota one year that their quota would be cut the next year and the state would "lose revenue". They fail to calculate the lost revenue of rec fishermen "not fishing" like the 1000 boats/day that "would be" fishing for (winter) flounder each spring in Boston Harbor that do not fish for flounder at all now that they allowed the draggers to wipe them out.

They really need to stop all dragging in all state waters in all states to give the fish at least a little break.

The state of Massachusetts has told be point blank that they have no interest in curtailing dragging in state waters....

Captain Jason Colby
Little Sister Charters

I imagine the winter quota Captain Jason is referring to has a lot to do with the NC / Maryland fleet we've discussed ad nauseum which harvests almost their entire quota in the winter months. All very valid points by Captain Jason which have been previously posted on this site many times and in my opinion are becoming more the norm up and down the coast than the exception.

[Broad Bill]

Some difference of opinion on the data between you and Capt Dan but well thought out discussions and data.

My question is what would you guys like to do with the data? Broad Bill / Capt Dan.we have discussed this many times but rather than keep posting here what are next steps??????

Arrange a meeting with Council members? Phone call? I could arrange with 1 council member but again it has to be both sides open to each other or call gets shut down.
You guys apply for the open council memberships (2) Open on NJMFC or MAMFC (not sure whats open) etc.

Yes I get that's a dead road to you and many others as NJMFC and last few Governors have been reluctant to appoint ANY applicants from recreational but this has to go farther than these posts to get anywhere.

Shame lack of recreational fishermen support defuncted many recreational known support groups and the Facebook groups that popped up also have accomplished nothing.

Always comes back to many opinions and minimal support by recs so it goes year after year with tons of data and many tons of opinion but in the end its just talk.
How do we move talk to legislation? Have to start in NJ IMHO

Please no one say "lobbyists" as we have had those and no one supported them to the $$ they needed.

Dave my humble opinion after many years of trying.

First I agree with all of Dan's post. What I learned from sending out material to 156 Members of ASMFC, MAMFC, NMFS, NEFSC and others is almost no one replied and the Council ended up censoring my analysis in their briefing materials for year end regulations. You were copied on many of those emails so you know. There was one individual from the Advisory Panel, name eludes me, who said if your trying to address this with the Commission or Council you're barking up the wrong tree as quotas and regulatory options are already decided at the federal level and the Council "ASMFC" and Commission "MAMFC" basically choose between options already determined or argue for alternate options within the guidelines of Conservation Equivalency.

Meaning the fight as Dan mentioned is at the federal level and NMFS. In the big picture pecking order, its the federal government "NMFS", MAMFC and ASMFC, commercials and a distant fourth the recreational sector.

For any change to occur, NMFS needs to first agree the fishery has a problem. That might be the biggest hurdle because it's not just agreeing to that, it's admitting it and they don't like the general public playing in their sand box nor do they like admitting their policy decisions have hurt certain stocks. As Dan eluded to, I've often wondered about litigation but that requires major funding, extensive amounts of time and resources which the recreational sector doesn't have. And organizations like ASA have done nothing beneficial for this fishery so expecting any assistance from them prospectively is I'm afraid wishful thinking.

The person who I had the most productive interaction with on all the emails and materials I emailed out was Jim Lovgren, Point Pleasant Cooperative. Jim is I believe a third or fourth generation commercial fisherman and held in high esteem in the commercial fishing industry. I think Jim has a membership on this site and if so I hope he's listening as he's a voice of reason and well respected among his constituents. I had more productive and intelligent interaction with Jim on my many email exchanges than all other members of the three agencies tasked with actual management of summer flounder combined who typically didn't reply at all. Another person I met in my journey is Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director Garden State Seafood Association "GSSA" which represents a substantial population of commercial boats in New Jersey. Link to their website is below:

https://www.gardenstateseafood.org/about-us

Basically how I feel after my time spent in these matters is in order for anything to change, it needs to happen from the bottom up because I don't believe it will happen from the top down even though that's exactly where it should start. We need the commercials more than the commercials need the recreational community but in my opinion that doesn't mean we don't have a common goal which is the sustainability of all these fisheries that drives both sectors in different ways. And if both sectors can have a united front towards NMFS, I think there's a possibility for change before we get to an inflection point with many stocks and they disappear or are irreparably damaged. If they are, which personally I believe is where this fishery is, the benefits shore communities have enjoyed built on the foundation of both a robust commercial and recreational fishing community will tragically disappear with them.

I'd be willing to be involved if a sit down round table discussion could be arranged with commercial leadership to discuss their thoughts and a path forward on how each sector can help the other and be stronger jointly as opposed to severally. Right now, in my opinion, the people who know the least about these fisheries and spend no actual on water time are the ones making decisions and largely responsible for mismanaging one fishery after another. The federal government holds all the cards but the commercial sector is very strong, well funded and very organized. If there's a way of having a joint coalition to fight Washington, maybe collectively working together to effectuate change as opposed to NMFS pitting the two sectors against each other would be a more effective way of securing the future of these stocks.

How we'd start that process is the million dollar question. Comments?

[dales529]

Dave my humble opinion after many years of trying.

First I agree with all of Dan's post. What I learned from sending out material to 156 Members of ASMFC, MAMFC, NMFS, NEFSC and others is almost no one replied and the Council ended up censoring my analysis in their briefing materials for year end regulations. You were copied on many of those emails so you know. There was one individual from the Advisory Panel, name eludes me, who said if your trying to address this with the Commission or Council you're barking up the wrong tree as quotas and regulatory options are already decided at the federal level and the Council "ASMFC" and Commission "MAMFC" basically choose between options already determined or argue for alternate options within the guidelines of Conservation Equivalency.

Meaning the fight as Dan mentioned is at the federal level and NMFS. In the big picture pecking order, its the federal government "NMFS", MAMFC and ASMFC, commercials and a distant fourth the recreational sector.

For any change to occur, NMFS needs to first agree the fishery has a problem. That might be the biggest hurdle because it's not just agreeing to that, it's admitting it and they don't like the general public playing in their sand box nor do they like admitting their policy decisions have hurt certain stocks. As Dan eluded to, I've often wondered about litigation but that requires major funding, extensive amounts of time and resources which the recreational sector doesn't have. And organizations like ASA have done nothing beneficial for this fishery so expecting any assistance from them prospectively is I'm afraid wishful thinking.

The person who I had the most productive interaction with on all the emails and materials I emailed out was Jim Lovgren, Point Pleasant Cooperative. Jim is I believe a third or fourth generation commercial fisherman and held in high esteem in the commercial fishing industry. I think Jim has a membership on this site and if so I hope he's listening as he's a voice of reason and well respected among his constituents. I had more productive and intelligent interaction with Jim on my many email exchanges than all other members of the three agencies tasked with actual management of summer flounder combined who typically didn't reply at all. Another person I met in my journey is Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director Garden State Seafood Association "GSSA" which represents a substantial population of commercial boats in New Jersey. Link to their website is below:

https://www.gardenstateseafood.org/about-us

Basically how I feel after my time spent in these matters is in order for anything to change, it needs to happen from the bottom up because I don't believe it will happen from the top down even though that's exactly where it should start. We need the commercials more than the commercials need the recreational community but in my opinion that doesn't mean we don't have a common goal which is the sustainability of all these fisheries that drives both sectors in different ways. And if both sectors can have a united front towards NMFS, I think there's a possibility for change before we get to an inflection point with many stocks and they disappear or are irreparably damaged. If they are, which personally I believe is where this fishery is, the benefits shore communities have enjoyed built on the foundation of both a robust commercial and recreational fishing community will tragically disappear with them.

I'd be willing to be involved if a sit down round table discussion could be arranged with commercial leadership to discuss their thoughts and a path forward on how each sector can help the other and be stronger jointly as opposed to severally. Right now, in my opinion, the people who know the least about these fisheries and spend no actual on water time are the ones making decisions and largely responsible for mismanaging one fishery after another. The federal government holds all the cards but the commercial sector is very strong, well funded and very organized. If there's a way of having a joint coalition to fight Washington, maybe collectively working together to effectuate change as opposed to NMFS pitting the two sectors against each other would be a more effective way of securing the future of these stocks.

How we'd start that process is the million dollar question. Comments?

OK so looking back at our emails from 2019 -2020 some Feds MAMFC did reply like Kiley / Dustin etc . While that phone call didn't happen an avenue to reopen the conversation? Not sure your data was censored in any way but let me know as I am not seeing that in our email exchanges.

Also and I know you hate this is that to move forward in my opinion we have to get your data Peer Reviewed as that is the only way it will get attention. How we do that I am working on but assume an independent source, Which could also be an issue but willing to try going down that rabbit hole.

Next I would keep sending the data which you already have weekly to MAMFC, ASMFC, etc and keep pounding it as you seem so passionate about the data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKtbmzsc0m8

I agree with getting Jim and possibly Kevin on board from the commercial side. Looking back at our email trail we had something going so lets renew it BUT we have to play in their Fed sandbox more than they have to in ours and yes you hate that but suck it up it is what it is.
Talk soon

[dales529]

I was originally told they wanted to see all his work at a time other than seasons discussions .
And he did exactly that .
IMO the only way it will get an honest look is if NMFS gets a complete over haul .
Or a real lawsuit is filed .

Sadly recreational fisherman won’t ever have the resource to do that .
Known fact most won’t even donate a buck .

At the big round table with Chris Megan at that time the head of the ASA who does have the resource to bring lawsuits . He and Mike Waine acted like they would get involved .
It was a big stroke show as they didn’t do squat .

It’s sad that a fishery that’s so important to NJ , where billions of dollars are spent means nothing to the powers to be .

.
As far as NJ council doing anything , I don’t see it being able to do much .
I think they try their best to manage what’s left of the resource for our best interests . But major change has to come from a federal level








.

Agreed/ Not sorry I brought you into that roundtable meeting at the Expo but yes ASA respone was zero and disappointing to say the least.
Not sure data was not reviewed based on season discussions but like Rutgers not peer reviewed

[Broad Bill]

OK so looking back at our emails from 2019 -2020 some Feds MAMFC did reply like Kiley / Dustin etc . While that phone call didn't happen an avenue to reopen the conversation? Not sure your data was censored in any way but let me know as I am not seeing that in our email exchanges.

Also and I know you hate this is that to move forward in my opinion we have to get your data Peer Reviewed as that is the only way it will get attention. How we do that I am working on but assume an independent source, Which could also be an issue but willing to try going down that rabbit hole.

Next I would keep sending the data which you already have weekly to MAMFC, ASMFC, etc and keep pounding it as you seem so passionate about the data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKtbmzsc0m8

I agree with getting Jim and possibly Kevin on board from the commercial side. Looking back at our email trail we had something going so lets renew it BUT we have to play in their Fed sandbox more than they have to in ours and yes you hate that but suck it up it is what it is.
Talk soon

Dave lets get a few thing clear. Kiley Dancy and Dustin Learning at the time were staff members and all calls or correspondence had to go through them. That was the job. Dustin Learning took over for Kirby Rootes-Murdy who is now a Renewable Energy Program Specialist at Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Kiley and Dustin were a pleasure to deal with and very helpful but they weren't decision makers. The key decision makers and state representatives were the ones I referred to as never replying or engaging in issues raised.

Not sure my work was censored, really? Look at the following link which has material I sent as part of briefing materials for the November 2019 meeting to discuss 2020 measures. Pages 31 through 101 is essentially all my work, analysis and emails with over a hundred people involved with the management of this fishery.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5de539edcc029b3bcd5b5739/1575303667891/Tab12_Summer-Flounder-Rec-Measures_2019-12.pdf

Fast forward to 2021 and the below link I sent on November 30, 2021 discussing measures for 2022. The briefing materials included my email and only the URL with my analysis meaning anyone looking at a hard copy of the briefing material only saw the URL and not the content. My email is on page 25.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/61b3ae32d70e916e1f3379af/1639165492371/Tab06_SF-Rec-Measures_2021-12.pdf

Shortly afterward in 2022, the voice you love, Chair Mike Luisi, adopted a resolution where he himself determined what material would be included in briefing materials and it was strictly limited to short comments. That ended my analysis which I submitted from being included in either the briefing material or supplemental materials. In addition, all email addresses of Council, Committee and Staff Members were removed from the site. That change was made because I was Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption sending a letter a day asking the state for funding for the prison library. My work was censored from that point on.

I have absolutely no problem with my work being Peer Reviewed so I'm not sure where that notion is coming from as everything I've submitted in my analysis of the stock is predicated on data which is a result of systems and protocols which have already been Peer Reviewed.

In my opinion, pounding ASMFC and MAMFC is what I did for the better part of five years resulting in nada. If you recall, if the Council Member you refer to is who I think it is, remember he said and I quote "You can send as many charts and emails as you want, it won't make any difference whatsoever". I'm not wasting time doing that again.

"Suck it up", you're kidding me right? Whatever amount of time you think I've put into trying to change the fate of this fishery, triple it. What I've said is NMFS and the agencies tasked with managing this stock don't like people like me playing in their sandbox. I never said I didn't want to play in theirs, I've actually said the exact opposite. I want to work with NMFS, ASMFC, MAMFC, NJMFC. I'm not the roadblock my friend. You've said it yourself a hundred times, no one has ever said my analysis and conclusions are wrong, they just don't want to acknowledge I might be right.

So I'll ask you the same question you asked Dan and me. How do we get an audience to push this forward. I look at the people on the advisory panel and ask myself why this fishery is in the condition it is. Steve Witthuhn NY for hire, great guy with the same concerns I have and who I've shared all my analysis with. Michael Waine, ASA recreational who we've discussed. Greg Hueth, recreation Big Mohawk. W Howard Bogan, for hire. Charles Witek, recreational. And if you look at the Committee Members, there's some big names there including the Chair. This is my concern about the solution going through ASMFC or MAMFC because these are talented people intimately involved in the industry with different backgrounds and perspectives already yet we sit here looking at a dying fishery. I agree with Dan, the fight needs to be at the federal level and needs to focus on the problems facing the fishery as opposed to politics, economics, season lengths and quota allocations. The question is how do we get there as no one I've met ever wants or can arrange that discussion with NMFS.

I truly try keeping the faith and shying away from a fatalist attitude but please don't make posts suggesting I haven't been the open minded one here and reached out hundreds of times trying to create constructive dialogue with all these people. Remember, Jim Donofrio said the paper I put together when I first got involved, which was published in the Fisherman Magazine, was the best representation of the fishery he'd ever seen. Everyone from RFA and SSFFF including Jim Hutchinson agreed with that statement. Then politics got in the way and it died on the vine due to no lack of effort by me. So I'll re-engage if there's a clear path forward but as I said I believe we need a joint effort with commercial leadership, have everyone agree there's a serious problem with this stock and work together on a comprehensive plan to manage the fishery differently than it's been managed over the last two decades.

[TwoDDs]

Dave lets get a few thing clear. Kiley Dancy and Dustin Learning at the time were staff members and all calls or correspondence had to go through them. That was the job. Dustin Learning took over for Kirby Rootes-Murdy who is now a Renewable Energy Program Specialist at Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Kiley and Dustin were a pleasure to deal with and very helpful but they weren't decision makers. The key decision makers and state representatives were the ones I referred to as never replying or engaging in issues raised.

Not sure my work was censored, really? Look at the following link which has material I sent as part of briefing materials for the November 2019 meeting to discuss 2020 measures. Pages 31 through 101 is essentially all my work, analysis and emails with over a hundred people involved with the management of this fishery.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5de539edcc029b3bcd5b5739/1575303667891/Tab12_Summer-Flounder-Rec-Measures_2019-12.pdf

Fast forward to 2021 and the below link I sent on November 30, 2021 discussing measures for 2022. The briefing materials included my email and only the URL with my analysis meaning anyone looking at a hard copy of the briefing material only saw the URL and not the content. My email is on page 25.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/61b3ae32d70e916e1f3379af/1639165492371/Tab06_SF-Rec-Measures_2021-12.pdf

Shortly afterward in 2022, the voice you love, Chair Mike Luisi, adopted a resolution where he himself determined what material would be included in briefing materials and it was strictly limited to short comments. That ended my analysis which I submitted from being included in either the briefing material or supplemental materials. In addition, all emails of Council, Committee and Staff Members were removed from the site. That change was made because I was Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption sending a letter a day asking the state for funding for the prison library. My work was censored from that point on.

I have absolutely no problem with my work being Peer Reviewed so I'm not sure where that notion is coming from as everything I've submitted in my analysis of the stock is predicated on data which is a result of systems and protocols which have already been Peer Reviewed.

In my opinion, pounding ASMFC and MAMFC is what I did for the better part of five years resulting in zero. If you recall, if the Council Member you refer to is who I think it is, remember he said and I quote "You can send as many charts and emails as you want, it won't make any difference whatsoever". I'm not wasting time doing that again.

"Suck it up", you're kidding me right? Whatever amount of time you think I've put into trying to change the fate of this fishery, triple it. What I've said is NMFS and the agencies tasked with managing this stock don't like people like me playing in their sandbox. I never said I didn't want to play in theirs, I've actually said the exact opposite. I want to work with NMFS, ASMFC, MAMFC, NJMFC. I'm not the roadblock my friend. You've said it yourself a hundred times, no one has ever said my analysis and conclusions are wrong, they just don't want to acknowledge I might be right.

So I'll ask you the same question you asked Dan and me. How do we get an audience to push this forward. I look at the people on the advisory panel and ask myself why this fishery is in the condition it is. Steve Witthuhn NY for hire, great guy with the same concerns I have and who I've shared all my analysis with. Michael Waine, ASA recreational who we've discussed. Greg Hueth, recreation Big Mohawk. W Howard Bogan, for hire. Charles Witek, recreational. And if you look at the Committee Members, there's some big names there including the Chair. This is my concern about the solution going through ASMFC or MAMFC because these are talented people intimately involved in the industry with different backgrounds and perspectives and yet we sit here looking at a dying fishery. I agree with Dan, the fight needs to be at the federal level and needs to focus on the problems facing the fishery as opposed to politics, economics, season lengths and quota allocations. The question is how do we get there as no one I've met ever wants or can arrange that discussion with NMFS.

I truly try keeping the faith and shying away from a fatalist attitude but please don't make posts suggesting I haven't been the open minded one here and reached out hundreds of times trying to create constructive dialogue with all these people. Remember, Jim Donofrio said the paper I put together when I first got involved, which was published in the Fisherman Magazine, was the best representation of the fishery he'd ever seen. Everyone from RFA and SSFFF including Jim Hutchinson agreed with that statement. Then politics got in the way and it died on the vine due to no lack of effort by me. So I'll re-engage if there's a clear path forward but as I said I believe we need a joint effort with commercial leadership, have everyone agree there's a serious problem with this stock and work together on a comprehensive plan to manage the fishery differently than it's been managed over the last two decades.

Until there is a lawsuit by the recreational sector, nothing will change.
I think everything that we've witnessed to date, everything that you've personally experienced to date, has made that abundantly clear.
Unfortunately, HOPE is not a strategy.

[dales529]

Dave lets get a few thing clear. Kiley Dancy and Dustin Learning at the time were staff members and all calls or correspondence had to go through them. That was the job. Dustin Learning took over for Kirby Rootes-Murdy who is now a Renewable Energy Program Specialist at Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Kiley and Dustin were a pleasure to deal with and very helpful but they weren't decision makers. The key decision makers and state representatives were the ones I referred to as never replying or engaging in issues raised.

Not sure my work was censored, really? Look at the following link which has material I sent as part of briefing materials for the November 2019 meeting to discuss 2020 measures. Pages 31 through 101 is essentially all my work, analysis and emails with over a hundred people involved with the management of this fishery.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5de539edcc029b3bcd5b5739/1575303667891/Tab12_Summer-Flounder-Rec-Measures_2019-12.pdf

Fast forward to 2021 and the below link I sent on November 30, 2021 discussing measures for 2022. The briefing materials included my email and only the URL with my analysis meaning anyone looking at a hard copy of the briefing material only saw the URL and not the content. My email is on page 25.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/61b3ae32d70e916e1f3379af/1639165492371/Tab06_SF-Rec-Measures_2021-12.pdf

Shortly afterward in 2022, the voice you love, Chair Mike Luisi, adopted a resolution where he himself determined what material would be included in briefing materials and it was strictly limited to short comments. That ended my analysis which I submitted from being included in either the briefing material or supplemental materials. In addition, all email addresses of Council, Committee and Staff Members were removed from the site. That change was made because I was Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption sending a letter a day asking the state for funding for the prison library. My work was censored from that point on.

I have absolutely no problem with my work being Peer Reviewed so I'm not sure where that notion is coming from as everything I've submitted in my analysis of the stock is predicated on data which is a result of systems and protocols which have already been Peer Reviewed.

In my opinion, pounding ASMFC and MAMFC is what I did for the better part of five years resulting in nada. If you recall, if the Council Member you refer to is who I think it is, remember he said and I quote "You can send as many charts and emails as you want, it won't make any difference whatsoever". I'm not wasting time doing that again.

"Suck it up", you're kidding me right? Whatever amount of time you think I've put into trying to change the fate of this fishery, triple it. What I've said is NMFS and the agencies tasked with managing this stock don't like people like me playing in their sandbox. I never said I didn't want to play in theirs, I've actually said the exact opposite. I want to work with NMFS, ASMFC, MAMFC, NJMFC. I'm not the roadblock my friend. You've said it yourself a hundred times, no one has ever said my analysis and conclusions are wrong, they just don't want to acknowledge I might be right.

So I'll ask you the same question you asked Dan and me. How do we get an audience to push this forward. I look at the people on the advisory panel and ask myself why this fishery is in the condition it is. Steve Witthuhn NY for hire, great guy with the same concerns I have and who I've shared all my analysis with. Michael Waine, ASA recreational who we've discussed. Greg Hueth, recreation Big Mohawk. W Howard Bogan, for hire. Charles Witek, recreational. And if you look at the Committee Members, there's some big names there including the Chair. This is my concern about the solution going through ASMFC or MAMFC because these are talented people intimately involved in the industry with different backgrounds and perspectives already yet we sit here looking at a dying fishery. I agree with Dan, the fight needs to be at the federal level and needs to focus on the problems facing the fishery as opposed to politics, economics, season lengths and quota allocations. The question is how do we get there as no one I've met ever wants or can arrange that discussion with NMFS.

I truly try keeping the faith and shying away from a fatalist attitude but please don't make posts suggesting I haven't been the open minded one here and reached out hundreds of times trying to create constructive dialogue with all these people. Remember, Jim Donofrio said the paper I put together when I first got involved, which was published in the Fisherman Magazine, was the best representation of the fishery he'd ever seen. Everyone from RFA and SSFFF including Jim Hutchinson agreed with that statement. Then politics got in the way and it died on the vine due to no lack of effort by me. So I'll re-engage if there's a clear path forward but as I said I believe we need a joint effort with commercial leadership, have everyone agree there's a serious problem with this stock and work together on a comprehensive plan to manage the fishery differently than it's been managed over the last two decades.

Hey no way am i saying you are the problem/ exactly the opposite. Visited the hundreds of emails we sent together to all the various agencies and sciencetists ( some more science than others LOL) We / YOU got pretty high up the food chain! Then it stopped ( not censured ) as there was changeover in players and the old ego train. Doesn't mean we give up.

What I meant by "suck it up" is that you know how this game is played. You have to be able to hear you are wrong before they realize you are right and spoon feed a little at a time so they think they figured it out on there own! Sucks but maybe gets the results we all are after.

Made some phone calls today and will call you with some higher ups willing to discuss and re-evaluate your data. Will call you later today and hopefully we can get an in person meeting together as the concensus is YES Fishery Management needs a complete overhaul. MSA is outdated and someone including a peer review scienctetist needs to write a whole new management plan.

While the call for lawsuits may be justified its just not practical and will go nowhere.

[Broad Bill]

Hey no way am i saying you are the problem/ exactly the opposite. Visited the hundreds of emails we sent together to all the various agencies and scientists ( some more science than others LOL) We / YOU got pretty high up the food chain! Then it stopped ( not censured ) as there was changeover in players and the old ego train. Doesn't mean we give up.

What I meant by "suck it up" is that you know how this game is played. You have to be able to hear you are wrong before they realize you are right and spoon feed a little at a time so they think they figured it out on there own! Sucks but maybe gets the results we all are after.

Made some phone calls today and will call you with some higher ups willing to discuss and re-evaluate your data. Will call you later today and hopefully we can get an in person meeting together as the consensus is YES Fishery Management needs a complete overhaul. MSA is outdated and someone including a peer review scientist needs to write a whole new management plan.

While the call for lawsuits may be justified its just not practical and will go nowhere.

I agree with everything said and would love to have an in person meeting with people capable of carrying the bucket up the hill. I'll share my work with anyone at NEFSC or NMFS who will review it objectively and be more than happy to discuss my analysis based on their own data which was the intention from the beginning and share my calculations, historical trend analysis and conclusions. Anyone who looks at this objectively will realize the preferred use of increased size minimums to "manage" the recreational sector set in motion a chain effect of consequential damages to the biomass, gender composition of the stock, declines in the biomass and SSB and historically high discard mortality rates and historically low recruitments levels bringing us back to levels not seen since the 90's. After 30-40 years of management , we're killing the two things most important to the sustainability of any fishery, the breeding population and recruitment. No fishery survives without both and this one is certainly feeling the effects of decades long policy decisions negatively impacting both.

[hammer4reel]

I agree with everything said and would love to have an in person meeting with people capable of carrying the bucket up the hill. I'll share my work with anyone at NEFSC or NMFS who will review it objectively and be more than happy to discuss my analysis based on their own data which was the intention from the beginning and share my calculations, historical trend analysis and conclusions. Anyone who looks at this objectively will realize the preferred use of increased size minimums to "manage" the recreational sector set in motion a chain effect of consequential damages to the biomass, gender composition of the stock, declines in the biomass and SSB and historically high discard mortality rates and historically low recruitments levels bringing us back to levels not seen since the 90's. After 30-40 years of management , we're killing the two things most important to the sustainability of any fishery, the breeding population and recruitment. No fishery survives without both and this one is certainly feeling the effects of decades long policy decisions negatively impacting both.

Watch this , just know in advance you will probably puke .

https://youtu.be/NRdxVQhcrYs?si=3TxABrGWb0jrlv-j




.

[Broad Bill]

Dan while beyond appalling it's actually not surprising. North Carolina and Virginia are brutally corrupt states. It's what you and I have been saying for years. Any stock with a commercial presence in their own waters or any coastal stock they have a commercial interest in is at risk. They'll take the last fish until there's no more to take without giving it a second thought and everyone else pays for their corruption which isn't only fisheries management although they routinely turn a blind eye. It's corrupt elected officials on the take and a group of businesses who make a living bribing politicians to profit from a public resource. It's a completely broken system used by politicians who have the authority to make decisions and pull strings to become extremely wealthy. And after watching this video, no one should have any doubt, in the case of summer flounder, what happened to the Chesapeake stock which at one time was the most southerly part of the biomass. It was wiped out by NC and Virginia commercials and for years now they've taken their show on the road and will destroy every part of the remaining northern biomass.

Was especially interested in a few things. People who buy commercial licenses can retain countless summer flounder a day themselves for personal use while the recreational sector is shut down. Commercial licenses can be leased for profit to someone who knows nothing about commercial fishing. Third and maybe the most poignant is the statement that inshore trawling by commercial concerns causes discard mortality which exceeds the entire recreational quota AND goes unreported and not counted against the commercials annual quota. Can you imagine what happens during the winter offshore in the depths these schools are being harvested from. And we wonder why the fishery has fallen off the cliff. It only takes a minority of bad apples to rape the ocean, kill juvenile age groups and destroy a fishery. Selective harvest and regulations that give preferential treatment to the commercial sector will ultimately kill every stock. And in North Carolina it apparently is done completely in the open and not only allowed for but promoted by state politicians and enforcement agencies. Absolutely ^&$%#@! unreal!

Anyone interested in how the corrupt process we call fisheries management works should watch the video.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Watch this , just know in advance you will probably puke .

https://youtu.be/NRdxVQhcrYs?si=3TxABrGWb0jrlv-j




.

Wow probably one of the most depressing, eye opening and informative fisheries mismanagement pieces I've ever seen.

Although it's mostly focused on NC, if you care about fishing and how it's managed and stacked against recreational fishing this is a must watch video!!

If nothing else just listen to the 17:30 to 18:30 section... What is a public resource is basically handed over to commercials for their personal gain.

[hammer4reel]

Wow probably one of the most depressing, eye opening and informative fisheries mismanagement pieces I've ever seen.

Although it's mostly focused on NC, if you care about fishing and how it's managed and stacked against recreational fishing this is a must watch video!!

If nothing else just listen to the 17:30 to 18:30 section... What is a public resource is basically handed over to commercials for their personal gain.

I have been saying it for years . It’s not only a NC issue .
It’s those long range boats that are fishing everything from NC up through Massachusetts.
Those 7 day boats hit Massachusetts waters early when fish are moving in .
Their limits were lowered , but 2 years ago they would catch 80 thousand pounds of squid . And 30 thousand pounds of fluke per boat for a 5-6 week period .

Nj boars could fish outside 3 mile line right next to them .
Nj boats were catching 3000 a week , while NC boats were catching 30000.

.they destroyed their fisheries , and have moved onto everyone else’s .

The rest of the states need to grow a set of balls and push for federal changes to protect their states interest .

.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I have been saying it for years . It’s not only a NC issue .
It’s those long range boats that are fishing everything from NC up through Massachusetts.
Those 7 day boats hit Massachusetts waters early when fish are moving in .
Their limits were lowered , but 2 years ago they would catch 80 thousand pounds of squid . And 30 thousand pounds of fluke per boat for a 5-6 week period .

Nj boars could fish outside 3 mile line right next to them .
Nj boats were catching 3000 a week , while NC boats were catching 30000.

.they destroyed their fisheries , and have moved onto everyone else’s .

The rest of the states need to grow a set of balls and push for federal changes to protect their states interest .

.
Yep!

[Broad Bill]

I have been saying it for years . It’s not only a NC issue .
It’s those long range boats that are fishing everything from NC up through Massachusetts.
Those 7 day boats hit Massachusetts waters early when fish are moving in .
Their limits were lowered , but 2 years ago they would catch 80 thousand pounds of squid . And 30 thousand pounds of fluke per boat for a 5-6 week period .

NJ boars could fish outside 3 mile line right next to them .
NJ boats were catching 3000 a week , while NC boats were catching 30000.

.they destroyed their fisheries , and have moved onto everyone else’s .

The rest of the states need to grow a set of balls and push for federal changes to protect their states interest .

.

Add insult to injury, the commercial allocations between states has been a bone of contention for years and to my knowledge is still based on commercial landings from the 1980's while the demographics of the stock has completely changed. Precisely why North Carolina and Virginia still have ~50% of the annual commercial quota which is a travesty. In 2019, New York sued NMFS, NOAA and the Secretary of Commerce for that exact reason for the unfair and outdated allocation of quotas between states. Link attached:

https://www.savingseafood.org/news/law/new-york-sues-noaa-for-bigger-share-of-summer-flounder-quota/

Ruling was made in 2023 against New York based on the grounds that regardless of where the stock is currently located, southern states who built their fisheries on this stock shouldn't be penalized by having their allocation percentages from 50 years ago reduced simply because the stock migrated north because of climate change. How's that for sound logic! Destroy their local fishery because of greed, keep their same allocation percentage of the quota based on landings from five decades ago and now destroy what's left of the last remaining northern stock. Political corruption within states, politics within the governing agencies, politics between states regarding quotas, politics between the commercial and recreational sectors and politics at the federal level and in the federal judicial system. How exactly does a fishery survive when the focus of all the agencies tasked with managing these public resources is on everything but managing the stock. It's all about politics, economics, power, control, corruption and greed. At the end of the day, when it comes down to fundamental fisheries management for the preservation and betterment of stocks, who exactly is keeping that scorecard?