2017 Fluke quota reductions....

[Abrasion]

http://www.onthewater.com/stricter-fluke-limits-possible-2017/

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission have announced an approximate 30% decrease in the commercial and recreational summer flounder (fluke) quotas for 2017.

The cuts come in response to the 2016 assessment update, which estimated biomass has been trending down since 2010 and indicates summer flounder has been experiencing overfishing since 2008. Details on how the cuts will translate to recreational regulations in the Northeast states remain to be seen.

However, a grassroots organization called Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund (SSFFF) is hoping that better data could improve the stock assessment models before the cuts are implemented.

The group, which formed seven years ago when the fluke fishery appeared in danger of a shutdown and funded research that caused managers to reevaluate their numbers, is currently funding independent fishery scientists with the goal of creating a more comprehensive fluke stock assessment model.

“This proposed cut is precisely why the research currently being conducted by teams from Rutgers and Cornell with full funding from SSFFF and its partners is so important,” said Nick Cicero, Sales Manager at Folsom Corporation and a founding member of SSFFF. “The new stock modeling information the project will deliver should help NOAA Fisheries managers make decisions based on more comprehensive and timely information than is currently available. We sincerely hope that NOAA Fisheries can put off the proposed cuts till they conduct and peer review a new fluke stock assessment.” ‎

[bulletbob]

of course... Just one time, one damn time I would LOVE to read something like this...


The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission have announced an approximate 30% INCREASE in the commercial and recreational summer flounder (fluke) quotas for 2017.

[bulletbob]

Rutgers and Cornell??? They searched only to find the 2 most radical leftist tree hugging schools in the country, and hired THEM to save the rec fishery.. Rutgers and cornell you say?? Working together to help sport fishermen??.. Great.....

[SaltLife1980]

I think deep down we all knew this was coming:rolleyes:

[SNAPS]

Overfish :eek: not on any of my trips although if the size limit was 16 to 17" i would have limited out:mad: voodoo science.:confused:

[Joey Dah Fish]

Well guys. I he opened to attend the SSFF meeting a couple weeks ago. Met the people conducting the independent study and collecting the data. It was quite eye opening to me. The good news is we are no longer relying on the governments science and assessment . So from my stand point I think it's progress. I'm sure all of you would like to know if the current science , data and assements are accurate. Hopefully we are going to find that out. Saving this fishery is certainly a priority of mine as well as many other. I don't know if we are going to like or dislike the results but either way one question that has been out there for a long time will be answered. Is the science good or voodoo. So sit back or perhaps get involved and support the cause.

[Capt Sal]

Rutgers and Cornell??? They searched only to find the 2 most radical leftist tree hugging schools in the country, and hired THEM to save the rec fishery.. Rutgers and cornell you say?? Working together to help sport fishermen??.. Great.....

Strongly disagree.They are out there collecting data on head boats and they are independent and do not work for NOAA.

[liveitup1.75liter]

All I know is fluke get hammered n for the most part big ones go home shorts go back.. my question is when will the data be considered "correct" when it benefits who??

[Gerry Zagorski]

Strongly disagree.They are out there collecting data on head boats and they are independent and do not work for NOAA.

Correct. They are doing the job of gathering the data by fishing on for hire boats. They count, measure and determine the sex of the fish and record that data. That information is then used by scientists who provide feedback to NFMS and its the NFMS that determines the quotas/regs.

[bunker dunker]

bs,they have been taking steady since the 80's and will keep taking.we gave an
inch and they take 10 miles.its not just the fluke its all fish.i'll bet they are on the tog next year too.like it was said earlier,wouldn't be nice just once to get
something back.

[JBird]

I sure wish we had a slot fish for fluke. A reduction in bag limit and/or a shorter season would be easier to swallow if we could keep one or two fish between 16 and 18 inches. I just hate throwing back those "jumbo shorts" especially the gut hooked ones.

[Detour66]

With out a doubt this was coming. With all the talk of "best season in 20 years" and pics all over social media of big fish and limits it made it look like everyone was coming back to port with limits of big fish which was not the case. And talk of offshore lumps being cleaned out, well I doubt it was the rod and reel guy doing that. There are plenty of fluke out there so there is no reason for a reduction next year. We will see what happens next year. For now...enjoy what's left of the season!

[SNAPS]

Rutgers and Cornell??? They searched only to find the 2 most radical leftist tree hugging schools in the country, and hired THEM to save the rec fishery.. Rutgers and cornell you say?? Working together to help sport fishermen??.. Great.....

I hear ya, Thats why SSFF had to hire their own guy so that they can get some truthfull, meaningfull non voodoo science to refute the Feds Voodoo findings, and convince the feds to consider SSFF findings in their decision process.

[SNAPS]

With out a doubt this was coming. With all the talk of "best season in 20 years" and pics all over social media of big fish and limits it made it look like everyone was coming back to port with limits of big fish which was not the case. And talk of offshore lumps being cleaned out, well I doubt it was the rod and reel guy doing that. There are plenty of fluke out there so there is no reason for a reduction next year. We will see what happens next year. For now...enjoy what's left of the season!

I agree , A while back I remember someone here saying stop posting all this social media etc etc etc, just say we had a nice day or a good day, makes it sound like rod n reel guys are mopping up.

[SNAPS]

I sure wish we had a slot fish for fluke. A reduction in bag limit and/or a shorter season would be easier to swallow if we could keep one or two fish between 16 and 18 inches. I just hate throwing back those "jumbo shorts" especially the gut hooked ones.

I wonder the same ???, does that do any thing for the quota etc ?? yea at least come home with something, instead of throwing a bag of ice away or leaving it for the boat. How do they know we overfished ??

I remember talking to an accountant one time i asked him " how do the numbers look ??? He replied , "how do you want them to look ??

[Capt Sal]

I hear ya, Thats why SSFF had to hire their own guy so that they can get some truthfull, meaningfull non voodoo science to refute the Feds Voodoo findings, and convince the feds to consider SSFF findings in their decision process.

Exactly and some are from Rutgers. Rutgers is the state university and SSFF is using the funds for a good reason.

[hammer4reel]

With out a doubt this was coming. With all the talk of "best season in 20 years" and pics all over social media of big fish and limits it made it look like everyone was coming back to port with limits of big fish which was not the case. And talk of offshore lumps being cleaned out, well I doubt it was the rod and reel guy doing that. There are plenty of fluke out there so there is no reason for a reduction next year. We will see what happens next year. For now...enjoy what's left of the season!



I think they listen more to all the guys whining there is nothing but short fluke around.
That supports their agenda.

While in truth I feel as many others who spend time as well as gas to find fish, that this season has been one of the best since cutbacks started.
And there is no reason to not keep limits as they currently are.

.

[Gerry Zagorski]

One thing to keep in mind here.... The surveys done to assess the stocks are done by doing trawl sets, not by the surveys done by Rutgers people on the for hire boats that are recording age and sex as mentioned above...

The proposed reduction is not influenced at all by the current good fishing northern NJ ‎is experiencing. The issue here is the NMFS trawl surveys indicate that there are a lack of younger fish. This may or may not be the actual case since they could be trawling in areas where the fluke no longer are.

We know Fluke are going through a northward population shift as their range is going further north each year. We also know that the trawls are done around the same time each year. This year we had an exceptionally warm winter and spring and high summer water temps and the fish may have moved so this is not an exact science.

The science being funded by the SSFFF is to introduce Fluke size and sex into the model that does a better job to predict future populations. This in part can be reflected in the regulations that are set. As a example as part of this research the scientists may suggest a slot fish to the NMFS boards who set regulations. I don't know that to be a fact but it was something thrown our as a possibility by one of the scientists.

It's also important to note that the SSFFF is taking the high road here.... It's not about rigging the numbers so we get more favorable regulations... It's about doing a better job in the science that goes behind setting regulations and predicting future Fluke stocks so we get the right regulations.

That in my opinion is the right thing to do and the SSFFF deserves all the support we can muster.

If you haven't already contributed here is a link where you can.
http://www.ssfff.net/ssfffdonate.html

[Down Deep Sportfishing]

Then we have weekly random surveys from a research firm for NOAA called Quantech that only asks "how many paying passengers aboard" and only wants to what you target, no catch numbers, in addition to VTR's. It's all bullshit

[NoLimit]

Will someone tell the Cornell and Rutgers rocket scientists that 18" means that we are killing all the breeders while the 17" males die of old age since they seldom see 18"?

Let us keep 16" males and the females will breed the billions of fry the rockets scientists are not seeing.

[dfish28]

Same as all the othe other breeders we are killing... If we kill all the big "trophy fish" we are not leaving those to breed the next generation... We need to wake up and take the babies before we kill the adults... 14" min at 8 and have a good day... Just my thoughts...

[dales529]

As usual the thread is getting way off topic. SSFFF, Cornell and or Rutgers are neither the leftist agenda, have zero government ties per this study or have anything to do the current or future regulations, Breeders , Not Breeders of any species have little to do with current "stock data". Biomass Stock data is surveyed by some in one way and all SSFFF is trying to do is assess the stock of Summer Flounder in another direction to see if there are major differences in the current Stock data by "others" that do have government ties . And YES the SSFFF study will bring Sex, Size and Breeders into the study so its that important.
Maybe there is a difference and maybe there isn't but this is the best scientific scenario of fighting what we believe to be inaccurate data.

Again the regulation standards are set in accordance with current stock data reports as reported and in compliance with the Magnuson Stevens Act Then reported to States to decide given those results how to set the regulations with reductions or increases.
There are many levels to the whole process and debating slot fish, vs size limits etc is useless at this point until the studies are complete and the findings are accepted.

If you really want to HELP than attend the meetings, or donate to RFA-NJ, SSFFF or whomever your fishing rights advocate of choice is.
The bottom line is we need re-authorization of MSA ( Magnuson Stevens Act), SSFFF findings in our favor and a HUGE Voice by population of active recreational fishermen.

Complaining on fishing sites does NOT constitute a HUGE Voice of us recreational fishermen and while I agree nothing to date has made us feel better I can tell you from my last 8 years of getting involved by fundraising fishing trips , attending meetings etc at least you feel that you are doing something more than responding to the negative posts of possible fishing reductions while getting a better understanding of how hard the fight is with a very limited fisherman voice when it matters.

YOU each and everyone of you matters, have insight and opinions that are valued. We all just have to get behind one issue at a time, fund the research, the fishing advocate groups, go on the fundraising fishing trips (how F--ng hard is that?) and stop bitching after the fact.

Oh at the end mother nature rules and sends curves that no one can forsee like Hurricanes, beach replenishment, beach access, migratory patterns of fish etc etc which makes it all the more difficult
JUST my .02

[Joey Dah Fish]

As usual the thread is getting way off topic. SSFFF, Cornell and or Rutgers are neither the leftist agenda, have zero government ties per this study or have anything to do the current or future regulations, Breeders , Not Breeders of any species have little to do with current "stock data". Biomass Stock data is surveyed by some in one way and all SSFFF is trying to do is assess the stock of Summer Flounder in another direction to see if there are major differences in the current Stock data by "others" that do have government ties . And YES the SSFFF study will bring Sex, Size and Breeders into the study so its that important.
Maybe there is a difference and maybe there isn't but this is the best scientific scenario of fighting what we believe to be inaccurate data.

Again the regulation standards are set in accordance with current stock data reports as reported and in compliance with the Magnuson Stevens Act Then reported to States to decide given those results how to set the regulations with reductions or increases.
There are many levels to the whole process and debating slot fish, vs size limits etc is useless at this point until the studies are complete and the findings are accepted.

If you really want to HELP than attend the meetings, or donate to RFA-NJ, SSFFF or whomever your fishing rights advocate of choice is.
The bottom line is we need re-authorization of MSA ( Magnuson Stevens Act), SSFFF findings in our favor and a HUGE Voice by population of active recreational fishermen.

Complaining on fishing sites does NOT constitute a HUGE Voice of us recreational fishermen and while I agree nothing to date has made us feel better I can tell you from my last 8 years of getting involved by fundraising fishing trips , attending meetings etc at least you feel that you are doing something more than responding to the negative posts of possible fishing reductions while getting a better understanding of how hard the fight is with a very limited fisherman voice when it matters.

YOU each and everyone of you matters, have insight and opinions that are valued. We all just have to get behind one issue at a time, fund the research, the fishing advocate groups, go on the fundraising fishing trips (how F--ng hard is that?) and stop bitching after the fact.

Oh at the end mother nature rules and sends curves that no one can forsee like Hurricanes, beach replenishment, beach access, migratory patterns of fish etc etc which makes it all the more difficult
JUST my .02

That was like a buck fifty Dales no 2 cents. But I whole heartedly agree with every word you said.

[frugalfisherman]

Blame it on the Clinton support group "Fish Lives Matter".