Ignorant Fisheries Question.........

[Duffman]

......And I'm sure this will be as transparent as can be but I gotta ask.......

When was the last time any legislation regarding fisheries went the recreational anglers way?

[hartattack]

In 2019 NJ went 'out-of-compliance' with fed Fluke guidelines. We didn't accept the 19" minimum size in hopes of protecting breeders. Outcome was we stayed at 18" minimum, but bag limit was reduced from 4 to 3.
Many thought NJ would be penalized with a complete Fluke moratorium, thankfully that didn't happen.
Editorial: we learned that the fed agencies are reluctant to drastically penalize out-of-compliance states. Maybe NJ should consider doing this again! :eek:

[hammer4reel]

In 2019 NJ went 'out-of-compliance' with fed Fluke guidelines. We didn't accept the 19" minimum size in hopes of protecting breeders. Outcome was we stayed at 18" minimum, but bag limit was reduced from 4 to 3.
Many thought NJ would be penalized with a complete Fluke moratorium, thankfully that didn't happen.
Editorial: we learned that the fed agencies are reluctant to drastically penalize out-of-compliance states. Maybe NJ should consider doing this again! :eek:

Was 2017
And we went from 5 fish to 3 pushing for status quo

That’s a 40 percent cut

.

[Broad Bill]

In 2019 NJ went 'out-of-compliance' with fed Fluke guidelines. We didn't accept the 19" minimum size in hopes of protecting breeders. Outcome was we stayed at 18" minimum, but bag limit was reduced from 4 to 3.
Many thought NJ would be penalized with a complete Fluke moratorium, thankfully that didn't happen.
Editorial: we learned that the fed agencies are reluctant to drastically penalize out-of-compliance states. Maybe NJ should consider doing this again! :eek:

And Larry correct me if I'm wrong but I believe rec's going out of compliance not only risked a shutdown for the recreational community but it pulled the commercial sector in as well. If true, there's no way the federal government would do that or the commercial sector would sit by and allow it. I'll check it out but it also might have included a shutdown for all fisheries other than just fluke. I'm not 100% certain about the latter but I'm pretty sure if the recs went out of compliance commercials were affected as well and that's why ultimately the feds ruled the way they did. Recs still took a huge hit.

I remember sometime ago Dan saying "until the powers to be stop managing sectors and start managing the fishery, these fisheries will continue their declines". No statement could be more true

[Duffman]

And Larry correct me if I'm wrong but I believe rec's going out of compliance not only risked a shutdown for the recreational community but it pulled the commercial sector in as well. If true, there's no way the federal government would do that or the commercial sector would sit by and allow it. I'll check it out but it also might have included a shutdown for all fisheries other than just fluke. I'm not 100% certain about the latter but I'm pretty sure if the recs went out of compliance commercials were affected as well and that's why ultimately the feds ruled the way they did. Recs still took a huge hit.

I remember sometime ago Dan saying "until the powers to be stop managing sectors and start managing the fishery, these fisheries will continue their declines". No statement could be more true

So basically, what you're saying is if the rec sector drags the comm sector into this we would see better results on our side by default.

[Broad Bill]

So basically, what you're saying is if the rec sector drags the comm sector into this we would see better results on our side by default.

Duffman,

Read this article which was written on 6/1/2017 regarding the year Hammer and Hartattack are referring to.

https://www.nj.com/entertainment/2017/06/new_jersey_flounder_fluke_regulation.html

As I thought, commercial "could" be banned or effected as well. Doesn't appear though it would carry over to other fisheries.

So could it be used as leverage to change the regulations and bring commercials to the table to negotiate changes with the recreational sector? Maybe. Could there be dire consequences involved? Absolutely as in if there wasn't an agreement regardless of the chances of that happening that would mean fluke fishing could be banned in the state meaning party boats, charter boats and recreational anglers would have no season. Commercials on the other hand might have the ability to offload their catch or register in other states to get around the ban. That's beyond my pay grade. If it were ever to get that far, it would be a cluster and and a half to many hard working people.

I don't know the laws and or consequences that accompany them so in my opinion this is a risky move by New Jersey putting a lot of small businesses at risk. Imagine a summer with no fluke fishing but everything needs to be considered since we're in my opinion headed to that result anyway.

This is where ASMFC and NMFS have their heads up their ass. They haven't been addressing the problems of the fishery in at minimum two decades, they've caused them by using recreational size minimums to manage the stock and ignoring the implications of not protecting the spawn for now over a decade. How long should a management committee be allowed to say "Recruitment is down but we have no idea what's causing it!" when the cause is self inflicted and staring them in the face? Every age group is down in population, the biomass is down, the proportionate percentage of females in every sexually mature age group is down and recruitment is down. Yet it's business as usual netting during the one primary spawn the fishery has every year and when a state challenges the logic of regulations NMFS threatens to close the fishery down for the entire year which would crush businesses and shore based economies.

Your suggestion which I've thought about myself over the years isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff. Party and commercial boats if they lost the fluke season in certain situations would be out of business as would some commercial operators so it'd end up being a game of chicken where all entities dependent on the fishery would lose. And NC and Va. would still mop up the stock in the fall / winter months and their catch would go against their own states landings quotas so the fishery would still get pounded at the worst possible time of year.

[dales529]

So who has the power ASMFC or MAMFC?
Technically ASMFC found NJ "out of compliance" but then at the MAMFC meeting while we all waited for the "Out of Compliance" repercussions we heard NJ was a separate region from NY and CT and 18" fluke were OK but at 3PP.

OK so we took being a separate region from NY and CT which is a good thing IMHO but to be honest I was stunned hearing the shift in NJDEP etc and that we didnt hold our ground but I do get that there was a threat to revoke all federal permits which is why commercials came into play.

Long story short NJ was never technically found out of compliance but wish we were / maybe / sort of

[Broad Bill]

Dave I never fully understood who was the ultimate decision maker. I always thought ASMFC was responsible for decisions within 0-3 miles while MAFMC decisions took over beyond the three mile line which would both factor into the management of summer flounder.

I'm sure you remember the moron from the Advisory Panel who responded to my emails I sent to the Commission and Committee. I believe his name was Mike Plaia, Rocky remembers him well, who said I'm barking up the wrong tree. Decisions are made by NMFS and when they get down to the two governing bodies you referenced they have virtually have very little say so my questions is for the money spent funding these groups, what are we really getting in return if their hands are tied? All they appear to do is make dysfunctional decisions and argue between states for the largest share of quotas they can get both recreationally and commercially. Personally I view them as authoritative bodies with no authority other than to play lets make a deal with state allocations once NMFS determine quotas. Whoever is making the decisions about size being the the most effective means of managing the fishery should be tar and feathered as it's arguably the worst way of managing the stock which history has proven.

Question for the board, how many fisheries does anyone know where the regulations promote the harvest of breeders as opposed to younger age class fish with a presumed 25% annual natural mortality rate. It's counter intuitive to how the fishery should be managed.

[hammer4reel]

Question for the board, how many fisheries does anyone know where the regulations promote the harvest of breeders as opposed to younger age class fish with a presumed 25% annual natural mortality rate. It's counter intuitive to how the fishery should be managed.[/QUOTE]


Here’s a better question .
What percentage of the fluke is born male vs female ?
Is it 50/50 80/20 ?

And if what a person involved in trawl studies has told me , predominantly only females come inshore .
Males mostly grouping outside of 12 miles , do we close the fishery inside of 12 miles ?

Or do we fish for what’s available ?

.

[Duffman]

Dave I never fully understood who was the ultimate decision maker. I always thought ASMFC was responsible for decisions within 0-3 miles while MAFMC decisions took over beyond the three mile line which would both factor into the management of summer flounder.

I'm sure you remember the moron from the Advisory Panel who responded to my emails I sent to the Commission and Committee. I believe his name was Mike Plaia, Rocky remembers him well, who said I'm barking up the wrong tree. Decisions are made by NMFS and when they get down to the two governing bodies you referenced they have virtually have very little say so my questions is for the money spent funding these groups, what are we really getting in return if their hands are tied? All they appear to do is make dysfunctional decisions and argue between states for the largest share of quotas they can get both recreationally and commercially. Personally I view them as authoritative bodies with no authority other than to play lets make a deal with state allocations once NMFS determine quotas. Whoever is making the decisions about size being the the most effective means of managing the fishery should be tar and feathered as it's arguably the worst way of managing the stock which history has proven.

Question for the board, how many fisheries does anyone know where the regulations promote the harvest of breeders as opposed to younger age class fish with a presumed 25% annual natural mortality rate. It's counter intuitive to how the fishery should be managed.


I willing to bet, if you ask anyone who has ZERO knowledge of fish or fishing, "should you keep larger or smaller fish" almost every single one would respond with something like "ya gotta let the babies go". Not knowing the larger fish are the breeders. maybe that's what in the decision process made by the powers that be.

2 questions......

1) Once the fluke get to a point where they are no longer feasible to fish for, what do the head boats do then? Once stripers move out, what to do in June July August September? Thats a big gap to fill.

2) Why are larger fluke more valuable to the comm fleet? If they are allowed X number of pounds per trip, what's it matter what size they are? You guys know way more than i do, but to me it can't make heads or tails of it. To simplify it, if I can keep 10 pounds of fluke, what's it matter if I have one 10 pound fish or ten 1 pond fish?

[hammer4reel]

I willing to bet, if you ask anyone who has ZERO knowledge of fish or fishing, "should you keep larger or smaller fish" almost every single one would respond with something like "ya gotta let the babies go". Not knowing the larger fish are the breeders. maybe that's what in the decision process made by the powers that be.

2 questions......

1) Once the fluke get to a point where they are no longer feasible to fish for, what do the head boats do then? Once stripers move out, what to do in June July August September? Thats a big gap to fill.

2) Why are larger fluke more valuable to the comm fleet? If they are allowed X number of pounds per trip, what's it matter what size they are? You guys know way more than i do, but to me it can't make heads or tails of it. To simplify it, if I can keep 10 pounds of fluke, what's it matter if I have one 10 pound fish or ten 1 pond fish?

Fish above 4 pounds they get an extra dollar a pound live weight .
Reason is less waste

[Broad Bill]

Dan to answer your question. The two attached sex ratio sections are from the 66th stock assessment. EVERY age group is down in female proportions based on winter, spring and fall trawl studies. Some are down significantly.

To answer your specific question about new recruits or age 1 fish, the proportion of females for recruits entering the stock ranges from 30% to 50% based on the seasons so assume a 40:60 female / male proportion.

Combine the relentless harvest of larger fish which are almost exclusively females with a declining biomass population, there were 83 million females in the stock in 2009 compared to 43 million by 2017 or 40 million less females representing an almost 50% reduction. If you look at sexually mature females, the numbers went from 71 million in 2010 to 34 million in 2017, a 37 million decline or slightly more than a 50% reduction. Easy math, take female proportions by age class and multiply those proportions by the population per age class. Now assign on average $1.5 million eggs per sexually mature female (400,000 for fish just attaining maturity and 2 - 4 million eggs for the larger breeders) and we've lost 55 trillion eggs being released during the stocks spawn. Now tell me why any of the rocket scientists at NMFS and NEFSC are scratching their heads why recruitment is down. Now factor in the build up off the commercial offshore fleet and small mesh netters targeting other species and the impact netting is having on the efficacy of the spawn and fish killed during their fall and winter migrations. I'd bet the numbers for the same reasons are even worse today and we're looking at a mortally wounded fishery.

The notion that males stage further offshore personally I believe is a narrative created by the powers to be to justify increased size minimums and the harvest of larger more predominantly female fish from the stock. I remember back in the day when size minimums were 13" with zero bag limits from cleaning our catch there were just as many males as there were females being caught in shore. The facts support and I strongly believe we're killing the juvenile population which involves a higher percentage males in the process of destroying the female population through the harvest of larger fish. Everyone agrees females grow faster and live longer than males in this fishery so at some point common sense needs to be factored into the management of the stock.

[hammer4reel]

Dan to answer your question. The two attached sex ratio sections are from the 66th stock assessment. EVERY age group is down in female proportions based on winter, spring and fall trawl studies. Some are down significantly.

To answer your specific question about new recruits or age 1 fish, the proportion of females for recruits entering the stock ranges from 30% to 50% based on the seasons so assume a 40:60 female / male proportion.

Combine the relentless harvest of larger fish which are almost exclusively females with a declining biomass population, there were 83 million females in the stock in 2009 compared to 43 million by 2017 or 40 million less females representing an almost 50% reduction. If you look at sexually mature females, the numbers went from 71 million in 2010 to 34 million in 2017, a 37 million decline or slightly more than a 50% reduction. Easy math, take female proportions by age class and multiply those proportions by the population per age class. Now assign on average $1.5 million eggs per sexually mature female (400,000 for fish just attaining maturity and 2 - 4 million eggs for the larger breeders) and we've lost 55 trillion eggs being released during the stocks spawn. Now tell me why any of the rocket scientists at NMFS and NEFSC are scratching their heads why recruitment is down. Now factor in the build up off the commercial offshore fleet and small mesh netters targeting other species and the impact netting is having on the efficacy of the spawn and fish killed during their fall and winter migrations. I'd bet the numbers for the same reasons are even worse today and we're looking at a mortally wounded fishery.

The notion that males stage further offshore personally I believe is a narrative created by the powers to be to justify increased size minimums and the harvest of larger more predominantly female fish from the stock. I remember back in the day when size minimums were 13" with zero bag limits from cleaning our catch there were just as many males as there were females being caught in shore. The facts support and I strongly believe we're killing the juvenile population which involves a higher percentage males in the process of destroying the female population through the harvest of larger fish. Everyone agrees females grow faster and live longer than males in this fishery so at some point common sense needs to be factored into the management of the stock.

I personally know the person doing the trawl studies for both Nj and Ny.
He claims these fish move separately.
He also said they dictate where he does each drag , knowing many times the findings are not accurate because they won’t find certain fish in certain areas .

He is also working on young of the year recruitment.
He says NY recruitment is the highest it’s been for YOY this year .

[Broad Bill]

Fish above 4 pounds they get an extra dollar a pound live weight .
Reason is less waste

It's the market dynamics of the fishery. Doesn't matter what's driving it, larger fish bring in substantially higher catch values back at the docks. In my opinion, it's exactly why NMFS decided to use increased recreational size minimums to move more of the larger fish over to the commercial sector. That when the fishery started it's decline in the early 2000's.

It's called selective harvest and drives up discard mortality. If commercial guys are steaming offshore 60 miles or NC and Va. are steaming all the way up off our coast and they can harvest fish that bring 50% more, they're going to toss back every smaller fish dead. Culling in the winter months and dead discard as a result is off the charts.

[Broad Bill]

I personally know the person doing the trawl studies for both Nj and Ny.
He claims these fish move separately.
He also said they dictate where he does each drag , knowing many times the findings are not accurate because they won’t find certain fish in certain areas .

He is also working on young of the year recruitment.
He says NY recruitment is the highest it’s been for YOY this year .

Dan I'm not questioning your sources but for the reasons stated, we'll see how many of these younger age classes survive the gauntlet of commercial fishing and asinine recreational regulations. As I said based on empirical data, there were just as many males as females inshore in the years this stock was healthy, I question why that would change. With the same regulations, what would you attribute an increase in recruitment to if it's declined over the last decade. I don't dispute the presence of more younger age class fish, let's see how many make it to 17', 18' or 19". Maybe the larger presence of younger age groups we're seeing is the residual effects of Covid virtually shutting down the fishery in 2020 but again these fish will vanish from the stock if the current regulations are left in place.

40 to 50 trillion eggs and 40 million females removed from the recruitment strength of this or any fishery has to be having a substantial impact. The fact management allows the commercial fleet to operate for two months at the risk of the entire stock is ridiculous.

I maintain you can't in any stock with a commercial presence target the harvest of the breeding stock, primarily females which is proven are the larger fish of the stock, and expect the stock to survive.

[frugalfisherman]

Fish above 4 pounds they get an extra dollar a pound live weight .
Reason is less waste

The sushi restaurants can get a better cut out of a large fish. Want to save the fishery? Ban exports to Japan.

[Duffman]

Fish above 4 pounds they get an extra dollar a pound live weight .
Reason is less waste

So cull everything until you have the most profitable poundage allowance when you get back to the dock?

[hammer4reel]

So cull everything until you have the most profitable poundage allowance when you get back to the dock?

While that possibly could happen .
Many trips they have a government observer on board .

Also if they did that , they would be working much longer days , so does it really pay off ?

Every fish to them is money , I don’t see them wanting to throw back dead fish .
Instead they use a larger net mesh to allow smaller fish to go out the net only

[Duffman]

While that possibly could happen .
Many trips they have a government observer on board .

Also if they did that , they would be working much longer days , so does it really pay off ?

Every fish to them is money , I don’t see them wanting to throw back dead fish .
Instead they use a larger net mesh to allow smaller fish to go out the net only

OK Understood. I honestly have no clue how the comm world works.

.....and yet another question..... how does the larger mesh size work once the net is clogged with fish? Doesn't it get to the point where nothing can pass thru?

.....and another......Govt observer onboard? Why not just check these guys when they return? Use the money spent on an "observer" and hire more CO's to stop all the rampant poaching going on.

[hammer4reel]

OK Understood. I honestly have no clue how the comm world works.

.....and yet another question..... how does the larger mesh size work once the net is clogged with fish? Doesn't it get to the point where nothing can pass thru?

.....and another......Govt observer onboard? Why not just check these guys when they return? Use the money spent on an "observer" and hire more CO's to stop all the rampant poaching going on.

Observers watch actual landings , Co meet them at the dock to see actual landings weights are within the regs .

It’s my understanding that smaller fish swim out higher in the bag as it’s moving .
While it appears everything is crushed against the back , that happens during the retrieval , not during the drag .


.

[Duffman]

Observers watch actual landings , Co meet them at the dock to see actual landings weights are within the regs .

It’s my understanding that smaller fish swim out higher in the bag as it’s moving .
While it appears everything is crushed against the back , that happens during the retrieval , not during the drag .


.

OK makes sense now. I'm guessing the fish I see every year with "road rash" are ones that escaped the nets.

[NJ219bands]

While that possibly could happen .
Many trips they have a government observer on board .

Also if they did that , they would be working much longer days , so does it really pay off ?

Every fish to them is money , I don’t see them wanting to throw back dead fish .
Instead they use a larger net mesh to allow smaller fish to go out the net only

My only windowpane flounder fish 🐟 tag return was from a NMFS observer on a scallop boat. I think government observers are great.