Ssfff To Challenge Mrfss Landings Data

[CaptTB]

SAVE THE SUMMER FLOUNDER FISHERY FUND TO CHALLENGE EXISTING MRFSS RECREATIONAL LANDINGS DATA

The Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund (SSFFF), a nonprofit organization formed in New Jersey to seek both scientific and legislative solutions to the continuing crisis facing recreational anglers who wish to fairly access the summer flounder fishery, has announced that HDR Engineering P.C. has been retained to independently review and investigate the governments current 2009 Summer Flounder landings data.

Despite the degree of the economic downturn in the USA, the unprecedented amount of inclement weather this past summer, and by almost all accounts, a general downturn in angler participation, the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) has determined that increasingly significant landings of Summer Flounder have occurred! The MRFSS data also shows effort and participation numbers at odds with first hand industry observations!

This Information is completely contrary to evidence gathered from marine fisheries businesses up and down the coast.

“The fact that MRFSS has once again come up with landings numbers that do not reflect reality should not come as a surprise to anyone,” said Greg Hueth, president of the Shark River Surf Anglers and one of the founders of SSFFF. “Nevertheless, these statistics MUST be challenged and a more accurate picture of landings in the Summer Flounder fishery must be taken if we are to avoid more unnecessary restrictions,” Mr.. Hueth said.

“To even suggest that anglers somehow exceeded their quota in the Summer Flounder fishery in light of the circumstances of the past year is just ludicrous,” said Dave Arbeitman, owner of The Reel Seat tackle shop in Brielle, NJ, and also a founder of SSFFF. “NMFS has yet to fix the MRFSS system as mandated by the newly re-authorized Magnuson Stevens Act, and we fishermen continue to pay the price for bad data.”

Working in concert with the National Marine Fisheries Service, SSFFF has already begun to acquire the landings information to assist in this analysis. “It is our hope that with a thorough analysis of the data, combined with additional information provided by the for-hire industry, the Regional Climate Center and various Marine Trades Associations that we can provide a more accurate accounting of the Summer Flounder recreational fisheries landings for 2009,” said Capt. Tony Bogan, a member of the SSFFF Executive Committee and part of the Bogan Family of fishermen from Brielle, NJ.

The Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund (SSFFF) is a nonprofit organization comprised of recreational anglers, party and charter boat operators, bait and tackle stores, tackle distributors, bait wholesalers, and others whose livelihoods are dependent on a healthy and vibrant recreational fishing industry. SSFFF has as its mission a comprehensive approach to safeguarding the publics‘ access to Summer Flounder.

More information about SSFFF can be found at its website, www.ssfff.net (http://www.ssfff.net), along with updates on both the legislative and scientific goals it is committed to achieving.

[CaptTB]

We need your support NOW guys & girls.

Here it is, look at the press releases both in this thread and the lawsuit thread, actions are being taken on behalf of all of us by RFA, United Boatmen and SSFFF. We need your help desperately to achieve our goals. Spread the word, tell everyone you know, help however you can.

[PAMonger]

Out of curiosity, if these suits based on sea bass and fluke are successful, when can we see relief?

Is this somthing that may be corrected this winter? for next summer? farther in the future?

[CaptTB]

Out of curiosity, if these suits based on sea bass and fluke are successful, when can we see relief?

Is this somthing that may be corrected this winter? for next summer? farther in the future?

Let me do my best to explain.
First, there is only one lawsuit, the one for Sea Bass. If you read the release above you'll see that SSFFF is doing it's own analysis of the 2009 landings, not suing anyone. If SSFFF can identify the issues with the data it believes are there we could see an alteration of the landings immediately. If not, or if the conclusions drawn by SSFFF and HDR are rejected/not considered by the council and NMFS then nothing will change.

As to the lawsuit, there is absolutely no way to know how soon a judgement will occur. Assuming the case is heard relatively soon, and assuming the court find in favor of the plaintiffs, the closure would end at that point. There is always the possibility that the judgement will not come until after the closure is already over. That does not negate one of the primary purposes of the argument, and is even addressed in the argument itself. If you go to the thread on the lawsuit there is a link to the actual complaint that you can download and read.

Whether or not the closure is overturned prior to its ending does not change the fact that NMFS has now closed two fisheries (sea bass and amberjack) based on nothing more than preliminary MRFSS data. That is what is being challenged, and since sea bass was the fishery closed that is the fishery being dealt with.

Even if the closure is overturned tomorrow we still have to deal with the artificially low quota and the landings data in the Sea Bass fishery.

We are working on those two issues also, so please stand by:D

[Capt. Jerry P]

Thank You SSFFF

GUYS GET ONBOARD AND SUPPORT!!!

Somebodies got to fix da broken system!

[Bates]

Thank You SSFFF

GUYS GET ONBOARD AND SUPPORT!!!

Somebodies got to fix da broken system!

If you have been reading about SSFFF and RFA, their actions and performance so far and have not supported them verbally or financially now is the time. The storm is building and if we are going to have any input this is the way for the party/provate boat, charter and surf fisherman to have some input. If we sit back and watch, doing nothing we have no reason to complain. If you have cancelled a trip because the fish are not available due to regulations, take the gas, toll, launch, bait, boat fare, tip food and drink money and send it to SSFFF and /or RFA. If everyone sends the costs of one trip to them we will provide a substantial bump in the needed funds. This is not going to happen without money!

[Kensdock]

Capt.TB, At last estimate NJ has about 1.4 million recreational Anglers. If ten percent of the anglers caught 100 keeper flounder with a combined weight of 250 pounds,how many pounds of flounder could the rest of NJ anglers catch before the 2009 quota would be consumed.

[PBangler]

Kensdock,

Time to give it a rest.

[CaptTB]

Capt.TB, At last estimate NJ has about 1.4 million recreational Anglers. If ten percent of the anglers caught 100 keeper flounder with a combined weight of 250 pounds,how many pounds of flounder could the rest of NJ anglers catch before the 2009 quota would be consumed.
Ken, if you are going to quote MRFSS numbers, at least let's be accurate huh?

First, the "last estimate" for participation in the state of NJ is 1.2 million, not 1.4 million anglers (which was the estimate from 2007). Strange how you always use that number whenever you comment about anglers in NJ, yet it is the only time (2007) in the 29 year history of MRFSS estimates that NJ has had that many anglers estimated by MRFSS. Why only use the highest year, and one that isn't even the most recent year Ken? The 5 year average is 1.2 million and the ten year average is lower, but then again you grasp onto MRFSS numbers as if they are facts, when in reality even the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America has declared the data from MRFSS to be fatally flawed.

Second, ten percent of the anglers do not catch 100 keepers each a year (actually few anglers do) and your average weight is off too.

Also, we do not have effort or participation numbers specifically for Fluke for the 2009 year yet, and it would make no sense (except to perhaps YOU) to use as overall participation number for the entire state from 2 years ago and a made up percentage of those anglers that catch fluke in this state.

I could take a guess, but then I'd be using made up numbers to figure out a made up number, like you did.

[Kensdock]

Tony, I remember 1.4 million NJ anglers that is why I use that number. I used 10% of anglers catching 100 keeper flounder because that is the number of keepers I caught and posted on my blog. Some people that post on fishing sites and clubs caught more some caught less. I would have caught more if I followed the flounder into the Ocean during Juily and August. I just had my fill of flounder by that time.

[dales529]

Tony, I remember 1.4 million NJ anglers that is why I use that number. I used 10% of anglers catching 100 keeper flounder because that is the number of keepers I caught and posted on my blog. Some people that post on fishing sites and clubs caught more some caught less. I would have caught more if I followed the flounder into the Ocean during Juily and August. I just had my fill of flounder by that time.

You are entitled to your opinion. Having said that your quote is almost a THANK YOU because this is EXACTLY the issue SSFFF and RFA are fighting against:

YOU STATE:
Maybe 1.4million anglers as that is the last thing I remember (maybe , maybe not)
Using 10% of anglers because YOU ALONE caught X amt Keepers (maybe u did , maybe u didnt)
I would have caught more IF I followed the flounder into the ocean.
(yes, I myself would have caught more if I fished more, didnt ever go to work, didnt visit my kids at college, went flounder fishing instead of bass fishing, didnt sleep late, didnt eat fried foods, didnt smoke, got more exercise,etc etc)


Are you kidding? This another example of the "FLAWED" Data that is the rule NOT the exception. Who I ask is OUT OF TOUCH?

WTF is this nonsense at a time when UNITY, FACTS and SCIENCE are so Important.

[Kensdock]

You are entitled to your opinion. Having said that your quote is almost a THANK YOU because this is EXACTLY the issue SSFFF and RFA are fighting against:

YOU STATE:
Maybe 1.4million anglers as that is the last thing I remember (maybe , maybe not)
Using 10% of anglers because YOU ALONE caught X amt Keepers (maybe u did , maybe u didnt)
I would have caught more IF I followed the flounder into the ocean.
(yes, I myself would have caught more if I fished more, didnt ever go to work, didnt visit my kids at college, went flounder fishing instead of bass fishing, didnt sleep late, didnt eat fried foods, didnt smoke, got more exercise,etc etc)


Are you kidding? This another example of the "FLAWED" Data that is the rule NOT the exception. Who I ask is OUT OF TOUCH?

WTF is this nonsense at a time when UNITY, FACTS and SCIENCE are so Important.
Not maybe did I catch a 100 keepers, I did catch a 100 keepers and documented them, all of them with pictures on my blog. Check for yourself. The 1.4 million NJ angler estimate was from a federal government survey that I read . I did not see the`1.2 million estimate that Tony quoted. !0% of anglers catching 100 keeper flounder during the 2009 season is a conservative estimate from my experience and research. Using this information how many pounds of flounder did 10% of NJ anglers catch?

Maybe it is good news? Maybe it is not? I can assure you of one thing it is good information!!

[1captainron]

Why even entertain this BS..........Tony, I'm suprised you even go here with all the crap on your plate.
Pissing contests do none of us any good. If you caught 100 keeper Fluke at 18 inches, great, you are a better fishermen than 95% of the people fishing in NJ and reading these reports.
Kudos for your talent and right to brag about it. I only wish I could carry customers that could catch keepers like that, my pics and reports would pack my boat....Capt.Ron

[Reelron]

Capt. Ron, maybe you can hire him to be your PR man? He does seem to be very creative with numbers.

[CaptTB]

The 1.4 million NJ angler estimate was from a federal government survey that I read . I did not see the`1.2 million estimate that Tony quoted.And apparently you decided to never look anything else up again. As I said, the number you quote was from one year of MRFSS estimates, specifically the year 2007. Go to the MRFSS website and look it up for yourself, it is public information.
10% of anglers catching 100 keeper flounder during the 2009 season is a conservative estimate from my experience and research.And exactly what research did you do to come up with that estimate?

Using this information how many pounds of flounder did 10% of NJ anglers catch?Putting aside for the moment that your estimate flies in the face of every piece of data ever collected as relates to CPUE (that's Catch Per Unit Effort) for Fluke fishing on the eastern seaboard, if 10% of the 1.4 million anglers you mention caught 250lbs. of Fluke in a single year, that would mean that 140,000 anglers in the state of NJ KEPT 35,000,000 (that's 35 MILLION) pounds of Fluke, (140,000*250) or nearly 1/4 the entire Fluke biomass in the ocean. If you take the federal gov't average of less than 2 keeper Fluke per person, per trip (it's somewhere around 95-97% of fluke anglers catch less than 2...I'll put the exact #'s up later, gotta get the stuff from my office) that would mean the AVERAGE angler makes nearly 60 fluke trips a year. 100 fish at less than 2 keepers per trip =50+ trips.

When you add in the throw back rate (around 9 to 1 according to gov't numbers) you can estimate that just in the state of NJ alone those 140,000 anglers would have made approx. 7 Million Fluke trips (140,000*50 trips each) catching roughly 125+ MILLION fish (9to1 throwback to keeper times 2 = 18 fish caught times 7,000,000 trips), or somewhere around the entire biomass currently estimated to exist in the entire ocean(125+million fish at only 1.5lbs. you get 187+million pounds, or more than the current estimates of the total Fluke biomass in the Atlantic Ocean, and that's 1 full pound LESS than your average keeper weight you used)

So, according to your "experience and research" NJ catches and releases the entire biomass of Fluke in the entire ocean in a single year, plus we keep nearly 1 1/2 times the quota allocated to the entire coast, both commercial and recreational combined.(which this year is in the low 20 million pound range)
I can assure you of one thing it is good information!!
I'm sure you believe it is, and I have this really nice bridge for sale, dirt cheap!:D
http://blueroof.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/brooklyn-bridge.png

Any questions?:rolleyes:

[Kensdock]

The 100 keepers I caught is a solid documented number. The 1.4 million angler number is an estimate, as you know be the MRFSS. My estimate of 10% of anglers catching a 100 keepers was determined via Cape May co. flounder fishermen that record their catch on blogs, fishing websites or old fashioned log books. The MRFSS maybe off with their estimate of NJ fishermen. It is possible that the % of flounder fishermen that catch 100 keeper flounder a season may change as you head up the beach. Even under super conservative angler numbers, I say we over fished the flounder quota for the 2009 season.

[CaptTB]

The 100 keepers I caught is a solid documented number. Which I never questioned.

My estimate of 10% of anglers catching a 100 keepers was determined via Cape May co. flounder fishermen that record their catch on blogs, fishing websites or old fashioned log books.
OK, so how does that reflect the other 99.9% of the state and anglers? If you are working with a 10% figure, did you check the "blogs" of even a fraction of 1% of 140,000 anglers? Did you do a statistical survey spread across the state, regions, fishing types, etc?

No, of course you did not and even said as much.

Even under super conservative angler numbers, I say we over fished the flounder quota for the 2009 season.
Which of course, is your opinion to which are certainly entitled, but then again it is not based on anything even remotely resembling "data" or something acquired through "research."

So let's be conservative Ken and cut your estimate in half and use the 2008 angler numbers of 1.2million since it is more recent than the 1.4 million estimate. 5% of 1.2 million anglers anglers catching 125lbs. each. Guess what? You'd get 7.5 million pounds of fish. That's extremely conservative according to your numbers, yet it would still equal a number greater than the landings of Fluke on THE ENTIRE EASTERN SEABOARD. As a matter of fact, it is even greater than the recreational quota for the entire eastern seaboard. It is also (at 2.5lbs each) a number THREE TIMES that estimated for the ENTIRE NEW JERSEY LANDINGS in numbers of fish, and nearly one and a half times the estimate for numbers of fish landed for the ENTIRE COAST.

Forget all the throw backs that would be associated with that number not to mention the landings by the other 95% of the anglers from NJ and I think the point is clear.

Your "estimates" are laughable to say the least, and your opinion of what quota was or was not exceeded is based on nothing other than your opinion, with zero facts to support your conclusions.

By the way, you do know that your assertion that the quota was exceeded is not what is being claimed right? The quota was NOT exceeded this year, so you now claim to know more than fishermen and the government based on Cape May fishermen's blogs and websites?

I'm sorry Ken, but please go waste someone else's time with your ridiculous assertions, I have more important things to do.

How can you look at how ridiculously outrageous your numbers are and STILL cling to your delusions?

I guess the saying "ignorance is bliss" is true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sGtvZWaTwUc/SshaRjCgwaI/AAAAAAAAARY/n7SexoDuHpg/s400/ignorance-is-bliss.jpg

[Life's A Beach]

The 100 keepers I caught is a solid documented number. The 1.4 million angler number is an estimate, as you know be the MRFSS. My estimate of 10% of anglers catching a 100 keepers was determined via Cape May co. flounder fishermen that record their catch on blogs, fishing websites or old fashioned log books. The MRFSS maybe off with their estimate of NJ fishermen. It is possible that the % of flounder fishermen that catch 100 keeper flounder a season may change as you head up the beach. Even under super conservative angler numbers, I say we over fished the flounder quota for the 2009 season.


you're clueless. the ONLY real number in your equation is the number of fish you CLAIM you can prove you caught. Every single other number was pulled from a hat. Then you end in conclusion that WE overfished OUR quota??? Numbers like YOURS is why SSFFF is fighting an uphill battle against BAD SCIENCE/NUMBERS.

I fished for fluke often. From opening day through the end of the season. I caught a lot of fluke. I caught many quality fluke. I did NOT catch 100 fluke! That would be 16.5 days of full limits. I don't know many people that did.

Please do us a favor. Go fishing, catch your fish, post them in your personal blog and stop trying to be the voice of reason unless/until you engage your mind before you open your mouth. It's not helping us.

[Kensdock]

I am sorry you were unable to assimilate the information or my point. At a later date I am sure you will catch on.

[Capt. Jerry P]

Your the best fluke fisherman in new jersey

but

Give it a break

ask the party boats how many keepers the avg tourist took home a trip?

10% of anglers caught 100 keepers.... maybe on the moon

must been great down in Cape May

fluke regs are a broken system period and have been for along time...thanks to those who are fighting to prove it!

[Kensdock]

you're clueless. the ONLY real number in your equation is the number of fish you CLAIM you can prove you caught. Every single other number was pulled from a hat. Then you end in conclusion that WE overfished OUR quota??? Numbers like YOURS is why SSFFF is fighting an uphill battle against BAD SCIENCE/NUMBERS.

I fished for fluke often. From opening day through the end of the season. I caught a lot of fluke. I caught many quality fluke. I did NOT catch 100 fluke! That would be 16.5 days of full limits. I don't know many people that did.

Please do us a favor. Go fishing, catch your fish, post them in your personal blog and stop trying to be the voice of reason unless/until you engage your mind before you open your mouth. It's not helping us.
I am sure you think the scientist were clueless when they presented their numbers for seas bass.

Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Where do you get your numbers? What studies or research can you quote that proves that the MRFSS harvest numbers are wrong?

How many keeper fluke did you catch?

[dales529]

I am sure you think the scientist were clueless when they presented their numbers for seas bass.

Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Where do you get your numbers? What studies or research can you quote that proves that the MRFSS harvest numbers are wrong?

How many keeper fluke did you catch?

maybe you could start by READING something other than your own posts such as:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0916/

To save you some time I pasted their conclusion below:

CONCLUSION
The conclusion of the assessment update is that black sea bass are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Projections through 2011 suggest that an increase in fishing mortality up to FMSY will not result in a decrease in biomass below BMSY. However, underlying these conclusions is the uncertainty associated with an assessment of a data poor stock as noted in the Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group report (NEFSC 2009),

“These new reference points and stock status determinations should be used with caution due to the uncertainty in the natural mortality estimate, the model input parameters, residuals patterns in model fit, and significant uncertainty associated with managing a protogynous species (i.e., individuals change sex from female to male).”

In addition, tagging results suggest spatial partitioning along the coast that is not yet accounted for in the assessment model. Consequently the results may not reflect the stock condition in all local groups of black sea bass.

Please take notice of the "admittedly FLAWED DATA" quotes and inconsistent data statements by this report as a whole.

I have seen more REAL numbers posted here by OTHERS than YOU while also the people/ groups you are attacking in your posts are simply challenging the existing data, helping produce real scientific data, get the FACTS out to the public and clarify the admittedly flawed data which you seem deftly afraid of for some reason and overly defensive about.

Since you are so "in touch" and discount anything but your own opinion I look forward to meeting you Tuesday night at the end of the SSFFF meeting to see how you can twist that into something else.

[CaptTB]

Where do you get your numbers? What studies or research can you quote that proves that the MRFSS harvest numbers are wrong?

And the point of this thread was, that the numbers are being challenged SCIENTIFICALLY!

Had you bothered to read the original post you'd know that.

I am sorry you were unable to assimilate the information or my point.
Right back at ya!

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?
At a later date I am sure you will catch on.
I wish I could say the same for you.:rolleyes:

[Capt. Jerry P]

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?


That say it all!!!

Ken

where do you come up with 10%

so frustrated with people like you...only a crackpot could think that

1 in 10 caught 100 keepers??? Because you did???

[CaptTB]

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?

I believe it is important for people reading this thread to get the facts and not just some wild a$$ opinion based on nothing more than "fishermen's weblogs".

I bring these questions back up because I would like to see a response from you Ken. Your logic and your "research" as you call it does not hold up in the face of reality and I feel it is important for people to see that. In most cases far more people will read things without actually commenting on them, and I have found from experience that it is important for those people to have some actual, and factual, responses to the spin and personal opinions of the uninformed.

Certain people will yell louder than everyone else, but as evidenced in this thread they typically have nothing of value or substance to say.

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

[CaptTB]

Let's see if I have the time to deal with all the mistakes and false information you just posted.
Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA .
False. The decision to challenge the MRFSS landings data from 2009 was made by Save The Summer Flounder Fishery Fund. RFA was not involved in the process, and if you bothered to actually read the original post in here you would have known that they were not even mentioned. Not to mention, there is no "business decision" involved, since it is a reaction to first hand knowledge by anglers, businesses and individuals who fish for Fluke that some of the assertions being made by MRFSS fly in the face of first hand observations made by people up and down the coast of the US (not just cape may fishermen's blogs by the way)

Since the data from MRFSS has already been declared "fatally flawed" the the National Resource Council of the National Academy of Sciences after conducting a review mandated by Congress, and since the newly reauthorized MSA demanded that NMFS make certain changes to MRFSS by a specific date, and since NMFS has yet to do what it is required by Federal law to do, SSFFF took it upon itself to hire an independent company to see if they could find out where the screwy numbers were coming from and if any outside information and analysis could help refine those numbers.

Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise.
False. IF you had bothered to read the original post you would know there is not our "own survey" being conducted. As a matter of fact, there is no survey whatsoever being conducted. But in order for you to know that you would have had to actually learn something, which you have seemed adverse to doing to date. Additionally, since there is no such survey being done, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to "manipulate the results." An accusation (or a supposition on your part that is based on nothing, other than your continued attempts to attack the integrity of people and organizations of which and whom you know nothing.

I find it typical of your cowardly attitude of taking pot shots at people and groups on the internet but not in person, knowing full well you would be laughed out of the room were you to make such wild ass and unsupportable accusations and insinuations to mine or anyone else's faces.
You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks.
Really? Since you obviously know nothing about the condition of those stocks I will gladly educate you. According to the most recent MAFMC Stock Status Report it states, according to the Office of Sustainable Fisheries - 3rd Quarter 2009 Status Report of U.S. Fisheries, that Summer Flounder are currently not overfished, not experiencing overfishing and are at 77% of the rebuilt size, still rebuilding and scheduled to be rebuilt by 2013.

Black Sea Bass are currently at 103% of their rebuilt size, are not overfished and are not experiencing overfishing.

So, according to the best available science both stocks are extremely healthy and still growing.

Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.That would be accurate if it were true, but since there are no surveys paid for by anyone that stands to benefit financially, and seeing as how there is no survey that would increase the quota (that is not how quotas are set and the quotas for 2010 have already been set) I would say it is safe to say you honestly do not know a blessed thing about the topic.

It is perhaps possible you could be more incorrect, but I highly doubt it. Perhaps in the future a little research outside of someone's weblog on your part would be in order. You would stand to be at least a little closer to the truth and perhaps a bit less inaccurate in your comments.:rolleyes:

[CaptTB]

Sorry, I accidentally copied over part of my response.

Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side.
As pertains to the quota I would agree with you. And, if you knew anything about how the quotas are set you would know that there are already several levels of conservatism built into the quota setting process.

As to the survey (do you even know the difference? Do you even know what MRFSS is?) there is no such thing as a survey mistake that is conservative or liberal. There is only accurate or inaccurate. If a survey is biased on the high side it is not conservative. On the contrary, it has the opposite effect and creates a picture of both landings and the stock that is negative.

Most people I know, when faced with a question or issue pertaining to a topic they do not understand or of which they have little or no knowledge would first seek to better understand the issue or educate themselves on the topic before suggesting a course of action, response or assuming to know the answer.

You, however, have taken the opposite approach. You make statements of supposed fact when in reality you have none (facts that is) and have clearly little or no knowledge of the topic.

While I'm sure it is nice and cozy under that blanket of ignorance, sooner or later you'll need to come up for air.

I also noticed that you STILL did not answer my questions, despite posting them twice. You responded to the original topic (which you obviously did not fully comprehend) but you completely avoided responding to the questions based on your ridiculous assertions about landings.
So, I will ask yet again and await your response.
I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?
Well?

[CaptTB]

By the way, here is the link to the most recent Current Stock Status of MAFMC-Managed Species (http://mafmc.org/Jason/MAFMC_Stock_Status_CURRENT.pdf)

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

Capt.TB, When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.


Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!


In the past you laughed at my when I started a thread calling for a moratorium on weakfish.
You also belittled my over a post about a NJ salt water license. If you take a look at the comments sent to the ASMFC calling for a moratorium and the active polls on the NJ salt water license topic, It should become glaringly apparent that I am not the only one that disagrees with you on some topics. NJ anglers are big on forming their own opinions!

I see the MRFSS data and stock observations made by anglers is only good if it fits your argument

[CaptTB]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA .
Capt.TB, When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.

And yet the RFA is not involved in any review of MRFSS at this time, so again you are completely wrong. You feel the need to try and bash RFA even when they are not part of the topic.
Pathetic.

Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!

My dear sir, do you even know what the term overfished means? Sorry, if you did you would know how ridiculous your statement is. The fact that a harvest target for the recerational sector or a quota for the commercial sector is exceeded does not mean a stock is overfished. In addition, while exceeding a harvest target COULD mean that "overfishing" is occurring, it does not have to mean that, as is the case with Sea Bass.

I would suggest you go look up the definitions of those two words (overfished and overfishing) before you try to use them in a sentence. To date, you have not used either of them correctly.

I see the MRFSS data and stock observations made by anglers is only good if it fits your argument
No, the difference is my use of angler observations comes from thousands of people from all walks of the fishery (land based, boat and partyboat) as well as professionals and industry people from states along the coast.

You, on the other hand, read some weblogs of cape may fishermen and consider yourself an expert and call that "research.":rolleyes:
Plus, you do realize that the stock status information is not MRFSS data don't you? No, I suppose you don't know the difference.

This from the guy that does not even know the definition or proper use of the terms he is using.

Here, I'll help get you started: From the Magnuson Stevens Act: "The terms "overfishing" and “overfished" mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis."

From the National Marine Fisheries Service: "NMFS' definition of "overfishing" from the national standard 1 guidelines was the basis for this language, but Congress deleted the qualifier "long-term" before "capacity." The intent was to apply the "overfished" label to more fisheries by focusing on the current capacity to produce MSY. See the discussion of "optimum."
Issues:
Congress may have confused the situation by lumping an adjective (describing a fishery) and a verb (describing an activity) in the same definition. The activity of overfishing may occur in a fishery that is not in an overfished status; harvest in an overfished fishery may not be overfishing."

By the way, I noticed you still haven't answered my questions. C'mon Ken, these were YOUR NUMBERS according to YOUR RESEARCH as you called it. So, stand up and defend your statements, retract them, back them up, whatever.

here, I'll post them again in case you missed it the first three times:
I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.


Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!


In the past you laughed at my when I started a thread calling for a moratorium on weakfish.
You also belittled my over a post about a NJ salt water license. If you take a look at the comments sent to the ASMFC calling for a moratorium and the active polls on the NJ salt water license topic, It should become glaringly apparent that I am not the only one that disagrees with you on some topics. Thankfully NJ anglers are big on forming their own opinions!

I see the MRFSS data and the observations of anglers is only good if it fits your argument.

At this point you are just using Semantics Captain!!

[CaptTB]

At this point you are just using Semantics Captain!!

OK Ken. Next time I go to D.C. or Trenton for a Congressional hearing I'll expect to see you there.

When a Congressman or Senator talks about overfished or overfishing I want to hear you tell them "But Senator, those are just semantics!"

You accuse the RFA of doing something they aren't even involved in at this point, and that is just semantics?

You make these ridiculous statements about landings numbers that are so far from reality that when questioned even YOU can't defend, and you are as far from reality as anyone, and it's just semantics?

Nice try, but I doubt anyone with a brain buys it Ken. Strange how you still did not answer the questions, but at least now everyone knows that your numbers and motives are questionable to say the least. Your personal little crusade against the RFA and anyone else that has actually worked at improving fisheries and fishing is just that, a little crusade. You try to drag groups like the RFA into conversations on topics of which they have no involvement just to slander them. This is the second time you've done that in a thread with me, and I for one will call you out on it each and every time.

You have no facts or logic to support your statements. You say things that cannot be proven, then refuse to comment on them when questioned.

Here, a quote from your blog that is rife with flat out false statements. No wonder you got banned from that other site.
The law suit reeks of greed and indifference to the future generation of sportfishermen. Do not be fooled by the name RFA they were started by the marine manufactures and party boat groups and that is where their allegiance lies.They have the audacity to ask sportfishermen to fund their law suit! They have been using half truths and innuendos in an attempt to exploit the sea bass stock for SHORT TERM economic benefit for party boat owners.

RFA was not started by Marine Manufacturers and Party boat groups genius. My favorite part is the exploitation ofsea bass for short term benefits. The friggin stock is completely rebuilt and yet we still have the smallest quota in the history of the stock.

Sorry chief, but you are no longer worth the bandwidth. After reading the ridiculous crap you have posted here and elsewhere I'm confident that 99% of the people see you for what you are. Perhaps one guy from this site wants to follow you around the internet, but after reading things like the BS and flat out lies I just posted from your blog, I doubt too many other people with a functioning brain will.

Go away, there are adults here trying to carry on conversations Ken.

[Kensdock]

Fishing alliance linked to yacht firm

Lawsuits say Viking controls nonprofit

BY ALEXANDER LANE
(Newark) STAR-LEDGER STAFF
February 6, 2005

Whether fighting no-fishing zones, keeping white marlin off the endangered-species list or elbowing commercial fishermen out of favored waters, the Recreational Fishing Alliance makes its voice heard.

The New Jersey-based RFA, which has chapters in all coastal states, bills itself as a “grassroots political action organization representing individual sport fishermen and the sport-fishing industry.” It frequently touts its tens of thousands of members in brochures and press releases.

But according to two recent lawsuits against its executive director, there’s only one member that really matters. The suits say that New Gretna-based Viking Yacht Co., one of the nation’s premier luxury yacht manufacturers, tightly controls the non-profit, tax-exempt RFA, and the two operate as a “single integrated enterprise.”

Fishing advocates and environmentalists said they have long believed as much, maintaining that the RFA cares more about Viking’s interests than those of the fishermen it claims to represent.

“There’s a big difference between what they do and what we do,” said Al Marantz, a founding member of the all-volunteer Jersey Coast Anglers Association, with a membership of about 30,000. “Decisions can be made by (Viking CEO) Bob Healey himself and not really correspond to the wishes of the fishermen.”

Both lawsuits were sexual harassment complaints against RFA Executive Director James Donofrio, and the plaintiffs, both RFA employees, had a clear financial motivation to involve the deep-pocketed yacht company. Raymond Bogan, who represents Donofrio in the lawsuits and the RFA in other matters, said it was “absolutely false” that Viking and RFA operate as a single enterprise.

“There is no question nor has there ever been a question that they are two very distinct entities,” Bogan said. “Viking is a contributor and a sponsor of the RFA, as are a number of other entities.”

Healey founded the RFA in 1996, and Viking remains its prime source of funds, an RFA official said. Until last February, its only three board members were Healry, Donofrio and Viking Chief Financial Officer Gerard Straub Senior., and the RFA operated out of Viking’s office complex in Burlington County. Until June 2001, RFA employees were paid with Viking checks, Straub said.

The RFA paid Viking $2,900 a month in rent for space at the Viking office complex and paid for the payroll services when it received them, Straub said. In February, Donofrio, Healey and Straub elected nine other board members, called “voluntary directors at large,” from other boating companies, publications and organizations.

Experts in nonprofit tax law said the arrangement between RFA and Viking would be illegal if their funds were commingled, or if the RFA did not have independent corporate governance.

“It’s when their governance or their finances get foggy that there is a possibility that the nonprofit status could be revoked,” said Andy Rothman, an assistant dean at Rutgers University School of Law. “That would have to be analyzed.”
James Harrison, a partner at the Atlanta law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan who specializes in tax-exempt organizations, said the RFA might be following a well-established tradition among non-profit groups of de-emphasizing their commercial ties and emphasizing their grassroots members “so it will have at least the appearance of being more important to legislators.”

RFA says its 37,000 members include individuals who have paid $35 to join, individual members of fishing clubs that have paid $100 as a club, and corporations that have paid anywhere from $100 to $100,000.

According to its tax filings, the group had revenues of about $1.6 million in 2003, with “direct public support” accounting for about $1.3 million and about $240,000 coming from membership dues. The filing did not say how much came from Viking, but Straub said it was about 41 percent.

Some environmentalists have long accused the RFGA of representing the interests of its boating industry members, and Viking in particular, above those of recreational fishermen.

Benson Chiles, director of the Coastal Ocean Coalition, said the RFA is the driving force behind efforts to pass Freedom to Fish acts – laws sharply limiting the creation of marine protected areas where fishing is banned – on the state and federal levels.

My theory is Viking is concerned about market share,” Chiles said. “If there are places that are protected in the ocean from fishing pressures, then there’s not as much need for a multimillion-dollar yacht to get out to that area.”

Bogan said federal no-fishing zones could hurt Viking’s business, but the RFA’s stance against them is no indication that Viking controls RFA. The zones would also hurt the business of the other manufacturers who belong to RFA, Bogan said. Furthermore, the RFA spends much of its time on issues that affect mom-and-pop charter operators, such as regulations on close-to-shore fish such as striped bass, winter flounder and red snapper, Bogan said.

RFA has put an extraordinary amount of effort into those issues, and those are completely unrelated to any of the big boat companies,” Bogan said.

Viking, founded about 40 years ago, is one of the nation’s largest yacht manufacturers, with more than 1,000 employees. It makes about 110 boats a year, which sell for an average of more than $1.5 million through dealers around the world.

One of the lawsuits against Donofrio, filed in March 2003 by former RFA Legislative Director Sharon McKenna, was settled amicably for terms that remain confidential. The other, filed by another RFA employee named Bonnie Adams, is in the discovery phase. Both were filed in Superior Court in Burlington County.

Alexande Lane covers the environment. He can be reached at alane@starledger.com or (973) 392-1790.

[Bates]

Kensdock, maybe you could bring us up to date with what the RFA has been doing since this article was written 4 1/2 years ago? How did the second employee suit end? Tried to call A. Lane but they do not seem to be available any longer? Hope you will be at the meeting tonight, I am sure a lot of people would like to discuss your views vs theirs? Maybe you could have some handouts answering the questions put to you earlier in this post?
See you there.

[CaptTB]

Wow Ken, I can't believe it took you so long to post this. Figured you would have just gone straight to SOL and copied and pasted it from that thread you were involved in.

So, let's get back to the topic at hand.
Remember, you need to learn to be accurate with your statements and have FACTS to back them up.

You post and article that, amongst other things, quotes two disgruntled employees filing lawsuits as to what Viking's involvement in RFA was. And we all know that people filing lawsuits are always 100% truthful in making their claims against the person or group whom they are suing right?:rolleyes:

Anyway, you said, and I quote- Do not be fooled by the name RFA they were started by the marine manufactures and party boat groups

And, that statement is completely false. Had you bothered to do any research beyond a single newspaper article posted on the internet you would have known the facts.

Suffice to say Viking was approached to help fund a new recreational fishing organization, not the other way around. The logic was, they have a stake in healthy fisheries, so why not get some big money backing to help fight the enormous amounts of money at the "antis" disposal. Second, if you notice even in that newspaper article there is no mention of any party boat groups.

Wanna know why?

Because there were no party boat groups involved in starting the RFA.

How exactly can the RFA have allegiance to a group or groups that started them when no such groups exist? Plus, it's not like the connection to Viking Yachts has been any big secret, the RFA offices used to be right on site at the Viking offices. That was one way they could focus more of the money coming in on the issues, by not having to rent outside offices.

Perhaps some day Ken you'll learn how to actually research the facts, but I don't think I'll be holding my breath waiting.
http://notcanadian44.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/cat-holding-breath.jpg

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.


Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!


In the past you laughed at my when I started a thread calling for a moratorium on weakfish.
You also belittled my over a post about a NJ salt water license. If you take a look at the comments sent to the ASMFC calling for a moratorium and the active polls on the NJ salt water license topic, It should become glaringly apparent that I am not the only one that disagrees with you on some topics. Thankfully NJ anglers are big on forming their own opinions!

I see the MRFSS data and the observations of anglers is only good if it fits your argument.

At this point you are just using Semantics Captain!!

I am sure at this point most NJ fishermen know why I urged them to make their own comments to the ASMFC and not rely on the RFA.


It frequently touts its tens of thousands of members in brochures and press releases.

But according to two recent lawsuits against its executive director, there’s only one member that really matters. The suits say that New Gretna-based Viking Yacht Co., one of the nation’s premier luxury yacht manufacturers, tightly controls the non-profit, tax-exempt RFA, and the two operate as a “single integrated enterprise.”

Fishing advocates and environmentalists said they have long believed as much, maintaining that the RFA cares more about Viking’s interests than those of the fishermen it claims to represent.

[CaptTB]

Ken, why do you simply keep quoting yourself over and over?

I guess if you have nothing of value to say, just say it a lot.

Funny how you have never addressed ANY of the points made directly refuting you suppositions and "research."

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1177/deadkittenfg9.jpg

[Leif]

Capt.TB

Thanks for all your hard work and effort. Tonights meeting was productive and informative.

Thank you as well Kensdock for the entertainment and the reminder why we do what we do.


Leif

[CaptTB]

I've been waiting for an intelligent response to the multitude of questions I have asked you and to the various facts pointed out to you Ken, please hurry up and provide at least some response other than repeating your same post over and over, I'm getting sleepy.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/222/452403010_173d253706.jpg

[Pete]

I managed to convince a friend into meeting me further south and let him continue the drive the rest of the way.

I am extremley pleased that I attended. The meeting was very informative and the issues and positions were clearly stated. Tony Bogan really has his spit together and simplified all the scientific jargon into layman's terms. Ray Bogan also spoke to the legal side to all of this. Clearing, for me, some very muddied waters.

I wish to commend the entire board as well as the guest speakers for their professionalism and manner in which the meeting was conducted.

Sadly, the attendance was a tad lean. Therefore, I decline to comment on the meeting content. In the end if you missed it shame on you. Sure, there are those who really did have legitimate reasons for their absence. But, others have become complacent. Hoping things will jast simply happen as in the past.

Bottom line, the Ssfff needs money. Their coffers are shrinking. Funny, how many guys will show off their brand new custom outfits. Yet, when asked how much they have donated towards active organizations. I get blank stares.

10% seems the magic number bandied about last evening, and on this thread. If 10% would donate 10 bucks the fund would be a lot closer to attaining it's goals. That fancy new custom outfit just doesn't seem so pretty when it hangs in the garage. Open your wallets boys. There ARE folks out there who would love nothing more than total shutdown of all fisheries. Donate, something, anything. Little is better than nothing. Just leave that holographic decal off the shiny new outfit. Send the money saved to the Ssfff. The fishing season you save will be your own. Even if you have donated in the past, try to give a little more now. Their work has, already, paid huge dividends.

Keep up the good work folks.

Thank You,
Pete

[Kensdock]

Originally Posted by Kensdock
How many keeper flounder do you think 10% of the 1.2 million NJ Anglers caught
a piece

in 2009? 20?, 30?,40?,50?,60?, 100? Using the post here on the ********* as a gage.

I'd say 120,000 anglers probably caught around 20 keeper fluke each in 2009 and thats being generous.
STEVE-O

[Kup]

Originally Posted by Kensdock
How many keeper flounder do you think 10% of the 1.2 million NJ Anglers caught
a piece

in 2009? 20?, 30?,40?,50?,60?, 100? Using the post here on the ********* as a gage.

I'd say 120,000 anglers probably caught around 20 keeper fluke each in 2009 and thats being generous.
STEVE-O

I'm sure your method of doing a scientific survey is very accurate and could only be off by a small margin.:rolleyes:

Thanks for all your effort Capt T.B.
I hope that with guys like you leading us we can continue to enjoy the sport we love so much.