Female Fluke

[Billfish715]

Everyone of our crew has a job to do when we get the boat back to the dock. Mine is to fillet our catch. This year, I've noticed more and more female fluke on the table. The roe sacs are very visible when the fish are eviscerated. What does this tell me? It indicates that nearly 90% of the "keeper" fluke are females and filled with eggs. It also seems to indicate that we are making a severe dent in the reproductivity of the summer flounder. Given the fact that most of the "legal" fluke are females, what else can it indicate? My point is that we are killing more and more female fluke at a time when the scientists tell us that the stock is being depleted! How can the scientists expect a stock to recover when they are directing us to keep the mostly larger breeders? Is anyone else finding the same thing? Since there is no evident physical feature to distinguish a male from a female fluke, there is no way to know the sex of a fish until it is being filleted. If, indeed, most of the bigger fish are females (an observed assumption), the lowering of the legal size limits would take some of the pressure off the larger breeding stock. Does that make sense? It does to me but I'm not a scientist!

[Joey Dah Fish]

Everyone of our crew has a job to do when we get the boat back to the dock. Mine is to fillet our catch. This year, I've noticed more and more female fluke on the table. The roe sacs are very visible when the fish are eviscerated. What does this tell me? It indicates that nearly 90% of the "keeper" fluke are females and filled with eggs. It also seems to indicate that we are making a severe dent in the reproductivity of the summer flounder. Given the fact that most of the "legal" fluke are females, what else can it indicate? My point is that we are killing more and more female fluke at a time when the scientists tell us that the stock is being depleted! How can the scientists expect a stock to recover when they are directing us to keep the mostly larger breeders? Is anyone else finding the same thing? Since there is no evident physical feature to distinguish a male from a female fluke, there is no way to know the sex of a fish until it is being filleted. If, indeed, most of the bigger fish are females (an observed assumption), the lowering of the legal size limits would take some of the pressure off the larger breeding stock. Does that make sense? It does to me but I'm not a scientist!
If you are correct I agree. Also in addition I believe harvesting one size seems to me also endangers a generation of fish. I think though it would be slightly more confusing the regs might be modified to something like this 5 fish total per person per trip. 3 18" or over and 2 fish from 14-18" I'm may be off base here but logical.

[jakesdad]

The study that was done by SSFFF a few years ago by Dr. Maunder also indicated this. Male fluke do not grow much beyond 18 or 19 inches before they die. All large fluke are females.

Ask Captain Ron as to the study, he saved racks and they where used in the study. The study was used for a year or 2 and then the powers that be went back to their old ways.

We would be much better off taking 16 to 18 inch fish and releasing anything over 18 to help rebuild the stocks.

Look at what has happened to the Seabass stock once we stopped taking the females before they could breed, now the stock is above rebuilt status.

Henry

[Billfish715]

When I searched for an answer to the question "Are female flounder larger than male flounder?" I came across these articles which indicate that female flounder are indeed larger than males. It also indicates that males do not grow too very big. How big do males grow? There are no definite answers but there is evidence that they do not grow too large. Therefore, distributing the "take" limits of fluke to include "slot" fish would seem to be a logical improvement in the limits we have now.



http://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/resources/factsheets/flounder.htm

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J028v11n01_07#.VeSTpfm0eno

[fin_s_guy]

This issue is in the hands of politicians...there is no pharkin way ANY thought goes into it!

[Capt.Yasar]

On a similar discussion thread last year I recall someone mentioned having slot limits in Florida to spare the breeders. Saving the breeders to keep healthy stock of fish is a reasonable thing to do but I'm wondering why RFA or other organizations are not raising this point all the time to save breeders of all types of fish (fluke, Stripers, and all other game fish).

[1captainron]

Yes, 18 inch fluke and over are FEMALES!!
The two year study with Rutgers proved this beyond a doubt.....I had a two inch thick print out of the whole thing with statistics and facts. Unbiased and True.
So what happened to the study you ask? It was tossed in the garbage because the Gov couldn't lay credit to it! Yet, They wouldn't give us a dime towards the study to help, where they could have received full credit, didn't matter to us as long as it was done. So we had to go to the public. The public came through once again with unbelievable Support.

Now, we have to do it all over again, giving "CREDIT" to those who don't really give a Shit! There's your answer in a nut-shell.:mad: More political BS to run us off the water.
We could certainly use the support of JCAA and it's members as well as NJOA, not in moral support but in Money towards to fight! Come on guys, the time is now, this is not a who got it done and who gets the trophy, it's about the future of everyone who fishes and is tiered of the BS....Help us now or forever hold your peace. Capt. Ron

[Billfish715]

Speaking of holding the peace...........everyone who fishes or has a stake in fishing, the fishing industry and any businesses that depend on the dollars spent by fishermen can have an impact on the politicians. That community of fishermen and supporters has to include the commercial industry. Without their support in this, there is no peace. I'm not privy to all that went on before but I am confident that everyone with an "interest" in this matter must stand united. That includes the commercial industry. They lose when we lose too. Extend the olive branch and see what happens.

[1captainron]

Speaking of holding the peace...........everyone who fishes or has a stake in fishing, the fishing industry and any businesses that depend on the dollars spent by fishermen can have an impact on the politicians. That community of fishermen and supporters has to include the commercial industry. Without their support in this, there is no peace. I'm not privy to all that went on before but I am confident that everyone with an "interest" in this matter must stand united. That includes the commercial industry. They lose when we lose too. Extend the olive branch and see what happens.

The Commercial guys have put more money up to fight than anyone, they don't need an Olive Branch, it's their livelihoods also and they had more guys on the Bus than us when it was needed ......This is not a Rec VS Commercial situation, we are all in the same place here.

[Rich]

Scientists obviously don't have all the correct answers.
Just maybe they should start listening to those that know
whats going on out there.

[bunker dunker]

"so your telling me if we save the fish that can have baby fish we may have more fish in the future",come on who is going to believe that!!!!

[mike1010]

Scientists obviously don't have all the correct answers.
Just maybe they should start listening to those that know
whats going on out there.

Obviously nobody has all the correct answers. Don't be so quick to knock the scientists. There's lots of good science being done behind the scenes, but then it gets put into the political sausage machine.