Current fisheries regulations don't work. Here is my framework

[Ttmako]

Much like many of you on this site, I've willingly tried to believe in and abide by the rules that regulate what we like to do.
After throwing back gut hooked 16" fluke during the summer to loads of beautiful seabass last weekend, I've had enough.
I put my thoughts down on paper in the hope we can use this as some framework to stand up and change these stupid stupid regulations. It's long and kind of blunt so be prepared.
I'm convinced these folks truly want to eliminate recreational fishing. I don't know why, but when they forcefeed us regulations based on complete BS, I cannot draw any other conclusion.

1-Not all fisheries need to be managed. Since the proliferation of fisheries management more species are being put under regulation. However, the supposed benefit of these regulations has been difficult to prove. For example, a recent study proved that due to minimum size regulations recreational fisherman are forced to harvest mature breeding female fluke. Forcing the mature population to be removed is not sustainable.

2-Recreational fishermen are generally concerned about the fisheries in which we participate. As such we are happy to help shape and abide by simple rules that will prohibit abuse. Implementing reasonable bag limits is achievable and reasonable.

3-Once the fish are landed, they belong to the fisherman. They should be free to clean, donate, barter or sell the catch they legally possess.

4-Fisheries regulations change every year. The measures we are forced to adopt are not given a chance to work or take effect. Propose a grand bargain of new regulations that will be in force for a reasonable time period (5-10 years) in order to more accurately measure the impact.

5-Fisheries regulations are not equitable in their current form.
For example, due to a political compromise the fluke fishery was regionalized in 2014. New York State benefited from this change. However, New Jersey fishermen are now forced to watch as New York boats are able to catch and keep seabass and tautog. Both of these are essentially closed in New Jersey.
The Commercial size limit for fluke is 14”. In New Jersey the recreational size limit is higher. There needs to be fairness between the recreational and commercial fisherman.

6-The “science” being utilized to measure the population as well as the recreational catch are both in- adequate to make rules.
Fish swim and are not able to be counted. It is impossible to accurately ascertain the population of a fishery by using a few random trawls. Estimates are made but they are estimates and not stringent enough to make laws from.
The methodology to measure demand (MRIP) is clearly not accurate. It simply doesn’t work and must be changed.

7-Size limits should be eliminated. Current regulations require fisherman to keep breeding fish and throw away mortally wounded, perfectly edible smaller fish. Releasing a mortally wounded fish is immoral and not a sustainable practice. Propose that fisherman be allowed to keep fish that the angler believes will not survive. These mortally wounded fish will count towards their bag limit. For example:
Short fluke that are gut hooked will be kept and applied to bag limit. The hook needs to be in the fish.
Utilize slot limits on fish to ensure healthy breeding stocks are returned to spawn.

8-Fisheries regulators need to be cognizant of the calendar. In New Jersey, fishermen are unable to catch seabass and fluke. The bag limit for Tautog is 1 fish per angler. There should be overlap between fisheries. Close the fluke fishery but open seabass to provide anglers with more choice.

[Reel Class]

Much like many of you on this site, I've willing tried to believe in and abide by the rules that regulate what we like to do.
After throwing back gut hooked 16" fluke during the summer to loads of beautiful seabass last weekend, I've had enough.
I put my thoughts down on paper in the hope we can use this as some framework to stand up and change these stupid stupid regulations. It's long and kind of blunt so be prepared.
I'm convinced these folks truly want to eliminate recreational fishing. I don't know why, but when they forcefeed us regulations based on complete BS, I cannot draw any other conclusion.

Not all fisheries need to be managed. Since the proliferation of fisheries management more and more species are being put under regulation. However, the impact or supposed benefit of these regulations has been difficult to prove. For example, a recent study proved that due to minimum size regulations recreational fisherman are forced to harvest mature breeding female fluke. Forcing the mature population to be removed is not sustainable.
Recreational fishermen are generally concerned about the fisheries in which we participate. As such we are happy to help shape and abide by simple rules that will prohibit abuse. Implementing reasonable bag limits is achievable and reasonable.
Once the fish are landed, they belong to the fisherman. They should be free to clean, donate, barter or sell the catch they legally possess. Limiting the supply of fish to only a small handful of providers has driven prices higher. Increasing the supply available will lower and stabilize prices.
Fisheries regulations change every year. The measures we are forced to adopt are not given a chance to work or take effect. Propose a grand bargain of new regulations that will be in force for a reasonable time period (5-10 years) in order to more accurately measure the impact.
Fisheries regulations are not equitable in their current form.
For example, due to a political compromise the fluke fishery was regionalized in 2014. New York State benefited from this change. However, New Jersey fishermen are now forced to watch as New York boats are able to catch and keep seabass and tautog. Both of these are essentially closed in New Jersey. This is not equitable fisheries management.
Commercial size limit for fluke is 14”. In New Jersey the size limit is higher. There needs to be fairness between the recreational and commercial fisherman.
The “science” being utilized to measure the population as well as the recreational catch are both in- adequate to make rules.
Fish swim and are not able to be counted. It is impossible to accurately ascertain the population of a fishery by using a few random trawls. Estimates are made but they are estimates and not stringent enough to make laws from.
The methodology to measure demand (MRIP) is clearly not accurate. It simply doesn’t work and needs to change. Perhaps enforcement personnel resources could be shifted to provide better assessments of fisheries demand. For example, have them drive around and count the boats and fisherman.
Size limits should be eliminated. Current regulations require fisherman to keep breeding fish and throw away mortally wounded, perfectly edible smaller fish. Releasing a mortally wounded fish is immoral and not a sustainable practice. Propose that fisherman be allowed to keep fish that the angler believes will not survive. These mortally wounded fish will count towards their bag limit.
Short fluke that are gut hooked will be kept and applied to bag limit. The hook needs to be in the fish.
Utilize slot limits on fish to ensure healthy breeding stocks are returned to spawn.
Seabass caught with inflated swim bladder will be kept and counted towards a bag limit.

Fisheries regulators need to be cognizant of the calendar. In New Jersey, fishermen are unable to catch seabass and fluke. The bag limit for Tautog is 1 fish per angler. This leaves anglers being able to catch striped bass, bluefish and cod. There should be overlap between fisheries. Close the fluke fishery but open seabass to provide anglers with more choice.

I'm trying to wrap my head around your proposal - to me, in reading this, it seems like you are proposing no size limits on fish, and mortally wounded fish (with hooks imbedded) count towards a bag. If I'm wrong, correct me, but this seems like it's the theme of your idea.

A couple of questions:

1) How are bag limits set? What data informs these limits?
2) How does this proposal make sense to the regulators?
3) What does counting boats and fisherman do for the regulators who ultimately want to write tickets and summons' and make $$ for the state? --- Basically, who's being held accountable?

To be brutally honest, in letting this sit for a few minutes, gut hooked fish are truly the least of our concerns in retaining fish. Ridiculous size limits, and even more ridiculous closed seasons and severely reduced bag limits are our problem - these factors are deterring people from fishing and spending $$ on this industry.

....More later

[Ttmako]

Thanks for reading this allen. I get its long. I wrote it out of sheer frustration.
Yes I think we should have smaller size limits and be able to keep fish that are gut hooked or will clearly not survive.
It is my understanding regulations are set by a stock assessment and an estimate of what is being taken (MRIP survey).
These are woefully inadequate and have resulted in more stringent regulations every year.
The regulators will hate these proposals but we as a body of fisherman need to have some set of ideals and goals to fight for. In my opinion the science being used to create the regulations is poor. In return we keep getting screwed because we accept what meager catch allocations they give us.
I'm suggesting regulators allocate resources away from enforcement and towards providing better science to make effective regulations. Agree they are hell bent on picking our pockets.
It's just a set of thoughts to prompt a conversation.
Thanks

[skate king]

You both have some very valid points and are well said! Some I completely agree with and some I' not so sure about, but I am not at all saying are wrong. The most important thing in my opinion is it may open a real dialogue if those that make the regulations are willing to listen. It just does not make sense for forcing recreational fishermen to keep the larger breeders of any species.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I think your observations are correct in variety of what you wrote here.

First and foremost if someone in the government is assigned to manage a fishery it's going to get managed if it needs to be or not and for the most part it will over managed. EG you can hardy drop a line on any rock pile and not catch a sea bass and they are still managing that fishery with season that opens and closes like a broken screen door in a wind storm.

Next is they are managing the fisheries with false science/information and they say it's the best they can afford due to budget constraints. Last time I checked, NOAA had a five billion dollar budget. Fact is if they put their minds to it and allocated the funds accordingly we'd have better science and stock assessment models. Where are they spending the 5 billion? It's certainly is not on improved weather forecasting :)

Lastly, and I've mentioned this in the SSFFF update, science would say that that larger fluke should be released since most 19 inch fish are females and the breeders so why do the regs encourage us to keep 19 inch plus fish??

[Reel Class]

Thanks for reading this allen. I get its long. I wrote it out of sheer frustration.
Yes I think we should have smaller size limits and be able to keep fish that are gut hooked or will clearly not survive.
It is my understanding regulations are set by a stock assessment and an estimate of what is being taken (MRIP survey).
These are woefully inadequate and have resulted in more stringent regulations every year.
The regulators will hate these proposals but we as a body of fisherman need to have some set of ideals and goals to fight for. In my opinion the science being used to create the regulations is poor. In return we keep getting screwed because we accept what meager catch allocations they give us.
I'm suggesting regulators allocate resources away from enforcement and towards providing better science to make effective regulations. Agree they are hell bent on picking our pockets.
It's just a set of thoughts to prompt a conversation.
Thanks

Bro - edit it, revise it, then repost it - as long as it's easy to read people will read it. I think it rambles a bit!

BTW - the points above are VERY GOOD!

[Ttmako]

Thanks.
I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with my thoughts on this topic. A few are controversial and are meant to elicit a reaction.
The post is edited as best i can. Sorry, I wasn't an English major.

[Reel Class]

Thanks.
I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with my thoughts on this topic. A few are controversial and are meant to elicit a reaction.
The post is edited as best i can. Sorry, I wasn't an English major.

Me either! Looks great now and is easier to read.

You have some great ideas. Most government based systems are flawed and their protocols are completely out of date, including anything regarding fisheries management. When government gets involved, things get ugly! Its going to take persistence and intelligence to push for reform!

[Almaink]

Bravo! I have been saying the same things for years now.

[UglyStick]

3-Once the fish are landed, they belong to the fisherman. They should be free to clean, donate, barter or sell the catch they legally possess.

7-Size limits should be eliminated. Current regulations require fisherman to keep breeding fish and throw away mortally wounded, perfectly edible smaller fish. Releasing a mortally wounded fish is immoral and not a sustainable practice. Propose that fisherman be allowed to keep fish that the angler believes will not survive.

I agree with many of these concepts - here's a few thoughts one some:

Being allowed to clean the catch at sea makes enforcement that much more difficult in a state where there already aren't enough CO's to enforce the rules. Allowing donate/barter/sell would encourage some less than honorable people to bend the rules and exceed their quota. There is a fine line between recreational and commercial if one can gain a monetary profit from their catch.

Size limits can't be eliminated all together out of necessity, but intelligent slot limits would help in preserving the breeder stock while allowing recreational fishermen a better bag limit in many cases. Although I agree throwing back mortally wounded fish gains nothing for the fish population, again, this type of concept would encourage certain individuals to inappropriately keep under size or non-slot fish by fabricating that they were mortally wounded.

Some rules need to be in place to help ensure the rules are followed. Unfortunately, not everyone who wets a line is an honorable sportsman.

[Ttmako]

I spent some time on the MAMFC website and came across a guide to navigating the council process.
According to the guide there are a set of 10 national standards that all fisheries management plans must comply.
We have already proven I'm not an English major. I'm also not a lawyer. But in reading the 10 commandments, its very easy to see, the current regulations violate the national standards.
Here are 2 prime examples.
Conservation and management measures shall:
#4 Not discriminate between residents of different states; any allocation of privileges must be fair and equitable.
Is fishing a privilege or a right as a US citizen? That's pretty tough language.
Moreover, current regulations do discriminate between NY and NJ and the allocation process is not fair and equitable.
#8 Take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities to provide for sustained participation of, and minimize advsere impacts, to such communities.
Having restrictions so tight that charter and headboats can't fish for certain species due to arbitrary seasons and making bag limits so small (winter flounder) anglers no longer use for hire boats. Increasing regulations are on the verge of destroying this community.
The guide to navigating the process is actually pretty good. I encourage folks to go to MAMFC.com and have a look.

[Ttmako]

Just read a little more and gleamed the following:
Since 2003, the recreational harvest limit for fluke was reduced 24.4. % to 7.38m pounds.
In 2003 anglers were allowed to catch 8 fluke at 16.5".
Commercial fishermen landings were also reduced 25% to 11.07m pounds.
However, they never had a minimum size increase. The commercial size remains at 14".

The seabass limits went from 25 fish at 12" in 2003 to 15 fish @ 12.5" in 2015.
Although the MAMFC admits overfishing is not happening and the fishery is not overfished, they increased size limits, reduced bag limits and severely restricted the open season.
Why? Can anybody answer that question? I'm confused, frustrated and disappointed in these people.

[Ttmako]

I just dropped a note to the MAMFC to voice my concerns and feel good for trying to make some effort.
I hope others will follow suit.

[AndyS]

I want my offshore sea bass back. All winter with a 25 fish per man bag limit.
BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, that is way too much to ask for.