Thursday 2/2 Fluke Meeting

[Gerry Zagorski]

Things are now getting very interesting http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/controversial-flounder-plan-could-get-final-approval-thursday/article_b9b93a3c-5f78-5247-a3e8-04b0c7bf44b7.html

So here's what's going on...

The National Marine Fisheries Service that is part of NOAA told us we over fished for Fluke and are mandating 41% reduction in quota. Our 2 local councils, the Mid Atlantic and NJ, who usually provide input and try to get consensus on suggested regulations to achieve our quotas refused all the options. In the public comments meeting in Galloway they instead voted to not accept any of the options until a new assessment survey can be done and "Be out of Compliance" and want the same regulations we had last year "Status Quo" until a new Stock Assessment can be done.

The NJ Commissioner of Fish and Game also came out in support of status quo as did Govenor Christie.

The National Marine Fisheries Management Service can now force regulations on us and that is what they will likely do since they have to abide by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That is what will likely be talked about or decided at this Thursday 2/2 meeting.

In the meantime we've asked our local politicians to get involved and ask for an emergency action to be taken by Federal Secretary of Commerce to give us status quo (same regulations as last year) until a new stock assessment study can be done.

Lots of moving parts here and we have a long fight on our hands so we need to follow this closely.

So stay tuned.... This is not over yet

[Rocky]

Hopefully we can get a reprieve until better science is actually applied to this issue. Lord knows there are many families and businesses that would feel the direct hit of this poor management.

[dales529]

Its 10 AM have you sent letters to your congressmen, senators etc??

Here is what our esteemed Governor told Jim Donofrio RFA last week on his radio Q/A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhRmg6InEgA&feature=youtu.be&t=2352

Also ( Senate Resolution) SR102/ 103 for (Bill) AR206 moved to the next process in the NJ senate yesterday and hopefully will be headed to the Governors desk soon so NJ is doing its part. So far all votes in NJ for this have been unanimous.

Have to keep at it!!

[Rocky]

Christie is in our corner on this issue. Yes he has his plate full (no joke) but he is going to need us to do ours. Get invovled!

[JBird]

NJ politicians actually doing their jobs?!?!? I'm looking out my window right now for flying pigs...

[Rocky]

NJ politicians actually doing their jobs?!?!? I'm looking out my window right now for flying pigs...

Flying pigs are not going to help us JBird, but getting your friends together to contact the law makers will. :)

[JBird]

Flying pigs are not going to help us JBird, but getting your friends together to contact the law makers will. :)

I'm all about it and support it 100%. I just was joking around about how rare it is these days to see government actually doing it's job of serving the voting public.

[Rocky]

I'm all about it and support it 100%. I just was joking around about how rare it is these days to see government actually doing it's job of serving the voting public.

I hear ya. We went from total doom and gloom to having a decent fluke season this year. Status quo may not be perfect,t but it is a hell of a lot better than what was going to be shoved down our throats.

[tautog]

I would hope that our local politicians would extend fishermen the same courtesy that they extend to illegal immigrants and not enforce this misguided federal regulation.

[Gerry Zagorski]

The state and local politicians have come out to support us and so has the NJDEP. Do you know why?? The squeaky wheel got the oil. With out the grass roots movement we've had here by us and the various fishing groups, none of this would have bubbled up to them and have been given the attention it deserves. We have their attention now as well as their support.

Let's see what happens in Washington.

[Rocky]

The state and local politicians have come out to support us and so has the NJDEP. Do you know why?? The squeaky wheel got the oil. With out the grass roots movement we've had here by us and the various fishing groups, none of this would have bubbled up to them and have been given the attention it deserves. We have their attention now as well as their support.

Let's see what happens in Washington.


Amen Gerry. Lord knows we were facing the worst fluke season ever, but because of a few intelligent fishermen that got us to rally around them we have a chance to have a decent season this year.

[dakota560]

Amen Gerry. Lord knows we were facing the worst fluke season ever, but because of a few intelligent fishermen that got us to rally around them we have a chance to have a decent season this year.

We still are facing the worst fluke season unless something changed recently I'm not aware of. Trying to stay positive but as we all know we're fighting MSA and not just '17 proposed regulations. In spite of the recent uprising and support from State and local officials, the Federal government has an easy out here which is their hands are tied by MSA. If I had to guess, I would guess ASMFC sticks with one of their five options at the 2/2 meeting. I'm not sure if the members of the ASMFC have any personal liability if they deviate from MSA. If so, one of the five options guaranteed will be forced on us. If not, still believe they'll use MSA as their rallying cry and take the path of least resistance because it's convenient and they can in the absence of an Executive Order.

That's in my opinion when crunch time happens. Will the states adopt what ASMFC directs or will they hold tight, maintain an "Enough is Enough" stance while risking an industry wide closure or acquiesce? It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. New York wasn't able to avoid a 2 fish limit at 21 or 22 inches a few years back, not sure why ASMFC would vote any differently for the upcoming '17 season under the regionalization structure. Again the Council members won't stick their necks out and risk being out of compliance with MSA would be my guess. Question is how will the states respond.

[dakota560]

Things are now getting very interesting http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/controversial-flounder-plan-could-get-final-approval-thursday/article_b9b93a3c-5f78-5247-a3e8-04b0c7bf44b7.html

In the meantime we've asked our local politicians to get involved and ask for an emergency action to be taken by Federal Secretary of Commerce to give us status quo (same regulations as last year) until a new stock assessment study can be done.

NMFS is under the umbrella of NOAA which is under the umbrella of the Department of Commerce. If NMFS decides to stick with their draconian options based on MSA, I'm not optimistic lobbying the Secretary of Commerce will provide the results we're hoping for. I assume the Secretary will support the decision of NOAA/NMFS for the same reasons the Council does.....MSA.

Trump's nomination for Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to my knowledge has yet to be confirmed by the full Senate so I don't know if Penny Pritzker from the Obama administration still holds that office or it's considered vacant until filled. Either way I would guess until a new nominee is appointed, status quo will prevail.

Hope I'm wrong and someone intervenes with our interests in mind. Would be great if Donald Trump Jr. was discussing this with Donald Trump Sr.........I believe any intervention that will effectively put a stay order on the decision NMFS is about to make will have to come down from the President himself.

[Rocky]

I hear what you are saying Dakota560. A month ago it seemed like we had no hope at all, but after last weeks news conference I left there feeling like there was a chance to keep things status quo for this year. I know I am being optimistic
about this issue, but that is all I have left. :)

[dakota560]

Rocky I'm with you, it's all we have. Tremendous amount of progress has been made in the last two or three months. our fate is still in the hands of an ~20 member Council who have made decisions every year based on MSA mandates. They're track record doesn't suggest they'll deviate for the '17 season. As I said in the absence of an executive order, the states will have to make a decision to not be in compliance and accept the associated risks or acquiesce. That's when this will get interesting.

Hope I'm wrong and we get a surprise Thursday, like all of us I'd be thrilled but very surprised in light of what's happened over the last 25 years.

[Rocky]

The Magnuson-Stevens Act needs to be updated and flexibility must be inserted for proper management of our fisheries. Hopefully this administration and our representatives will finally correct this problem.

[Angler Paul]

The ASMFC fluke meeting is at 8 AM on Thursday, 2/2. You can listen in on this meeting by going to the following link, then go to "live streaming" and register for the webinar. It should be a very interesting meeting. http://www.asmfc.org/home/2017-winter-meeting

[Gerry Zagorski]

The Magnuson-Stevens Act needs to be updated and flexibility must be inserted for proper management of our fisheries. Hopefully this administration and our representatives will finally correct this problem.

Exactly and this is what everyone who spoke at the NJDEP press conference said and what the RFA and others have been trying to get done for some time now.. We need that flexibility to avoid the knee jerk reactions to the stock assessment data, which everyone knows is suspect and creates these drastic changes in the regulations every year.

While we are at it we also need to adjust the arbitrary target biomass goals that have never been met and get them to review and consider the new Sex Study which was funded by the SSFFF.

Who knows how we are going to come out of this but at a minimum, these issues have finally been brought out into the light of day and the NMFS is now under the microscope.

[dakota560]

Has anyone been able to log in using this link? Today's meeting per the agenda starts at 8:00. I registered and logged in but could only get as far as the screen which says "The meeting will begin when the organizer arrives". Being it's 8:30, I assume the meeting is in progress but not getting anything. Just wanted to try this out before tomorrow's 8:00 to 9:30 summer flounder session. Anyone here try getting in?

[Pelagics88]

I haven't been following up as of late due to being busy at work, but is this quota for recreational fishermen only? If so, which I assume it is, are they pushing for any reduction for commercial boats?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Sounds to me like the organizer/host is not logged in yet. If this works like other webinar software, the online meeting will not start until the host/organizer logs in and starts the broadcast.

[dakota560]

That's exactly the case and what the screen says. Great for ASMFC to provide a webinar to the general public and not have it up and running for the sessions. Absolutely unreal!

[hartattack]

It worked fine yesterday but I am now getting same message as you. Hopefully it works tomorrow at 8am !!

[dakota560]

I haven't been following up as of late due to being busy at work, but is this quota for recreational fishermen only? If so, which I assume it is, are they pushing for any reduction for commercial boats?

Quota is for biomass in total. Look at the following ASMFC presentation from the Galloway Mtg. Figure 2, page 7.

http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file//5861288eSummerFlounderDraftAddendumXXVIII_PublicCo mment_Dec2016_Revised.pdf

The dotted line represents the quota at ~ 62,000 metric tons. The solid line represents the biomass numbers as reported for the last ~ 35 years. You can see the goal has never been attained. It was a low of 8,000 metric tons in 1988 to a high of ~ 50,000 metric tons in 2003. Significant increase over a 15 year period but we still sit on the precipice of what would effectively be an industry closure because of a goal which was set under MSA. God only knows what logic was used to set the goal.

What makes absolutely no sense regarding their numbers is total catch is down significantly from an average in the early 80's of ~ 23,000 metric tons to an average over the last 5 years of ~ 10,000 metric tons. In '95 total combined catch hit an all time high of ~ 27,000 metric tons yet the biomass continued to increase significantly. Recruitment numbers (bar chart Figure 2.) significantly exceed total catch (solid line Figure 1,) EVERY year yet biomass is trending down. If the data is correct, how is that possible. It's basic math.

Take '04 as an example. If you start '04 with a biomass of ~ 48,000 metric tons, recruitment (new fish) that year is ~ 36,000 metric tons and total catch was reported at ~ 15,000 metric tons. 48,000 to start plus 36,000 recruited less 15,000 total catch adds up to an ending biomass which should approximate 69,000 metric tons. If you look at the biomass trend line the data shows it going down between '04 and '05. It's impossible based on their own data which suggest a surplus of 21,000 metric tons should have been added to the biomass (36,000 mt's recruited versus 15,000 mt's harvested). Serious questions about their own data.

[dakota560]

Screen now says meeting to begin at 9:30, not 8:00. Can see the first slide but no audio. Anyone have audio?

[captnvinny]

Screen now says meeting to begin at 9:30, not 8:00. Can see the first slide but no audio. Anyone have audio?

me too, slide now herring & shad shows start @ 10am...must of been some side bar deals in the works

[hartattack]

Working now - they just gave 2 minute warning !!

[dakota560]

First 8:30, then 9:30 now 10:00. Only government can be this dysfunctional!

[catsmeow]

Letter in todays Courier New by a reader in Your View states that Trump signed and executive order which freezes new or pending regulations. The letter specifically is about the fishing industry and states that the freeze language in the Trump freeze needs to be examined as it relates to the proposed fishing regualtions. He may very well have a path hold off the pending reductions for fluke.

[shrimpman steve]

Just listened to christies interview with Jim and was impressed. I am a conservative and was never crazy about Christie but kudos for his knowledge on this important issue

Good luck fellas as I'm looking forward to comin up to do some clumping!

[Ttmako]

I'm listening to the ASMFC meeting live.
I just want to say Adam Nowalsky is doing a great job and a great advocate.

[hartattack]

Unfortunately Option 5 just passed :mad: NJ fight continues :eek:

[Ttmako]

Option 5 was just approved with a 7-3 vote.

MA, RI, NJ voted no!

[dales529]

We basically knew that Option 5 was going to be approved. Hard enough to get our own NJ fishermen to agree on things let alone all the states on the East Coast!

However not good news by no means are we (NJ) done fighting nor does it mean NJ has to comply.

[dales529]

I'm listening to the ASMFC meeting live.
I just want to say Adam Nowalsky is doing a great job and a great advocate.

Agreed. Adam brought many motions in our favor to the table and his efforts are applauded and appreciated

[tautog]

Start email bombing the White House and then Commerce once Wilbur Ross is approved. Maybe we can get some executive relief. If not, why not start rioting like everyone else.

[Rocky]

I still have hope for a decent fluke season this year. The jockeying is all part of the process and I think we will have the ears of the right officials who can change the direction of this mess.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Option 5 was just approved with a 7-3 vote.

MA, RI, NJ voted no!

Well, no real surprises here and we pretty much new this would happen. We've got a fight on our hands and will need to continue to support Commissioner Martin and bring whatever political pressure we can to help him get this issue bubbled up to Washington.

If you haven't already, I'd suggest you do 2 things:
1) Visit the NJDEP Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/NJFishandWildlife/ find the Live video of the meeting and listen to the great job Commissioner Martin's did with his testimony to the ASMFC. It's very compelling and educational on how this fishery is being miss managed and why we want Status Quo.
2) Take the time to add a a personal comment to the facebook post thanking the Commissioner and his staff for their work and let them know we stand with them to continue this fight.

[dakota560]

Interesting listening in on this mornings ASMFC session. As posted, after many motions and discussion, Option 5 was approved by a vote of 7-3-2. (7) yes, (3) no and (2) abstain. The votes were as follows

Ma. - No
RI - No
CT - Yes
NY - Yes
NJ - No
Delaware - Yes
Maryland - Yes
Potomac River Fisheries - Yes
Virginia - Yes
NC - Yes
US Fish and Wildlife - Abstain
NMFS - Abstain

I also find it interesting the the states in our own region didn't vote the same. CT and NY voted yes while NJ voted no. Not sure how to interpret that but if both those states voted no the vote would have been 5-5-2 and my understanding is there needs to be majority to pass so by default I assume Option 5 would have been rejected by the Council if not for the yes vote by CT and NY.

What is sad about this process is every state votes their conscience as you'd expect and what's best for their state and not the fishery as a whole which is in my opinion a huge conflict of interest right from the start. Look at the below numbers relative to projected '16 harvest by state / region.

Mass 56,642 2.70%
RI 92,821 4.42%
CT/NY 950,178 45.26%
NJ 791,058 37.68%
Delmarva 191,636 9.13%
NC 17,075 0.81%

2,099,410 100.00%

Ma./RI./NC 7.93%
Delmarva 9.13%

Combined 17.06%

Ma. / RI / NC make up less than 8% of the projected harvest yet they carry 25% of the vote (3 out of 12). In particular NC has less than 1% of the harvest yet they have an equal vote over the proposed regulations as Ct. / NY / NJ who combined have almost 83% of the harvest. Add Delaware. Maryland and Virginia to the mix and combined they represent ~17% of the overall harvest but have 50% of the vote (6 of 12). NC is projected to have ~17,000 lbs harvested based on the above estimates for '16 and that carries the same weight as Ct. / NY / NJ from a voting perspective who combined have ~1.75 million pounds. Legislation is being enacted by people who have on a relative percentage a much lesser percentage of this fishery yet they have the authority to cause significant economic consequences as a result of their vote. The numbers harvested are not a result of how allocations have been made historically, they're a result of where the biomass and fishery predominantly exists. That would be the equivalent of having Florida included on the Council and giving them an equal vote when they have no harvest whatsoever! It makes zero sense. The data collection process is as broken as the legislative process itself, it's an absolute mess.

It's interesting regarding option 5 that NMFS abstained. Question was asked if NMFS rejects the options chosen today, what would be the consequences. The issue of whether this proposal meets the requirements of "Conservational Equivalency" came up quite often as well which could add another twist to the proposal gaining final NMFS approval. Don't ask me what "Conservational Equivalency" means since I don't truthfully know right now. I'm sure it relates to language in MSA but specifically don't know the answer to that question just yet. It'll be easy enough to research. As best as I could understand with discussions between the Chair and Council Members, if Option 5 isn't accepted by NMFS, there would be Non-Preferred measures implemented which I believe coast wide would mean 4 fish at 19" for the period I thought they said 7/1 thru 9/15. Ironically to some that might represent a better alternative to the one were faced with if Option 5 is passed by NMFS. Conversely if Option 5 is accepted but rejected by NJ, then we'd be faced with the precautionary default provision which I believe is 2 fish at 20' and a 7/1 thru 8/31 season or even worse an industry closure. There are no good options on the table at this time, just ones with varying degrees of devastation.

Last observation is until MSA is changed, public comments and everything else falls on deaf ears. That doesn't mean to stop fighting but the brutal truth of the matter is the powers to be have their own agenda and it's their individual states as well as the requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The entire sessions revolved around MSA requirements. The Council will never deviate from that in my opinion because if they do they basically lose their authority and relinquish the power they now have. Without an Executive Order from Mr. Trump or a complete paradigm shift with the newly appointed Secretary of Commerce once confirmed, I'm concerned politics will continue to over shadow logic, accurate data and the consequences of decisions being made by a Council with a very different agenda than the fishing community in whole. Politics will take this fishery to it's knees and many businesses with it if we continue down the path we're on. Sad that government has ultimate authority yet assumes no responsibility for the impacts of their decisions.

[Rocky]

Interesting listening in on this mornings ASMFC session. As posted, after many motions and discussion, Option 5 was approved by a vote of 7-3-2. (7) yes, (3) no and (2) abstain. The votes were as follows

Ma. - No
RI - No
Ct. - Yes
NY - Yes
NJ - No
Delaware - Yes
Maryland - Yes
Potomac River Fisheries - Yes
Virginia - Yes
NC - Yes
US Fish and Wildlife - Abstain
NMFS - Abstain

What is sad about this process is every state votes their conscience as you'd expect and what's best for their state and not the fishery as a whole which is in my opinion a huge conflict of interest right from the start. Look at the below numbers relative to projected '16 harvest by state / region.

Mass 56,642 2.70%
RI 92,821 4.42%
CT/NY 950,178 45.26%
NJ 791,058 37.68%
Delmarva 191,636 9.13%
NC 17,075 0.81%

2,099,410 100.00%

Ma./RI./NC 7.93%
Delmarva 9.13%

Combined 17.06%

Ma. / RI / NC make up less than 8% of the projected harvest yet they carry 25% of the vote (3 out of 12). In particular NC has less than 1% of the harvest yet they have an equal vote over the proposed regulations as Ct. / NY / NJ who combined have almost 83% of the harvest. Add Delaware. Maryland and Virginia to the mix and combined they represent ~17% of the overall harvest but have 50% of the vote (6 of 12). NC is projected to have ~17,000 lbs harvested based on the above estimates for '16 and that carries the same weight as Ct. / NY / NJ from a voting perspective who combined have ~1.75 million pounds. Legislation is being enacted by people who have on a relative percentage a much lesser percentage of this fishery yet they have the authority to cause significant economic consequences as a result of their vote. The numbers harvested are not a result of how allocations have been made historically, they're a result of where the biomass and fishery predominantly exists. That would be the equivalent of having Florida included on the Council and giving them an equal vote when they have no harvest whatsoever! It makes zero sense. The data collection process is as broken as the legislative process itself, it's an absolute mess.

It's interesting regarding option 5 that NMFS abstained. Question was asked if NMFS rejects the options chosen today, what would be the consequences. The issue of whether this proposal meets the requirements of "Conservational Equivalency" came up quite often as well which could add another twist to the proposal gaining final NMFS approval. Don't ask me what "Conservational Equivalency" means since I don't truthfully know right now. I'm sure it relates to language in MSA but specifically don't know the answer to that question just yet. It'll be easy enough to research. As best as I could understand with discussions between the Chair and Council Members, if Option 5 isn't accepted by NMFS, there would be Non-Preferred measures implemented which I believe coast wide would mean 4 fish at 19" for the period I thought they said 7/1 thru 9/15. Ironically to some that might represent a better alternative to the one were faced with if Option 5 is passed by NMFS. Conversely if Option 5 is accepted but rejected by NJ, then we'd be faced with the precautionary default provision which I believe is 2 fish at 20' and a 7/1 thru 8/31 season or even worse an industry closure. There are no good options on the table at this time, just ones with varying degrees of devastation.

Last observation is until MSA is changed, public comments and everything else falls on deaf ears. That doesn't mean to stop fighting but the brutal truth of the matter is the powers to be have their own agenda and it's their individual states as well as the requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The entire sessions revolved around MSA requirements. The Council will never deviate from that in my opinion because if they do they basically lose their authority and relinquish the power they now have. Without an Executive Order from Mr. Trump or a complete paradigm shift with the newly appointed Secretary of Commerce, I'm concerned politics will continue to over shadow logic, accurate data and the consequences of decisions being made by a Council with a very different agenda than the fishing community in whole. Politics will take this fishery to it's knees and many businesses with it if we continue down the path we're on. Sad that government has ultimate authority yet assumes no responsibility for the impacts of their decisions.

I always enjoy reading your post because you are one of the few who obviously understands this mumbo jumbo more than I do. I honestly believe that this fight is not over and it just may be the beginning of correcting this fishery management which is in need of help.

[dakota560]

Rocky I'm in complete agreement this fight has just begun. I'm certainly not suggesting we alter the course in any way and applaud the effort many people have already made to get the ball rolling. My comments regarding the meeting are based on what I consider the landscape to be in the near term because of my experiences dealing with government from a private sector perspective. It's as slow and frustrating a process as anything any of us will deal with in our lives. My concern is the damage done in the process but there's nothing we can do but stay the course.

[dales529]

Here is an excellent summary of what happened today by Jim Hutchinson:
http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_ID=1625&ParentCat=19

[dakota560]

As usual excellent article by Jim Hutchinson. I have one question regarding the following:

During the morning long discussion and debate, several ASMFC members felt that if NOAA Fisheries did not approve the selected option 5 because it doesn’t completely meet the full reduction required for 2017, a precautionary default measure would then be automatically implemented requiring a 20-inch size limit, two fish possession and a July 1 to August 31 season.

This was discussed in some detail. I thought what was stated is if NMFS does not accept Option 5, the non-preferred default measure would be imposed coastal wide which requires a 19-inch size limit, 4 fish possession and a July 1 to August 31 season. It was my understanding the precautionary default measure Jim refers to in his article would only be imposed on those states who opted to not comply with Option 5 if NMFS does approve it. In that scenario, any state choosing non compliance would face the 20-inch, two fish possession limit with a shortened July 1 to August 31 season or potentially an industry closure.

Maybe I misinterpreted what was said but that's what I thought was stated by the Council Members and Chair. Six of one half dozen of another but there is a distinction.

[Angler Paul]

The ASMFC board believes that option 5 will reduce the harvest sufficiently. If NOAA overrules them, ASMFC would most likely be given time to have an emergency meeting to select another option.

Paul Haertel - JCAA Past President

[dakota560]

I still question why if the biomass trend line is the primary issue driving further cuts in this fishery, why NMFS won't consider closing down the fishery during the prime spawning season September and October to commercial fishing. Keep the commercial quota the same but avoid harvest during the spawn period when these fish school up and are easy targets for commercial operators. It makes no sense whatsoever to not protect them if the recruitment numbers are at the heart of the problem and the impact it's having on attaining the targeted biomass goal.

How many 18" to 18.99" fluke will be released this year only to be netted while migrating off shore to their wintering grounds in September and October, the prime spawning months? The fact this issue isn't even discussed as an option is to me just another example of the governing bodies having their heads in the sand. Don't promote reproduction even when the data (albeit questionable) is suggesting a recruitment problem. Instead cut total catch again, change the composition of the total catch to consist of larger female fish and continue to allow commercials to pound fish during the spawn. There is just such a lack of logic involved in these decisions and as always the powers to be focus only on the resulting effect as opposed to the cause if in fact their data is even remotely correct.

Over fishing was mentioned multiple times at today's session. The data doesn't support that at all. Biomass numbers were much higher when total catch was significantly higher in past years. Total catch over the last 30 years has dropped significantly and biomass over that same time frame has increased significantly until a slight down turn over the last 5 or 6 years. Recruitment as we've seen from the ASMFC data every year out distances total catch by at least a 2 to 1 margin. Most years recruitment numbers are higher by 10,000 to 15,000 metric tons. That's ~30,000,000 lbs of summer flounder! Assume the average fluke is 2 lbs since we're talking about younger recruited fish, that means there's anywhere from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 fish unaccounted for every year if the biomass is indeed declining. If NMFS maintains their position the data is correct, then they should be called on the carpet to answer why their own numbers don't add up. Either the data's wrong or fish are disappearing each year from the biomass and if true that's the issue everyone should be focusing their efforts to understand. No amount of cuts will ever offset 15,000 metric tons of disappearing fluke since the combined recreational and commercial catch doesn't approximate that number.

It's an insult to everyone how many important facts and or relationships are completely over looked and how much credence NMFS continues to place on data they know themselves is wrong.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I still question why if the biomass trend line is the primary issue driving further cuts in this fishery, why NMFS won't consider closing down the fishery during the prime spawning season September and October to commercial fishing. Keep the commercial quota the same but avoid harvest during the spawn period when these fish school up and are easy targets for commercial operators. It makes no sense whatsoever to not protect them if the recruitment numbers are at the heart of the problem and the impact it's having on attaining the targeted biomass goal.

How many 18" to 18.99" fluke will be released this year only to be netted while migrating off shore to their wintering grounds in September and October, the prime spawning months? The fact this issue isn't even discussed as an option is to me just another example of the governing bodies having their heads in the sand. Don't promote reproduction even when the data (albeit questionable) is suggesting a recruitment problem. Instead cut total catch again, change the composition of the total catch to consist of larger female fish and continue to allow commercials to pound fish during the spawn. There is just such a lack of logic involved in these decisions and as always the powers to be focus only on the resulting effect as opposed to the cause if in fact their data is even remotely correct.

Over fishing was mentioned multiple times at today's session. The data doesn't support that at all. Biomass numbers were much higher when total catch was significantly higher in past years. Total catch over the last 30 years has dropped significantly and biomass over that same time frame has increased significantly until a slight down turn over the last 5 or 6 years. Recruitment as we've seen from the ASMFC data every year out distances total catch by at least a 2 to 1 margin. Most years recruitment numbers are higher by 10,000 to 15,000 metric tons. That's ~30,000,000 lbs of summer flounder! Assume the average fluke is 2 lbs since we're talking about younger recruited fish, that means there's anywhere from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 fish unaccounted for every year if the biomass is indeed declining. If NMFS maintains their position the data is correct, then they should be called on the carpet to answer why their own numbers don't add up. Either the data's wrong or fish are disappearing each year from the biomass and if true that's the issue everyone should be focusing their efforts to understand. No amount of cuts will ever offset 15,000 metric tons of disappearing fluke since the combined recreational and commercial catch doesn't approximate that number.

It's an insult to everyone how many important facts and or relationships are completely over looked and how much credence NMFS continues to place on data they know themselves is wrong.

Tom - you are right on point here... I remember you asking questions along a similar lines at the Galloway meeting and getting brushed off with, UMMMM, I'm just the guy presenting the material so we'll have to get back to you on that.... I'll bet they never did...


A few issues I see here:
- They get very defensive when someone questions their science or rational
- The people we are talking to at the public comments meetings are not the ones coming up with the science they are the ones being told to pitch it.
- These public comment meetings are nothing but a box they need to check in order to fulfill the requirement.

This sort of behavior is evidenced by the way the SSFFF was first being viewed by the Scientific Community when they would go to meetings and try to talk about sex/size .... They'd be treated like an uninvited guest... Things have changed on that front and now and they are being invited into these meetings.

At the end of the day we need a 2 pronged approach to change things.
1) Political pressure which is be being brought about with the help of the RFA, NJDEP and others
2) Fighting science with science which is what the SSFFF is doing

We need to keep the pressure on both in order to have a shot at making change.

Thanks for staying engaged here.... We have a very long fight ahead of us and educating people on the issues like you have above is key in gaining support from others to stand with us.

[jakesdad]

Thanks to all for fighting for our rights. Just had the time to listen and read what the outcome was. Pretty interesting that in Galloway it was pointed out that the biomass line started a downward trend when the size went to 18 inches. Stricter regulations to try to figure out how to change this trend.

Now looking at the proposed regulations, the states with 17inch or less have a 365 day season. With the exception of Mass. all the other states have larger limits and shorter seasons. It is obvious that they can't read their own writing.

Now it becomes our fight to help them understand how smart they really are. We must continue to pressure them in order to get what we reasonably dexerve.

Once again thanks to Bob Martin for coming to Galloway and listening, and then being able to make our case to ASMFC this past week.

[dakota560]

Gerry sent you a pm. Please respond when you have a chance.

[Rocky]

Todays front page.

We are getting attention which can only help our cause.:)

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/r90/16406993_10208670087135811_330658537991677926_n.jp g?oh=080f959d8864a3631c7b099c24f90c31&oe=5906660D

[Gerry Zagorski]

Todays front page.

We are getting attention which can only help our cause.:)

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/r90/16406993_10208670087135811_330658537991677926_n.jp g?oh=080f959d8864a3631c7b099c24f90c31&oe=5906660D

Excellent Rocky, thanks for posting it here. This is exactly what we need to keep the pressure on and gain more momentum. This fight is not over yet!!

[Joey Dah Fish]

Continued targeting of the breeding age fish it just friggin stupid.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Continued targeting of the breeding age fish it just friggin stupid.

Yep and this is the same conclusion that Australian's Fisheries Management came up with... http://fisherynation.com/archives/55332