ASMFC adopts Option 5

[Detour66]

Here ya go !!

http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_ID=1625&ParentCat=19

[AndyS]

Massachusetts - four fish at 17 inches (125 days) Rhode Island - four fish at 19 inches (245 days) Connecticut - three fish at 19 inches (128 days) New York - three fish at 19 inches (128 days) New Jersey - three fish at 19 inches (128 days) NJ/Delaware Bay - three fish at 18 inches (128 days) Delaware - four fish at 17 inches (365 days) Maryland - four fish at 17 inches (365 days) Virginia - four fish at 17 inches (365 days) North Carolina - four fish at 15 inches (365 days)

[AndyS]

A blind man could see this coming.

[Solemate]

Stupid question but if the quota is about pounds why do they keep increasing the sizes?

[Detour66]

My question ...is this written in stone? Will or can any politician or organisation fight against this? Looks like a lot of fish will be tossed back. I would say like 95% of them. Not good! A lot of boat rides for many this year!

[BugEye Chris]

Maybe this is a stupid idea but let me put it out there
How about instead of a number of fish at a minimum
Length we are allowed an overall length per angler per trip
Let's just say 72 inches combined so we can still keep
A few larger fish while still keeping gut hooked "shorts"
Instead of throwing them back to die

[SaltLife1980]

At this point i dont really care what option they pick because im not going to follow it, plain and simple.... Yeah i said what everyone else is thinking... Bash away.....

[Rocky]

You can tell when it is Winter on the internet, there are a lot of grumpy fishermen sitting behind their computers wishing they were fishing. Then to top it all off with this big fluke mess adding to the dissension. Spring can't get here soon enough. Hang in there guys. :)

OH THE HUMANITY!!!

[dales529]

At this point i dont really care what option they pick because im not going to follow it, plain and simple.... Yeah i said what everyone else is thinking... Bash away.....

No one is going to bash Jeff. They already thought of non compliance by individual fishermen and have factored that in as a new equation to the next years charts so you will be fine as they know they cant enforce it.
So they will reduce the quotas further based on individual non compliance just like the imaginary mortality rate.

[SaltLife1980]

No one is going to bash Jeff. They already thought of non compliance by individual fishermen and have factored that in as a new equation to the next years charts so you will be fine as they know they cant enforce it.
So they will reduce the quotas further based on individual non compliance just like the imaginary mortality rate.

More messing around then anything but there is going to be a lot of pirates this season and i dont blame em at all

[EddieG]

Lot of 18 inch fish that are gill hooked this year for my dinner... oops it happens.... just trying to do the right thing:) I will always fight this when we are spending 100+ dollars a day or more pending on expenses to catch one keeper but when I go to wegmans they have a 15 inch fluke there selling for 10 bucks a pound and I'm the a** hole right!!!

[reason162]

Maybe this is a stupid idea but let me put it out there
How about instead of a number of fish at a minimum
Length we are allowed an overall length per angler per trip
Let's just say 72 inches combined so we can still keep
A few larger fish while still keeping gut hooked "shorts"
Instead of throwing them back to die

That's fine if you want a 5 day season.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Stupid question but if the quota is about pounds why do they keep increasing the sizes?

A very good question....When the stocks are deemed to be in trouble, in order to attempt rebuild them, the quotas get reduced. In an attempt to manage catches to achieve a lower quota, they give us shorter seasons, lower bags limits and increased size or a combination of the above.

So the way it's worked thus far is we horse trade by choosing options they present to us ...If we want a longer season, we trade that for lower bag limits, increased size or both. This year we told them none of their options are acceptable.

One of our arguments is increasing the size is forcing us to target and keep larger fish and that is not in the best interest of rebuilding the fishery. The recent study funded by the SSFFF indicates that most Fluke over 18 inches are females and the very fish responsible for reproduction.

[Gerry Zagorski]

My question ...is this written in stone? Will or can any politician or organisation fight against this? Looks like a lot of fish will be tossed back. I would say like 95% of them. Not good! A lot of boat rides for many this year!

This is not over yet... We are hoping that NJ and others decisions to not accept any of the options we were presented with will be brought to the Secretary of Commerce for a decision. We hope that decision will be to allow us to keep the same regulations we had last year.

Angler Paul mentioned how this all works in a different thread:

The way it works is that the feds to not have the authority to set our specific regs right now. The NJMFC must do that. If they fail to act, the law remains the same as it was the previous year. However, if eventually the Secreary of Commerce finds that we are out of compliance and rules against us, the default measures would the become law, 2 fluke at 20" with a season from 7/31 -8/31. If that happens though, I am confident that the NJMFC would have an emergency meeting and quickly set the regs so that we would be back in compliance. (Probably the 3 fish at 19" and a 128 day season)

[Gerry Zagorski]

Lets keep the political stuff off here guys. All it's going to do is cause a bunch of trouble.

[PaBeerGuy]

agree:D

[Adrenalinerush]

As far as keeping illegal fish, I won't. It's just not worth getting caught and paying a fine to me. That being said the fact that I have to catch a four pound fluke in order to keep it is a little ridiculous!

Jim

[Gerry Zagorski]

As far as keeping illegal fish, I won't. It's just not worth getting caught and paying a fine to me. That being said the fact that I have to catch a four pound fluke in order to keep it is a little ridiculous!

Jim

Yes it is. They have been managing this fishery and setting regulations for almost 30 years now and the stocks have supposedly not recovered??? That leads me to believe whatever they are doing is not working or their stock assessments are all screwed up. Maybe both :mad:

In any event, time to take a stand and bring this issue out into the light of day.... Enough is enough!

[Rocky]

Yes it is. They have been managing this fishery and setting regulations for almost 30 years now and the stocks have supposedly not recovered??? That leads me to believe whatever they are doing is not working or their stock assessments are all screwed up. Maybe both :mad:

In any event, time to take a stand and bring this issue out into the light of day.... Enough is enough!


If you managed a business like these people are managing our fishery you would have been fired long ago. :mad:

[SplitShot]

At this point i dont really care what option they pick because im not going to follow it, plain and simple.... Yeah i said what everyone else is thinking... Bash away.....

I read Fish & Game has "Help Wanted" posted now to gear up with more agents in the field this Summer!! They're already getting geared up to GET US!! :(

[acabtp]

The recent study funded by the SSFFF indicates that most Fluke over 18 inches are females and the very fish responsible for reproduction.

my anecdotal evidence agrees! when cleaning, i check the organs to see for myself. and every single keeper fluke that i filleted last summer was a female. every one. i couldn't believe it. the regulations are just ridiculous anymore.

[Capt. Debbie]

Shouldn't the logic being largest catch down south where they fish all year round? And smaller fish limits up north with a shorter season? Makes no sense on migrating fish.

You can pound 15 inchers all year round down in NC?


Massachusetts - four fish at 17 inches (125 days) Rhode Island - four fish at 19 inches (245 days) Connecticut - three fish at 19 inches (128 days) New York - three fish at 19 inches (128 days) New Jersey - three fish at 19 inches (128 days) NJ/Delaware Bay - three fish at 18 inches (128 days) Delaware - four fish at 17 inches (365 days) Maryland - four fish at 17 inches (365 days) Virginia - four fish at 17 inches (365 days) North Carolina - four fish at 15 inches (365 days)

[rikard.froberg]

I thought New Jersey was going to refer to the "no new regulations" rule by Trump and keep the old ones? Anyone know what happened to that?

[PaBeerGuy]

I thought New Jersey was going to refer to the "no new regulations" rule by Trump and keep the old ones? Anyone know what happened to that?

not allowed to go there.:cool:

[Gerry Zagorski]

I thought New Jersey was going to refer to the "no new regulations" rule by Trump and keep the old ones? Anyone know what happened to that?

There was some talk about that but don't think that argument held water... It's not like they were trying to introduce new laws. The Fisheries Management laws have been in place for a long time now which is what forces them by law to take the actions needed and setting regulations to recover the stocks.

[JBird]

It's hard not to talk politics when this is essentially a political issue, government oversight of a natural resource. I think anyone who has half a brain understands that, in America, it's pay to play. If you want favorable treatment from your government than you line the pockets of the people who regulate whatever business you're in. It's just as simple as that.

That's how billionaires become the heads of Government Agencies, ie. Betsy DeVos. Totally unqualified in just about every way but she paid for the position and is now reaping the rewards of her investment.

This is just how it is in our country now. Not a partisan issue at all. Both ends of our One Party system do it. Right now the right leaning guys are steering the ship, and the left leaning guys maybe will get their chance in 2 and then four years to alter course, but make no mistake. The winners are the wealthy and the losers are everyone else.

So what do we do? Recreational fishing is not a centralized industry like fossil fuels or pharmaceuticals. We don't have the kind of political clout (aka MONEY) to get favorable treatment from those that regulate us. But you know who does? Shimano, who made over 3 billion in profits in 2016. The company that owns Penn reels? Nearly 6 billion. Gulp, Trilene, Mitchell, Abu Garcia, Fenwick, Spiderwire are all owned by the same parent company and that company also reaps billions every year.

Where are these corporations when it comes to standing up for the rights of their clientele who buy their products? Where's the money to help us out? We need some K Street big shots, hired guns to start twisting tits in DC and get it done the modern American Way. Bribe the right people and we will get what we want.

I think we should start a campaign on NJFishing to call upon the corporate big shots, whom we support by buying their products, to start throwing money around on our behalf. It makes good economic sense to help preserve the market they depend on. And it's the American Way.

[PaBeerGuy]

JBird, that was very well written. I'm duely impressed by the thought you put into it. Thanks for that, now let's figure out what we can do next.

[catsmeow]

As far as i'm concerned J-bird is spot on. Been on the sidelines for a little while and seen a few posts that kinda tell where I'm coming from. In my seventies and come from a time when our toys were the scrap wood blocks from house being build next door. I come from a time when we had to make things ourselves or go with out. I'm running my 1985 17' Sea Nymph I bought for $3500. Launch out of Rumson for $50.00 a years. I tie all my own rigs and make my own poles. If i could make a reel I would. As for Efingers and there $500 fly rods good riddens. I guess I'm not a great contributer to the economy but I did not retire as a hedge fund manager. Had my Trump post on mentioning anglers rights moved and deleted. Gerry if you find my thoughts too offensive for this time be my guest and delete it. I figure my time is kinda running short anyway and thinking about it maybe thats not all bad. Anyway just wanted to put in my 2 cents.

[Detour66]

I totally agree with JBird and have expressed this approach more than once here NJF.com. They are the ones with the most to lose money wise. It's time they step up to the plate. Can't sell to many boats...tackle..etc etc when the sport has been decimated! It's time for them to make the move!

[Gremlin2009]

Sounds like bull to me. How much does a 19in fish weigh ? 3lbs maybe. Some one did not get their hands greased

[bulletbob]

I will no longer release bleeding, injured fluke that are not going to make it, simply a waste. every year I catch several fluke that are deep hooked in the gills, or flop into the bilge area and beat themselves bloody, etc.. i will no longer feel bad about those fish going to the bottom for the crabs to eat..

if i catch a 19 incher or two, so be it, but regardless I will have a clear conscience taking a badly wounded 17 incher.. The powers that be are welcome to take the boat apart looking....
Flame away, but personally i have had enough.. It NEVER gets better, just worse.. more restrictive every year.. done with it... bob

[Finprof]

Shouldn't the logic being largest catch down south where they fish all year round? And smaller fish limits up north with a shorter season? Makes no sense on migrating fish.

You can pound 15 inchers all year round down in NC?
You can go one state further south and catch 15 fish a day with a minimum size of 14 inches and you can gig them recreationally. They have Summer, Southern and Gulf flounder there but almost everything I catch there is the same Summer Flounder (fluke) we catch here.

[Gerry Zagorski]

All good points above.... As I've always said, we need to have a 2 pronged approach to fighting this issue. The Science end which is the SSFFF's mission and the Political end which is RFA's mission.

I don't know if and how much the large tackle and boat companies donate to them but if they don't, perhaps they need some encouragement ;)

[Rocky]

All good points above.... As I've always said, we need to have a 2 pronged approach to fighting this issue. The Science end which is the SSFFF's mission and the Political end which is RFA's mission.

I'm don't know if and how much the large tackle and boat companies donate to them but if they don't, perhaps they need some encouragement ;)

Maybe it is time to email bomb all of these fishing companies that make money off of us fisherman the same way we are contacting our politicians?

[reason162]

Maybe these companies have a longer view than the participants in this thread. If they think strategically about this at all, perhaps they have in mind the fiasco that was GoM cod...how many cod jigs are they selling now compared to 20 years ago?

Once again, if you only read this forum, you might have the impression that the vast majority of NJ/northeast anglers agree with your point of view. That's not the case, and people who disagree that the science is "flawed" buy tackle too.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Maybe these companies have a longer view than the participants in this thread. If they think strategically about this at all, perhaps they have in mind the fiasco that was GoM cod...how many cod jigs are they selling now compared to 20 years ago?

Once again, if you only read this forum, you might have the impression that the vast majority of NJ/northeast anglers agree with your point of view. That's not the case, and people who disagree that the science is "flawed" buy tackle too.

Well if you believe their science, then by their own numbers, I think you'd have to agree that after almost 30 years of managing this fishery and setting our regulations, they have failed to rebuild the stocks. Time for a change in what they are doing, don't you think?

[dales529]

Here below is a link to whom supports RFA which is readily available on the RFA website

https://www.joinrfa.org/who-supports-your-right-to-fish/

https://www.joinrfa.org/rfa-supporters-clubs-tackle-shops-trade-partners/

Also I should add with everything going on we are notoriously slow in updating the websites so NJfishing.com and Gerry are huge supporters and I apologize for anyone else not listed as of yet.

[dales529]

Well if you believe their science, then by their own numbers, I think you'd have to agree that after almost 30 years of managing this fishery and setting our regulations, they have failed to rebuild the stocks. Time for a change in what they are doing, don't you think?

Amen! And its not just us who say the data is flawed its NOAA themselves who agree the MRIPS is questionable, Their Trawl Methods and Catch Harvest methods are outdated and inadequate. Per the Feb 2 meeting they are even having their Technical Committee review the methodology for improvements next year. So its not just this Forum its NOAA themselves that agree the data is not the best but the best available.

[Ttmako]

Some great points above.
This issue is bigger than just fluke. It's seabass, winter flounder, tog, cobia.
Anything NMFS decides to manage, they totally screwed up. The regulations are never eased or loosened. EVER!
Magnuson has way too many unintended consequences. It just needs to be repealed and replaced that is fair.
What I find most troubling is the MAMFC knows and admits MRIP and the SSB data is flawed. Yet they do nothing. It would be refreshing if someone on the council had the balls and leadership to say this isn't working. Hit the pause button and do the things that will actually help the fishery and it's participants.
If the swamp is to be drained, I know where I'd like them to start.
For the last few years I keep short but.hooked fish. I take a picture of it and count it against my limit. Why would anyone throw away a perfectly edible fish that is going to die. That's not conservation!

[JBird]

Think about how sad it is that I would post a comment about how we need to literally bribe our government to get what we want and everyone is like, "yeah, your right." Pretty grim state of affairs..

[reason162]

Well if you believe their science, then by their own numbers, I think you'd have to agree that after almost 30 years of managing this fishery and setting our regulations, they have failed to rebuild the stocks. Time for a change in what they are doing, don't you think?

The fluke benchmark assessments have passed peer review, which is not an easy hurdle in science. I "believe" the data insofar as I "believe" any scientific study that has passed peer review muster.

On the other side, you have interested industry voices opposing established science, calling it flawed etc. That's fine, it's a free country, but to convince me you'd have to produce your own data set, show your methodology, and submit your study to peer review. The onus is not on me to prove the current assessment is sound, it's on you to produce evidence to the contrary.

Our management system is reactionary. They do surveys and based on the survey data cuts or gains are recommended for future seasons. Low recruitment years have been observed and now confirmed. Populations are not static even in vacuum, the whole ecosystem is too complex to draw direct causal relationships between a series of low recruitment years to one factor, such as overfishing or climate change...most likely a combination of the two plus other variables are at play.

ASMFC data is a reflection of the status of the fish stock, it doesn't really matter why recruitment is low, just that the best available data shows that it is...and if the fish stock is in trouble, cuts are made.

So the "solution" you seek is to show that the stock is NOT in trouble, that it is, in fact, healthy, and can withstand 5@18" or whatever you think is sustainable. I don't think you (or SSFFF) have even begun to prove your case.

[reason162]

Think about how sad it is that I would post a comment about how we need to literally bribe our government to get what we want and everyone is like, "yeah, your right." Pretty grim state of affairs..

It is sad indeed, and so far I don't see any swamp draining. Quite the contrary.

[Gerry Zagorski]

The fluke benchmark assessments have passed peer review, which is not an easy hurdle in science. I "believe" the data insofar as I "believe" any scientific study that has passed peer review muster.

On the other side, you have interested industry voices opposing established science, calling it flawed etc. That's fine, it's a free country, but to convince me you'd have to produce your own data set, show your methodology, and submit your study to peer review. The onus is not on me to prove the current assessment is sound, it's on you to produce evidence to the contrary.

Our management system is reactionary. They do surveys and based on the survey data cuts or gains are recommended for future seasons. Low recruitment years have been observed and now confirmed. Populations are not static even in vacuum, the whole ecosystem is too complex to draw direct causal relationships between a series of low recruitment years to one factor, such as overfishing or climate change...most likely a combination of the two plus other variables are at play.

ASMFC data is a reflection of the status of the fish stock, it doesn't really matter why recruitment is low, just that the best available data shows that it is...and if the fish stock is in trouble, cuts are made.

So the "solution" you seek is to show that the stock is NOT in trouble, that it is, in fact, healthy, and can withstand 5@18" or whatever you think is sustainable. I don't think you (or SSFFF) have even begun to prove your case.

The solution I seek is not to have more favorable regulations, it's to have better science and the right regulations to recover the stocks. Something the current management system has failed to do for 30 years now. The SSFFF funded a study being led by scientists to introduce size and sex into the picture... That information although currently available will not be taken into account until the next peer review later on this year so it's not going to change anything this year. Further, the last stock assessment we had was in 2013. So in my opinion we are not using the best available science.

What we are looking for is to keep the regulations we have in place until the SSFFF study can be taken into account and a new stock assessment can be done.

Lastly, it's a shame we had to fund the new science on our own and NJ has offered to pay for the new stock assessment, when it's the Federal Governments responsibility to manage the stock with the best available science.

[reason162]

The solution I seek is not to have more favorable regulations, it's to have better science and the right regulations to recover the stocks. Something the current management system has failed to do for 30 years now. The SSFFF funded a study being led by scientists to introduce size and sex into the picture... That information although currently available will not be taken into account until the next peer review later on this year so it's not going to change anything this year. Further, the last stock assessment we had was in 2013. So in my opinion we are not using the best available science.

What we are looking for is to keep the regulations we have in place until the SSFFF study can be taken into account and a new stock assessment can be done.

Lastly, it's a shame we had to fund the new science on our own and NJ has offered to pay for the new stock assessment, when it's the Federal Governments responsibility to manage the stock with the best available science.

The last benchmark assessment was done in 2013, but subsequent survey data were used to update the stock assessment each year. I agree we're overdue for another bench assessment.

The SSFFF sex ratio study, even if it passes peer review, might have less impact than you anticipate. From what I'm reading, fluke as a species can tolerate high sex imbalance for reproductive stability. Either way, as you said...that info won't be incorporated into the overall management plan until next year at the earliest.

In the meantime, the case has not been proved even to a reasonable doubt that the current data requiring a 40-odd % reduction is flawed. Do consider the long term harm --- to the fishery, and to the industry --- if the data is correct, and the proposed reduction is not installed.

[Capt Sal]

The last benchmark assessment was done in 2013, but subsequent survey data were used to update the stock assessment each year. I agree we're overdue for another bench assessment.

The SSFFF sex ratio study, even if it passes peer review, might have less impact than you anticipate. From what I'm reading, fluke as a species can tolerate high sex imbalance for reproductive stability. Either way, as you said...that info won't be incorporated into the overall management plan until next year at the earliest.

In the meantime, the case has not been proved even to a reasonable doubt that the current data requiring a 40-odd % reduction is flawed. Do consider the long term harm --- to the fishery, and to the industry --- if the data is correct, and the proposed reduction is not installed.
Putting a 40% reduction in place is a guess at best. Why all at one time? How do they go from five or six fluke at 18'' to two or three at 19'' in one year? That is not science that is the federal government playing with numbers like they do with everything.

[hammer4reel]

The fluke benchmark assessments have passed peer review, which is not an easy hurdle in science. I "believe" the data insofar as I "believe" any scientific study that has passed peer review muster.

On the other side, you have interested industry voices opposing established science, calling it flawed etc. That's fine, it's a free country, but to convince me you'd have to produce your own data set, show your methodology, and submit your study to peer review. The onus is not on me to prove the current assessment is sound, it's on you to produce evidence to the contrary.

Our management system is reactionary. They do surveys and based on the survey data cuts or gains are recommended for future seasons. Low recruitment years have been observed and now confirmed. Populations are not static even in vacuum, the whole ecosystem is too complex to draw direct causal relationships between a series of low recruitment years to one factor, such as overfishing or climate change...most likely a combination of the two plus other variables are at play.

ASMFC data is a reflection of the status of the fish stock, it doesn't really matter why recruitment is low, just that the best available data shows that it is...and if the fish stock is in trouble, cuts are made.

So the "solution" you seek is to show that the stock is NOT in trouble, that it is, in fact, healthy, and can withstand 5@18" or whatever you think is sustainable. I don't think you (or SSFFF) have even begun to prove your case.

Not exactly. The benchmark was set by the Pew Group. who also is the organization that holds the biggest interest in CATCH SHARES going through.

NMFS own data they presented showed recruitment went from an all time high to a decline every year the size limit increased over 16 inches.
And that every size limit higher got even worse recruitement.
Data is on Page 7 of their presentation.

Then on the REAL fishing grounds, guys arent catching less fluke , they are catching less keepers .
Same amount of fish being caught, just less going in the box due to the SIZE limit.

Plenty of guys here are catching ALOT of fish, but tactics changed to areas that hold bigger fish.
MAny guys want to still fish areas that have always held fish, and they still do, just those areas are holding non keeper size fish.

Used to be the local draggers works over a 40 mile area through the season , last year they didnt have to work more than 5 miles from port.
Why. because their are ALOT of fish around.

The best thing using NMFS own data shows that a limit size of fish closer to 16" will do more to improve the fishery than its current standard.
THEIR data , the one they are using to base their decisions show the FLAW is their management.


.want to err on the side of caution you go to a slot limit. and mix the catch sizes .


.

[Gerry Zagorski]

The last benchmark assessment was done in 2013, but subsequent survey data were used to update the stock assessment each year. I agree we're overdue for another bench assessment.

The SSFFF sex ratio study, even if it passes peer review, might have less impact than you anticipate. From what I'm reading, fluke as a species can tolerate high sex imbalance for reproductive stability. Either way, as you said...that info won't be incorporated into the overall management plan until next year at the earliest.

In the meantime, the case has not been proved even to a reasonable doubt that the current data requiring a 40-odd % reduction is flawed. Do consider the long term harm --- to the fishery, and to the industry --- if the data is correct, and the proposed reduction is not installed.

I think we are on some common ground here Reason. Not sure how involved you are in the SSFFF.... I was at the meeting when they told all the stake holders right up front that the sex ratio study may or may not give us more relaxed regulations. Instead, it could assist us in getting the right regulations to sustain the fishery. That's long term thinking, not short term greed.

PS. Glad we are keeping this civil here. This is a very emotionally charged issue with dire consequences....Yelling at each other and name calling serves no purpose but to further divide us. The one thing we all need to keep in mind, in spite of some of our differences is the goal. The long term sustainability of our sport and the fishery we all enjoy.

[reason162]

Not exactly. The benchmark was set by the Pew Group. who also is the organization that holds the biggest interest in CATCH SHARES going through.

NMFS own data they presented showed recruitment went from an all time high to a decline every year the size limit increased over 16 inches.
And that every size limit higher got even worse recruitement.
Data is on Page 7 of their presentation.

Then on the REAL fishing grounds, guys arent catching less fluke , they are catching less keepers .
Same amount of fish being caught, just less going in the box due to the SIZE limit.

Plenty of guys here are catching ALOT of fish, but tactics changed to areas that hold bigger fish.
MAny guys want to still fish areas that have always held fish, and they still do, just those areas are holding non keeper size fish.

Used to be the local draggers works over a 40 mile area through the season , last year they didnt have to work more than 5 miles from port.
Why. because their are ALOT of fish around.

The best thing using NMFS own data shows that a limit size of fish closer to 16" will do more to improve the fishery than its current standard.
THEIR data , the one they are using to base their decisions show the FLAW is their management.


.want to err on the side of caution you go to a slot limit. and mix the catch sizes .


.

It doesn't really matter who funds or performs the studies, members of the peer review committee have zero stake in the outcome and are unconnected to any relevant interest. Just like the SSFFF's sex ratio study, if it passes peer review, the conclusions will stand on its own, regardless of the fact that SSFFF is an industry funded organization.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions re fluke stocks based on anecdotal evidence. If the draggers are filling their quotas on shorter passes, it could point to a healthy biomass...or it could be due to a shift in migration/concentration of fish, or other factors such as improved technique/technologies. Draggers are not interested in performing repeatable trawls and measuring frequency over time to plot data; they're interested in landing their quota as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The recruitment - regulation relationship is also unclear, and more to the point: irrelevant. These surveys and assessments are a snapshot of current stock realities. The cause of low recruitment is not settled, but the modeling and projection from the survey data, once again, have passed peer review. The fact is there are no competing data set that shows a healthy fluke population, let alone one that has been submitted to pass peer review. So the ASMFC data IS "best available data."

[Capt John]

It's hard not to talk politics when this is essentially a political issue, government oversight of a natural resource. I think anyone who has half a brain understands that, in America, it's pay to play. If you want favorable treatment from your government than you line the pockets of the people who regulate whatever business you're in. It's just as simple as that.

That's how billionaires become the heads of Government Agencies, ie. Betsy DeVos. Totally unqualified in just about every way but she paid for the position and is now reaping the rewards of her investment.

This is just how it is in our country now. Not a partisan issue at all. Both ends of our One Party system do it. Right now the right leaning guys are steering the ship, and the left leaning guys maybe will get their chance in 2 and then four years to alter course, but make no mistake. The winners are the wealthy and the losers are everyone else.

So what do we do? Recreational fishing is not a centralized industry like fossil fuels or pharmaceuticals. We don't have the kind of political clout (aka MONEY) to get favorable treatment from those that regulate us. But you know who does? Shimano, who made over 3 billion in profits in 2016. The company that owns Penn reels? Nearly 6 billion. Gulp, Trilene, Mitchell, Abu Garcia, Fenwick, Spiderwire are all owned by the same parent company and that company also reaps billions every year.

Where are these corporations when it comes to standing up for the rights of their clientele who buy their products? Where's the money to help us out? We need some K Street big shots, hired guns to start twisting tits in DC and get it done the modern American Way. Bribe the right people and we will get what we want.

I think we should start a campaign on NJFishing to call upon the corporate big shots, whom we support by buying their products, to start throwing money around on our behalf. It makes good economic sense to help preserve the market they depend on. And it's the American Way.

JBird...you are right on. This is something I've said for months now. Where the hell are ALL business that have a hand in recreational fishing?

SILENT AND ABSENT. Where were these guys in Galloway????? Pt. Pleasant?????...nowhere to be found. Yet they want our hard earned dollars with NO support. Bravo JBird....spot on on all of your comments too!

[reason162]

I think we are on some common ground here Reason. Not sure how involved you are in the SSFFF.... I was at the meeting when they told all the stake holders right up front that the sex ratio study may or may not give us more relaxed regulations. Instead, it could assist us in getting the right regulations to sustain the fishery. That's long term thinking, not short term greed.

PS. Glad we are keeping this civil here. This is a very emotionally charged issue with dire consequences....Yelling at each other and name calling serves no purpose but to further divide us. The one thing we all need to keep in mind, in spite of some of our differences is the goal. The long term sustainability of our sport and the fishery we all enjoy.

Your injunction against politics in this thread goes a long way to keep things civil, so thank you.

I hope the sex ratio study proves relevant to regulations in the end, but there are reasons to think that it might not alter the model significantly because it hasn't answered (or asked) a couple questions on impact of taking sub-18" females. One is the sex distribution of, say, 16" fish. Will it be a rough 50/50 ratio of males and females being taken? Are there factors other than size that's leading to selective harvesting of females? and Two, how will this impact the current model, which gives an 18" female on average 2 to 3 spawns before harvesting?

These are important questions to answer even before the topic of "steepness" comes up, which by itself could render any conclusions of the sex study moot.

Going off on a little tangent here, but I lived for over a decade in a country where conservation is simply not part of the culture. Every stream/river/lake has been empty of predatory fish for generations. This island nation has virtually no easily-accessible inshore gamefish for the average angler (and they are obsessed with fishing). Instead, people pay hourly rates to catch fish and shrimp (yes, shrimp!) in man-made ponds, many of them indoors.

I think sometimes we don't appreciate the fact that ultimately, our culture here in the States agree with the fundamental principles of conservation, that natural, public resources must be managed for the greater good, and while we may disagree with the details and the methods, we know that the alternative is unthinkable.

[Joey Dah Fish]

The fluke benchmark assessments have passed peer review, which is not an easy hurdle in science. I "believe" the data insofar as I "believe" any scientific study that has passed peer review muster.

On the other side, you have interested industry voices opposing established science, calling it flawed etc. That's fine, it's a free country, but to convince me you'd have to produce your own data set, show your methodology, and submit your study to peer review. The onus is not on me to prove the current assessment is sound, it's on you to produce evidence to the contrary.

Our management system is reactionary. They do surveys and based on the survey data cuts or gains are recommended for future seasons. Low recruitment years have been observed and now confirmed. Populations are not static even in vacuum, the whole ecosystem is too complex to draw direct causal relationships between a series of low recruitment years to one factor, such as overfishing or climate change...most likely a combination of the two plus other variables are at play.

ASMFC data is a reflection of the status of the fish stock, it doesn't really matter why recruitment is low, just that the best available data shows that it is...and if the fish stock is in trouble, cuts are made.

So the "solution" you seek is to show that the stock is NOT in trouble, that it is, in fact, healthy, and can withstand 5@18" or whatever you think is sustainable. I don't think you (or SSFFF) have even begun to prove your case.
It's obvious to me and all others the your so called management to replenish the stock or stablize same is a miserable failure. We you believe your science is working and yet your data doesn't support that you need to change your strategy . I think fisherman value our stocks and understand the fishery much more than you pencil pushing failures. You force us to target the breeding population tell me again how great a job you're doing.

[Ttmako]

Pretty cool video that shows what happens when a fisherman tries to get better survey data to make the SSB assessment more accurate.

https://youtu.be/d-3AHMIQ2vI

[Ttmako]

I just looked at the ASMFC website to see if there was a recorded version of the Feb 2 meeting where they adopted option 5.
The link says file unavailable.
The audio version of every other presentation/agenda item over the 3 day meeting is available.
What a shame.

[dakota560]

The fluke benchmark assessments have passed peer review, which is not an easy hurdle in science. I "believe" the data insofar as I "believe" any scientific study that has passed peer review muster.

On the other side, you have interested industry voices opposing established science, calling it flawed etc. That's fine, it's a free country, but to convince me you'd have to produce your own data set, show your methodology, and submit your study to peer review. The onus is not on me to prove the current assessment is sound, it's on you to produce evidence to the contrary.

Our management system is reactionary. They do surveys and based on the survey data cuts or gains are recommended for future seasons. Low recruitment years have been observed and now confirmed. Populations are not static even in vacuum, the whole ecosystem is too complex to draw direct causal relationships between a series of low recruitment years to one factor, such as overfishing or climate change...most likely a combination of the two plus other variables are at play.

ASMFC data is a reflection of the status of the fish stock, it doesn't really matter why recruitment is low, just that the best available data shows that it is...and if the fish stock is in trouble, cuts are made.

So the "solution" you seek is to show that the stock is NOT in trouble, that it is, in fact, healthy, and can withstand 5@18" or whatever you think is sustainable. I don't think you (or SSFFF) have even begun to prove your case.

While I agree with a portion of you post, the portion of your post I bolded is a complete contradiction of your earlier points and precisely the problem NMFS is creating by focusing only on Total Catch. If you listened to the ASMFC meeting in Alexandria Va a few weeks ago, a statement was made by one of their technical guys which said reducing possession limits really doesn't effect biomass since most people today don't catch a limit. Therefore they are completely focused on size limit increases to manage catch and NOTHING else. That is and has been their entire focus all along and based on your comment "it doesn't really matter why recruitment is low, just that the best available data shows that it is...and if the fish stock is in trouble, cuts are made", I assume you agree with that philosophy. In my opinion, that philosophy is precisely what's created the problem by managing effect and not cause. Couldn't disagree with your position or NMFS's position more.

You talk about the importance of causal effect but suggest ignoring it and blindly cutting harvest visa vie size increases or catch and quota reductions. Let's assume those same size increases are creating a gender imbalance in the biomass leading to reduced biomass numbers between 2003 thru 2015. During that same period of time, total catch has remained relatively constant when compared to the period 1988 thru 2002 when the biomass exploded from ~7,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons. So why in 2003 did it reverse and continue it's decline for the last 14 years by ~30%. Do you have any idea what has happened to recruitment strength over the last twenty years even when biomass exploded six fold between 1988 and 2002? It was dropping but was masked by the overall biomass increase. These aren't one time variations in the trend line, they are the trend line.

I suggest you get your hands on the Rutgers report, read it and correlate it to data over the last thirty years, you might have a different view of the world when you examine the facts. I'm not going to spoon feed you the answers, do your homework and examine the data before spouting your philosophies about the importance of causal effect followed by your comment that the cause of the recruitment decline is irrelevant. You lost complete credibility with that statement.

SSFFF, RFA and many other people are working hard to better understand what's happening to this extremely important fishery. They're working their collective asses off and making some real substantive progress. I'd think twice before biting the hands that feed us or criticizing their efforts. You're correct in saying it's a complex matter but much time and money is being directed to getting it right. What's been your contribution to the fishery of late?

I'll refer you to Jack Nicholson's famous line in "A Few Good Men". "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it". Might apply to your condescending comments towards SSFFF who are doing their best to help save the fishery for us and future generations.. Otherwise stand your post, and either get involved or stop being a critical observer.

[Solemate]

So then 3 fish at 19 inches would be about 9 lbs of fish. Next time I go fluke fishing as long as I only keep less than 9Lb I am doing my part for conservation. I would even be willing to keep only 8lb and nothing under 14 inches. Does that work?

[reason162]

While I agree with a portion of you post, the portion of your post I bolded is a complete contradiction of your earlier points and precisely the problem NMFS is creating by focusing only on Total Catch. If you listened to the ASMFC meeting in Alexandria Va a few weeks ago, a statement was made by one of their technical guys which said reducing possession limits really doesn't effect biomass since most people today don't catch a limit. Therefore they are completely focused on size limit increases to manage catch and NOTHING else. That is and has been their entire focus all along and based on your comment "it doesn't really matter why recruitment is low, just that the best available data shows that it is...and if the fish stock is in trouble, cuts are made", I assume you agree with that philosophy. In my opinion, that philosophy is precisely what's created the problem by managing effect and not cause. Couldn't disagree with your position or NMFS's position more.

You talk about the importance of causal effect but suggest ignoring it and blindly cutting harvest visa vie size increases or catch and quota reductions. Let's assume those same size increases are creating a gender imbalance in the biomass leading to reduced biomass numbers between 2003 thru 2015. During that same period of time, total catch has remained relatively constant when compared to the period 1988 thru 2002 when the biomass exploded from ~7,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons. So why in 2003 did it reverse and continue it's decline for the last 14 years by ~30%. Do you have any idea what has happened to recruitment strength over the last twenty years even when biomass exploded six fold between 1988 and 2002? It was dropping but was masked by the overall biomass increase. These aren't one time variations in the trend line, they are the trend line.

I suggest you get your hands on the Rutgers report, read it and correlate it to data over the last thirty years, you might have a different view of the world when you examine the facts. I'm not going to spoon feed you the answers, do your homework and examine the data before spouting your philosophies about the importance of causal effect followed by your comment that the cause of the recruitment decline is irrelevant. You lost complete credibility with that statement.

SSFFF, RFA and many other people are working hard to better understand what's happening to this extremely important fishery. They're working their collective asses off and making some real substantive progress. I'd think twice before biting the hands that feed us or criticizing their efforts. You're correct in saying it's a complex matter but much time and money is being directed to getting it right. What's been your contribution to the fishery of late?

I'll refer you to Jack Nicholson's famous line in "A Few Good Men". "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it". Might apply to your condescending comments towards SSFFF who are doing their best to help save the fishery for us and future generations.. Otherwise stand your post, and either get involved or stop being a critical observer.

Rather dramatic response to a position I did not take. The SSFFF is an industry sponsored endeavor, and the sex study is submitted for peer review. Whether it survives peer review or not is an open question, and even if it passes how much impact it'll have on the future model is also in doubt. Not sure how that's condescending towards SSFFF; these are simply facts.

The assessments and surveys do not answer the question WHY recruitment took a sharp down turn starting in 2010. They don't even ask the question. I would assume that, like many species, fluke undergo boom and bust years in reproduction. In a vacuum (no comm/rec harvest), the population is resilient to these cycles, but since we're managing this resource for human consumption...regulations need to correlate to the shifting stock, year to year, in response to variations in recruitment (among other things).

Your hypothesis, and that of SSFFF's, is that gender imbalance/selected harvesting of females is to blame for low recruitment. You might be correct, but so far, zero evidence that fluke population --- a "steep" species even among steep flatfish --- is much affected by gender imbalance.

My personal guess is that if/once NOAA incorporates climate change data into their model, many gaps will be filled in our understanding of stock fluctuations. The last decade has been "weird" in all sorts of ways, from observable migration of birds and fish that I can tell just being on the water. Climate change is directly responsible for an explosion of Black Swan events, and it would surprise me if that doesn't include an explanation for the 2010 -'13 low recruitment years.

In any case, I'm happy to be a critical observer. I'm okay with 3 fish @ 19", I agree with the alleged outburst from the "tech guy" that this cut will affect a small minority of anglers. People tend to inflate their recollection of limits. I don't agree that keeping the status quo for this year is prudent, since I find no fault in the survey data that is responsible for these cuts. I choose to engage in this forum on this issue because I don't mind dissenting from a chorus of agreement. Not sure what more you want me to do, hold counter-rallies to RFA rallies?

And btw, the only condescension I read on this board is people with little or no understanding of basic science and how the scientific method works, disparaging the scientists whose life's work is measuring and monitoring the health of our fisheries, calling them bureaucratic pencil pushers and even accusing them of fudging their numbers to justify keeping their jobs.

[Ttmako]

The model itself or the science isn't really an issue for me.
Its peer reviewed, I have faith that process works.
My issue is 2 fold
1-The regulations for summer flounder are not working, and as a result the catch limits are constantly reduced. It would be comforting if the council took a stand and made the HARD decision to be introspective. They should acknowledge they have failed and start over. We all want the same thing, a healthy and robust fishery.
2-While the black box model may work, I have no doubt the data inputs are wrong. Garbage in/Garbage out. The council admits MRIP remains flawed and falling short of expectations. The survey trawls are now recognized as being suboptimal when compared to a chain sweep net. In a side by side comparison, the commercial gear caught 3x as many fluke as the Bigelow net. Vessel trip reports that are required to be filled out by for hire captains are ignored. The data inputs and the TC and SSC arrogance are what is causing the problem.
I believe what they are doing is a fraud. Knowingly using bad data to push an environmental agenda is fraudulent. The TC, SSC and some council members should be locked up. They will be held to account. Just wait.

[dakota560]

Glad your happy and OK with a 3 fish limit at 19". If your livelihood depended on the resource, I assume your position would be different. And while I'm not suggesting decisions should be based solely on economic consequences, they shouldn't ignore them either. Many businesses have been and will continue to be negatively impacted by continuous cuts visa vie quota cuts, size increases, shortened seasons or increase in possession limits. The MSA charter itself from 1976 states one of their key objectives is to "Increase long-term economic and social benefits". If the management of the resource hasn't accomplished that in 41 years, you have to question maybe not their science but the decisions being made based on that science. We've had two revisions to MSA, Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and the subsequent 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. We can have twenty revisions to MSA but if their ideologies don't change we'll end up in the same place we are today. EVERYTHING translates to possession reductions and size limit increases which are simply a means of managing total catch and nothing else. Causal effect of a precipitous decline in recruitment over a very long period of time is being completely ignored which was the basis of my initial response to your post.

Recruitment you say took a sharp decline in 2010, that's one data point. Recruitment has actually been trending down since 1997 and the reasons causing that are as unknown today as they were in 1997. If declining recruitment of new fish into the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is the primary problem, we should understand or at minimum hypothesize what's causing that trend before blindly continuing down the road of size increases and possession cuts which may in and of itself be causing that decline. Continuing to employ the same ideology under a different charter is the equivalent of "Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic". It's not going to change the outcome or alter the trend we're on.

I have nothing against science or scientists, actually have a tremendous amount of respect for them. BUT there comes a time when if what's been done over twenty to thirty years isn't working, you have to question the methodology that caused those failures as opposed to embracing them and continuing down the same path. I'm willing to bet that Option V will cause the Spawning Stock Biomass to continue sliding and trend closer to 20,000 metric tons from the 2015 36,240 metric tons sooner than it will reverse that decline and move upward to the ~62,000 metric ton goal legislated under MSA. There is no evidence to suggest it won't, we have an almost twenty year trend which suggests it will. The fishery is being managed to collapse.

[MDeSi]

Hard to look at the science and decision making process behind these regs as well founded and objective. I say this because its the same group that is regulating our scup and seabass fisheries which are and have been rebuilt for some time. So why the continued cuts on said species? Just in case??? you seem to believe in the points you are backing(reason12). So with respect, what is your position on these fisheries?

[fishguy]

I'll refer you to Jack Nicholson's famous line in "A Few Good Men". "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it".

I don't think this is a very good quote to back up your point. His character broke his oath, got one of his men murdered and then tried to cover it up. The only reason he got caught is because he couldn't control his ego.

I don't mean this to be an insult, I just feel like maybe in the future you might not want to use this quote in the context you did.

[dakota560]

I'll refer you to Jack Nicholson's famous line in "A Few Good Men". "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it".

I don't think this is a very good quote to back up your point. His character broke his oath, got one of his men murdered and then tried to cover it up. The only reason he got caught is because he couldn't control his ego.

I don't mean this to be an insult, I just feel like maybe in the future you might not want to use this quote in the context you did.

This is SSFFF's charter from their web site.:

We seek to safeguard and improve fishing access to summer flounder, for those who enjoy it and to ensure the survival of those who depend on it, through scientific and legislative means.

My Analogy while you might not agree with it, had nothing to do with the reason Col. Jessep was on the stand but contextually what his statement meant. My interpretation of his comment is he was saying either get involved with something that benefits us all (freedom in this case) or don't questions or challenge the means we employ to provide that freedom. If you disagree with methodologies or someone's approach, get involved and contribute. My comments had nothing to do with the reason Nicholson's character was on the stand, it was simply intended to mean that SSFFF is trying to save the fishery for everyone's benefit, it you disagree with their approaches or efforts then get involved.

As far as the comment made by reason162 of "So the "solution" you seek is to show that the stock is NOT in trouble, that it is, in fact, healthy, and can withstand 5@18" or whatever you think is sustainable. I don't think you (or SSFFF) have even begun to prove your case.", I don't think that's SSFFF's mission at all. I believe as their web site states what they want, as we all do, is to make sure the data we're using through scientific means or otherwise to make decisions is sound. Whether that comes in the form of additional stock assessments, trawl studies using a chain sweep technology as opposed to rock hopper by the Bigelow (which have been proven to show significantly reduced results), sex and size study analysis as in the Rutgers study, or the effects if any of climate change etc., their goal in my opinion is to have better data all around.

My comment to reason162 right or wrong is if he disagrees with SSFFF approaches, theories or findings, then get involved and contribute in any way to ultimately "Save the Summer Flounder Fishery". If NMFS continues making the same decisions which has been one thing and one thing only, size limit increases and possession limit cuts, we will continue along the same declining SSB downward spiraling trend line....in my opinion. Historical relationships between recruitment to SSB correlated to size limit increases completely supports that statement. Another year or two on the same path and SSFFF will change their name to "Save the Summer Floundering Fishery" because further damage to the recruitment strength will occur which in my opinion will take years to correct.

Reason162, I simply disagree with some of your comments as you do with mine but we're all entitled to our opinions and right to express them and truthfully I think it makes for a better more comprehensive discussion. Didn't mean to offend you since I don't even know you and if I did my apologies. Hopefully for all our sake, we'll collectively figure this out before we lose an extremely important resource for lack of knowledge or differences of opinion about what's happening in the ocean. That would be the most tragic of all endings for everyone!

[Adrenalinerush]

Thanks to everyone for a civil discussion, I'm learning a lot just reading the posts going back and forth and that is a good thing.
Jim

[Detour66]

Bottom Line .... They have made it very hard for the average Fluke Fisherman to put a catch together effectively closing the season without actually closing the season.

[reason162]

Reason162, I simply disagree with some of your comments as you do with mine but we're all entitled to our opinions and right to express them and truthfully I think it makes for a better more comprehensive discussion. Didn't mean to offend you since I don't even know you and if I did my apologies. Hopefully for all our sake, we'll collectively figure this out before we lose an extremely important resource for lack of knowledge or differences of opinion about what's happening in the ocean. That would be the most tragic of all endings for everyone!

No offense taken whatsoever, appreciate this discussion very much.

My main objection is to the insistence of keeping this season status quo, going "rogue" to force an issue on the 41% mandated cuts. If you accept the current data showing the stock in trouble from poor recruitment stemming in '10-'13, then I see pushing for status quo as myopic and foolhardy.

As to the broader point on improving the science conducted...I think we are in general agreement. I have my doubts re the sex ratio study and its ultimate impact on the model once incorporated, but I think pushing for its inclusion is a worthy endeavor and will only increase our understanding of the species. Including climate change data to fluke and all other management species will undoubtedly open our eyes to the effects of this phenomenon on a more granular scale.

Either way, you are absolutely correct that the reasons for 2 decade's worth of poor recruitment have not been adequately targeted, let alone answered. This must change if we want a pro-active rather than a reactionary management system.

[reason162]

I'll refer you to Jack Nicholson's famous line in "A Few Good Men". "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it".

I don't think this is a very good quote to back up your point. His character broke his oath, got one of his men murdered and then tried to cover it up. The only reason he got caught is because he couldn't control his ego.

I don't mean this to be an insult, I just feel like maybe in the future you might not want to use this quote in the context you did.

Lol now I need to rewatch that movie...what a classic!

[bulletbob]

Bottom Line .... They have made it very hard for the average Fluke Fisherman to put a catch together effectively closing the season without actually closing the season.

I am of the opinion that the overall "harvest" will be similar to previous years, despite the stiffer regs.. I have a feeling that many of us will turn into "pirates", or even "poachers" if you want to take it a step further.. On any given day even just one 19 incher can be hard to come by.. 18 inchers were tough enough.. I think there are a lot of otherwise law abiding fluke fishermen visualizing their fishing boats, thinking about where a contraband 18 incher or two can be stowed.....

When does this stop?... If we have another year of "overharvest", is it cut to 2 fish at 21 inches next year??.. Hell lets make it a "trophy fishery" -1 fish at 24.. That will get the stocks rebuilt pretty quick right? bob

[Rocky]

I am a simple man and I know if I was in charge of a business for 20 plus years and it kept going downhill I would be fired rightfully so.
What would make anyone think that new tighter regs would change anything for the better now? :confused:

[Detour66]

I am of the opinion that the overall "harvest" will be similar to previous years, despite the stiffer regs.. I have a feeling that many of us will turn into "pirates", or even "poachers" if you want to take it a step further.. On any given day even just one 19 incher can be hard to come by.. 18 inchers were tough enough.. I think there are a lot of otherwise law abiding fluke fishermen visualizing their fishing boats, thinking about where a contraband 18 incher or two can be stowed.....

When does this stop?... If we have another year of "overharvest", is it cut to 2 fish at 21 inches next year??.. Hell lets make it a "trophy fishery" -1 fish at 24.. That will get the stocks rebuilt pretty quick right? bob

What you are saying may certainly apply to private boats but all party boats I have been on play by the rules. You never know if a person fishing on the boat is a C.O. It could put a major dent in business unless people don't care if they bring home fish and just want a day on the water and hope for the best!

[reason162]

When does this stop?... If we have another year of "overharvest", is it cut to 2 fish at 21 inches next year??..

The cuts this year is not due to "overharvest."

[Gerry Zagorski]

The cuts this year is not due to "overharvest."

Pretty sure they said we over fished last year, no?

[reason162]

Pretty sure they said we over fished last year, no?

I believe that's a separate calculation, and the main reason for the 41% cut this year is continual poor recruitment of the 2010-onward class of fish.

[bulletbob]

I believe that's a separate calculation, and the main reason for the 41% cut this year is continual poor recruitment of the 2010-onward class of fish.

I don't buy it one bit... the bottom was covered with 13-15 inchers last year.. No problem catching 50-75 a day, and those are maybe 3 year old fish... according to this NOAA article a male of 7 years old is a 24 inch fish, and a 2 year old fish is sexually mature.... bob


http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fbp/age-man/smfl/smfl.htm

[reason162]

I don't buy it one bit... the bottom was covered with 13-15 inchers last year.. No problem catching 50-75 a day, and those are maybe 3 year old fish... according to this NOAA article a male of 7 years old is a 24 inch fish, and a 2 year old fish is sexually mature.... bob


http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fbp/age-man/smfl/smfl.htm

Lol you don't have to "buy" anything, go out there and get a feel for the fish stock based on your 5 fluking trips in 2016, what you read on the internet, grumblings at the dock, whatever. Do realize that a central argument against the current management regime is their failure to turn around downward trending recruitment starting in 2010 (not an argument w/o merit, though imo slightly missing the point). "Overfishing" in the traditional sense is and was not the reason for the drastic cuts this year, in fact anyone paying attention in the past 5 years knew that unless recruitment turned around, something like this was in the pipeline.

[Ryelof]

Lol you don't have to "buy" anything, go out there and get a feel for the fish stock based on your 5 fluking trips in 2016, what you read on the internet, grumblings at the dock, whatever. Do realize that a central argument against the current management regime is their failure to turn around downward trending recruitment starting in 2010 (not an argument w/o merit, though imo slightly missing the point). "Overfishing" in the traditional sense is and was not the reason for the drastic cuts this year, in fact anyone paying attention in the past 5 years knew that unless recruitment turned around, something like this was in the pipeline.

After reading your posts, I can only assume.......you drank the kool aid.

[bulletbob]

Lol you don't have to "buy" anything, go out there and get a feel for the fish stock based on your 5 fluking trips in 2016, what you read on the internet, grumblings at the dock, whatever. Do realize that a central argument against the current management regime is their failure to turn around downward trending recruitment starting in 2010 (not an argument w/o merit, though imo slightly missing the point). "Overfishing" in the traditional sense is and was not the reason for the drastic cuts this year, in fact anyone paying attention in the past 5 years knew that unless recruitment turned around, something like this was in the pipeline.

Bullshit.. If ""recruitment"" was low for the previous 6 years where the HELL did the masses of 16 inch fish come from?
The bottom was lousy with fluke last year.. Hell, I was still seeing them caught in Dec and Jan .
You indeed are a kool aid drinker it would seem . Fluke grow fast, a 12 incher is only a year to maybe 15 months old. Yes I am not as lucky as you are in being to fluke fish every week or more. distance precludes that at this point. However having lived in NJ for 37 damn years as a younger man, including having 2 homes at the shore , I have pretty good historical perspective on the fluke populations.. ..You on the other hand seem to have hysterical perspective... There have years in the past where any fluke at all was hard to come by..
Glad you agree with Big Brothers management decisions... I will reiterate- I don't buy it.
btw, why the nastiness? Can;t we enjoy a robust debate and still maintain genteel discourse? bob

[dakota560]

1995 43,400 14,500 2,993 14.00
1996 43,500 16,700 2,605 14.00
1997 42,900 19,400 2,211 14.50
1998 43,700 22,400 1,951 15.00
1999 41,100 25,700 1,599 15.00
2000 38,700 29,100 1,330 15.50
2001 40,000 33,100 1,208 15.50
2002 42,900 37,900 1,132 16.81
2003 41,800 42,100 993 16.81
2004 45,800 45,200 1,013 16.85
2005 42,700 47,000 909 17.08
2006 40,300 47,400 850 17.33
2007 37,400 46,400 806 17.90
2008 39,300 45,600 862 19.03
2009 39,500 45,400 870 18.95
2010 40,400 44,900 900 18.95
2011 37,400 44,500 840 18.64
2012 35,000 43,500 805 18.25
2013 31,400 42,300 742 17.93
2014 27,400 40,600 675 18.00
2015 25,200 39,150 644 18.00

Here's some data from the ASMFC presentation regarding Draft Addendum XXVIII to digest. THEIR data, speaks volumes in my opinion about where the problem with the fishery is and it's been around a lot longer than the last 5 years.

First column is obviously year, second column is avg. trailing 5 yr. recruitment (new fish, age zero), third column is avg. trailing 5 yr. SSB (Stock Spawning Biomass), fourth recruitment divided by SSB to arrive at recruitment per metric ton of SSB and fifth column is the size regulations in place each year. Recruitment numbers reflected above are in units of each and 000s. So in 1995 43,400 equates to 43,400,000 new fish. SSB numbers are in metric tons so in 1995 14,500 SSB is actually 14,500 metric tons or ~32,000,000 million pounds. Column four is a measure of recruitment strength, how many fish on average are being produced for every metric ton of SSB (Stock Spawning Biomass) and column five is comparing those numbers and more importantly that trend to the size regulations imposed by NMFS. Conservation Equivalency was adopted by NMFS in 2002 so the size reported for 2002 to 2015 represents a weighted average between NJ / NY / CT for those years. Since those three states comprise a significant percentage of the annual harvest (in excess of 80% in 2015), their size limits are representative of a majority of the annual total catch.

It's been mentioned on the board by some recruitment numbers have been down for the last five years. While that is true in absolute numbers, the more relevant and alarming fact is recruitment strength (column four) has been trending down for the last ~22 years! Even in years 1988 thru 2002 when SSB exploded from a low of 7,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons, a six-fold increase, recruitment strength mid 90's started an almost 22 year rapid and precipitous decline. Recruitment to metric ton of biomass averaged 2,895 for years 1988 to 1996. That average dropped to 1,572 for years 1997 to 2002 or a 46% decrease in biomass strength. So while SSB was on a rapid rise, recruitment strength began to weaken and has continued to the point of collapse thru 2015.

Another way to view the above data. In 1995, recruitment was 43,400,000 new fish based on an SSB of 14,500 metric tons. In 2015, the last year reported in the ASMFC draft, recruitment was 25,200,000 new fish based on an SSB of 39,150 metric tons. That translates to a decrease in recruitment of 18,200,000 fish or a 42% decline on an increase in SSB of 24,680 metric tons or a 170% increase between those years. So the stock spawning biomass which is almost three times as large in 2015 produced a recruitment number which was 42% lower compared to 1996. That's an incredibly alarming trend!

Average recruitment in years 1986 to 1995 was 2,916 new fish per metric ton of SSB. That number in 2015 is 644 new fish, a 78% drop in recruitment strength. So while the SSB in 2015 is sitting at 39,150 metric tons, ~ 32,000 metric tons over the 1988 lowest level on record, the recruitment strength of the SSB has weakened by ~80% between the mid-nineties and today. What's even worse is that trend continues at an alarming rate.

When you compare the size regulations imposed by NMFS to the precipitous drop in recruitment strength, the problem jumps off the page. Again this is their own science and data, not third party. Just about every year size limits were increased resulted in a corresponding drop in recruitment strength. We'll continue hearing climate change, SSB migrating to points further north and or east, predatory impacts etc. While I'm sure predation natural or otherwise have impacts as do temperature changes, it's hard if not impossible not to conclude this 22-year trend is primarily the result of a change in SSB gender mix primarily due to size limit increases mandated by NMFS resulting in a greater harvest of female fish. Their own data supports that theory 100%. Additionally, compare the size limit information in column five to the Rutgers study on size and sex information for summer flounder and you'll understand why we're in the situation we're in. Too many larger predominantly female fish are being harvested.

What's most tragic is this is NOT a 5-year trend, it's at minimum a 22-year trend. NMFS has the data and this issue isn't even being discussed. The six-fold increase in SSB from 7,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons between 1988 and 2002 masked the problem but the problem was there for them to see. If we had the same recruitment strength today as we did for the years 1988 to 1996, recruitment in 2015 would have been ~113,000,000 new fish as opposed to 23,000,000. The SSB would have and should have exploded upward and more likely than not currently be in excess of the MSA mandated goal of ~62,000 metric tons.

In my opinion three things are causing this decline. Primary reason is NMFS's continued philosophy to manage "Total Catch" by increasing size limits resulting in a gender mix imbalance of the Spawning Stock Biomass.

Second I believe the evolution of "braid and buck tailing" which started late 90's further increased the average size fish being caught by recreational anglers contributing to larger and a more disproportionate amount of females being removed from the SSB.

Third is commercial catch. As has been discussed here, commercial operators can harvest fish over 14 inches. There's been debate about the inequities of that relative to the higher size limits imposed on recreational anglers. My view is it's a blessing in disguise IF the result is smaller male fish, 14 - 15 inches, being harvested. Larger fish, as mentioned on this board, carry a significantly higher price at the docks for commercial operators. My concern intuitively is commercial catches are being culled to high grade catches and the smaller fish are being discarded dead. Result more larger female fish harvested and higher dead discard. Don't necessarily blame commercial operators, if my livelihood depended on the sea and the regulations were limiting my catch I'd probably do the same myself as would a majority of the people on this board. BUT if the regulations are promoting that behavior, and that behavior is contributing to the SSB decline, they should be changed. Not sure how to do this but if it is indeed a contributing factor to the problem it needs to be addressed. I don't for a second believe the dead discard percentage reported on an honor system basis for commercial operators is remotely accurate. Again I don't necessarily blame them, I blame the regulations.

As I've mentioned before, if recruitment weakness is the smoking gun here, NMFS should consider closing the commercial fishery for maybe two years during the prime spawning season mid September to late October when fluke are migrating off shore to their wintering ground. Not proposing or advocating reducing the overall commercial harvest, just change the timing so every year migrating females have at least one more year to contribute to the annual recruitment numbers. I know this won't go over well with commercial interests but if the decision is to continue losing quota versus maintaining that quota or possibly increasing it if the SSB responds positively, it might be the lesser of two evils.

Furthermore, slot limits in the 14 to 15 inch class should be imposed immediately for recreational anglers. Maybe 3 slot fish between 14 - 15 inches and 2 fish over 18 inches. Even though total catch will increase, total catch as the data supports from 1988 to 2015 has been relatively constant and is NOT the problem. So even if more fish are harvested comprised of a higher percentage of smaller males which they will be, less 18 inch and above fish will be harvested and the SSB should respond positively as it did during the six-fold increase between 1988 to 2002.

The data is there to support what's happening and it's either being overlooked (which I highly doubt) or ignored. In this situation I believe the later to be the case. Blind policy decisions solely directed at managing Total Catch without the support of data are not only not prudent they could and most likely will further compound the problem at hand. If size increases over the last 22-year period show a direct correlation to an almost 80% decline on recruitment strength, why would NMFS or anyone continue down that path. NMFS and ASMFC are so focused on Total Catch they're missing the broader issue staring them in the face. Option V will continue to place further pressure on recruitment strength and all the powers to be are doing is kicking the can further down the road. The problem is NOT being addressed or corrected, it's being deferred. At this rate the MSA goal of ~62,000 metric tons of SSB will never be attained. The declining trend in SSB from 2003 to 2015 will continue for the same reasons unless changes are made in how science and the ensuing data is being interpreted and applied. There's no data, logic or reason to believe otherwise.

[Solemate]

How do they get these recruitment numbers? Where do they come from?

[tuna john]

Dakota you should be there speaking for us very well written and spot on.
My friend was at todays meeting the decided to not make baltimore a sanctuary and are now considering the hudson, unreal what the focus at these meeting is. thanks

[dakota560]

How do they get these recruitment numbers? Where do they come from?

Good question but I'm not sure. It's a question I've asked myself since the Galloway meeting. Don't know if NMFS conducts trawl surveys or if the recruitment number is a mathematical algorithm. It's important to understand how all data associated with this process is arrived at and quantified but right now I'm not sure how they arrive at recruitment. I would guess if we're talking about reproduction and new fish, it has everything to do with the overall Stock Spawning Biomass. Since recruitment is and has been trending in the absolute opposite direction of SSB, my guess would be it's not a calculation but the result of some type of seine survey. Otherwise SSB and recruitment would be trending in the same direction which is anything but what the analysis is showing.

[tautog]

If recruitment numbers were down for 22 years, then there would be much less fluke now than in 1994-5. Does anyone actually see this?

[Solemate]

The whole concept that we need to disprove data that no one seems to know where comes from is absurd. What a farse

[bulletbob]

If recruitment numbers were down for 22 years, then there would be much less fluke now than in 1994-5. Does anyone actually see this?

Exactly .. last summer was crazy with the amount of fluke that were out there.. Not a lot of keepers after the early season onslaught in the Raritan bay channels, but fluke covered the bottom, as long as you didn't mind 16-17 inchers... However, the "experts" seem to disagree, and they have the "data" to back it up........ I guess:rolleyes:...... bob

[Solemate]

Recruitment by definition is a increase in population. Recruitman"the increase in a natural population as progeny grow and immigrants arrive". Perhaps someone is misrepresenting a terminology and need to explain these numbers in laymen terms.

[dakota560]

If recruitment numbers were down for 22 years, then there would be much less fluke now than in 1994-5. Does anyone actually see this?

I think your missing my point. Go back and reread my post. I didn't say recruitment was down for 22 years, I said the relationship between recruitment (new fish) and SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) has trended down for 22 years, what I refer to as relative recruitment strength. So even though between the years 1995 to 2002 relative recruitment strength was weakening, there was sufficient base within SSB and proportionate gender mix to drive a 600% increase from 7,000 metric tons in 1988 to ~50,0000 metric tons in 2002. The increase in SSB masked an underlying problem, recruitment strength was rapidly deteriorating. Look at column four from 1996 thru 2002. Recruitment per metric ton was 2,605, 2,211, 1,951, 1,599, 1,330, 1,208 and 1,132 respectively. From 1996 to 2002 that’s a 56% decline in recruitment strength. Compare that to column three SSB during the same time frame, it exploded up. While the decline in relative recruitment strength was significant, SSB was still sufficient and gender balanced enough to drive an increase in biomass. In 2015 recruitment strength has eroded to 644 fish per metric ton of SSB, 25% of the strength in 1996. The reproductive strength of SSB can no longer sustain the fishery so the biomass has declined over the last 13 years and will continue doing so unless regulations change and larger females and females in general are protected. Unless the female composition of SSB improves to strengthen relative recruitment strength the decline of SSB will continue. I'd bet the ranch 2016 and 2017 once reported will show further decline in SSB from the 39,140 metric tons reported in 2015. There's no data, science or reasons to believe otherwise. The same regulatory decisions which created the decline in SSB since 2003 are not only still in effect they've become more onerous. Continued increases in size limits in 2015 and 2016 sealed that fate. Option V or even status quo for 2017 will further compound this problem simply because we're collectively, commercial and recreational combined, taking a higher percentage share of a rapidly shrinking female population creating a greater gender imbalance in SSB year over year. In my opinion we're in an outright free fall. Fueled not necessarily by bad science but by brutal decision making based on that science. As I've said all along, NMFS is managing the effects and ignoring the cause and so focused on achieving an inflated MSA SSB goal that their decision making isn't just clouded it's been completely focused on the wrong issues. One day, and we're probably close if not there already, SSB will be comprised of 5% females and 95% males and Marine Fisheries will be wondering why recruitment strength has virtually collapsed. That's when the unwillingness to focus on anything other than a 62,000 metric ton MSA driven SSB goal and insistence of only regulatory options which address lower total catch visa vie quota reduction, size limit increases or possession limit reductions will come full circle and the fishery will have effectively collapsed. We’re close if not at that point right now.

Hope this better clarifies the point of my earlier post.

[dakota560]

Let me use one other maybe slightly unusual analogy to illustrate what I believe is happening to the fishery. Imagine two groups of people, 8 in the first (4 females and 4 males 50/50 gender mix). Second group has 20 people (2 females and 18 males 10/90 gender mix). Year over year all females have a child. First year group one has 4 children (recruitment) and increases in size (SSB) to 12. Group 2 has 2 children and increases in size to 22. Assume each year the new recruits are an equal mix of males and females. Don't mean to be perverse but for illustration purposes assume recruits are sexually mature in year one. Year two, group one has 12 people, 6 females and six males. End of year two group one will have 6 more recruits and increase to 18 (9 females and 9 males). Group two will have 3 more recruits and increase to 25 (4 females and 21 males). Year three same scenario, group one which has 18 people (9 females and 9 males) has 9 more recruits and increases to 27 (13 females and 14 males) . Group two will have 4 recruits and increase to 29 (5 females and 24 males). So what began 8 to 20 after three years is now 27 to 29. Group one changes is commensurate to what happened between 1988 and 2003, percentage wise explosion to SSB.

Now factor in mortality (or catch in the case of the fishery) and assume every year more females proportionately are being removed than males. Without going through the numbers, group two in each of the first three years if they only had one female mortality, their relative recruitment strength would be declining and remain at one female. So regardless of how many males their are in the SSB, it wouldn't matter because each year their strength is predicated on female reproduction and with only one producer mortality year over year will exceed recruitment. Eventually the SSB won't be able to sustain the mortality levels every year (or catch as it relates to the fishery) and will collapse. Group 2 on the other hand has a higher female composition and as long as recruitment strength can out pace mortality, SSB will continue to rise due to not just size SSB but the proportionate gender mix itself. Group two is what's happened in my opinion to SSB from 2003 to current and will continue happening unless size NMFS adjusts their focus and regulations are changed to favor and protect larger predominantly female fish.

That is the primary cause SSB is in a free fall and Option V will continue that trend. We're approaching a collapse in SSB recruitment strength which will take years to correct if we continue down the path we're on.

[reason162]

1995 43,400 14,500 2,993 14.00
1996 43,500 16,700 2,605 14.00
1997 42,900 19,400 2,211 14.50
1998 43,700 22,400 1,951 15.00
1999 41,100 25,700 1,599 15.00
2000 38,700 29,100 1,330 15.50
2001 40,000 33,100 1,208 15.50
2002 42,900 37,900 1,132 16.81
2003 41,800 42,100 993 16.81
2004 45,800 45,200 1,013 16.85
2005 42,700 47,000 909 17.08
2006 40,300 47,400 850 17.33
2007 37,400 46,400 806 17.90
2008 39,300 45,600 862 19.03
2009 39,500 45,400 870 18.95
2010 40,400 44,900 900 18.95
2011 37,400 44,500 840 18.64
2012 35,000 43,500 805 18.25
2013 31,400 42,300 742 17.93
2014 27,400 40,600 675 18.00
2015 25,200 39,150 644 18.00

Here's some data from the ASMFC presentation regarding Draft Addendum XXVIII to digest. THEIR data, speaks volumes in my opinion about where the problem with the fishery is and it's been around a lot longer than the last 5 years.
...

Excellent summary of your main point, everyone should read this carefully.

In many ways, I am rooting for the sex ratio study to pass peer review AND substantially impact the model. That would be, in this context, an "easy" solution to the recruitment problem. I'm not nearly as certain of this hypothesis as you are, but the correlation is there and it behooves the scientists to investigate any potential causality.

Another hypothesis, which I find more compelling than selective harvesting of females, is the overall impact of climate change. These two hypothesis are not mutually exclusive, of course, but if climate change is substantially driving poor recruitment (directly or indirectly), the solution is not nearly as easy as playing around with slot or size limits. The fundamentals of resource management needs to change to fully appreciate the impact.

Having said that, I vehemently disagree with you that keeping the status quo (5@18"), even if assuming sex disparity is driving poor recruitment, is a better solution for 2017 than the current 3@19" regs. If the vast majority of fluke over 18" are female, the sex ratio imbalance wouldn't be much affected at 19". Meanwhile, the same 18" female gets another chance to spawn if the size limit is increased by 1 inch. Ditto on the bag limit decrease...so now instead of potentially removing 5 fecund females per day, you are removing 3 AND giving the 3 an extra year to reproduce. The relationship is not linear from 18" to 19", anything over 18" is subject to diminishing returns under the sex ratio hypothesis.

I hope that makes sense.

[reason162]

Let me use one other maybe slightly unusual analogy to illustrate what I believe is happening to the fishery. Imagine two groups of people, 8 in the first (4 females and 4 males 50/50 gender mix). Second group has 20 people (2 females and 18 males 10/90 gender mix). Year over year all females have a child. First year group one has 4 children (recruitment) and increases in size (SSB) to 12. Group 2 has 2 children and increases in size to 22. Assume each year the new recruits are an equal mix of males and females. Don't mean to be perverse but for illustration purposes assume recruits are sexually mature in year one. Year two, group one has 12 people, 6 females and six males. End of year two group one will have 6 more recruits and increase to 18 (9 females and 9 males). Group two will have 3 more recruits and increase to 25 (4 females and 21 males). Year three same scenario, group one which has 18 people (9 females and 9 males) has 9 more recruits and increases to 27 (13 females and 14 males) . Group two will have 4 recruits and increase to 29 (5 females and 24 males). So what began 8 to 20 after three years is now 27 to 29. Group one changes is commensurate to what happened between 1988 and 2003, percentage wise explosion to SSB.

Now factor in mortality (or catch in the case of the fishery) and assume every year more females proportionately are being removed than males. Without going through the numbers, group two in each of the first three years if they only had one female mortality, their relative recruitment strength would be declining and remain at one female. So regardless of how many males their are in the SSB, it wouldn't matter because each year their strength is predicated on female reproduction and with only one producer mortality year over year will exceed recruitment. Eventually the SSB won't be able to sustain the mortality levels every year (or catch as it relates to the fishery) and will collapse. Group 2 on the other hand has a higher female composition and as long as recruitment strength can out pace mortality, SSB will continue to rise due to not just size SSB but the proportionate gender mix itself. Group two is what's happened in my opinion to SSB from 2003 to current and will continue happening unless size NMFS adjusts their focus and regulations are changed to favor and protect larger predominantly female fish.

That is the primary cause SSB is in a free fall and Option V will continue that trend. We're approaching a collapse in SSB recruitment strength which will take years to correct if we continue down the path we're on.

The problem with this analogy (and the reason sex ratio imbalance remains underwhelming as the main culprit to poor recruitment) is the concept of steepness.

Instead of paraphrasing the best explanation of "steepness" I've read, I'll go ahead and quote it below:

...a parameter called "steepness," which measures the stock/recruit relationship. It's a ratio between the number of recruits that would be typically produced by an unfished population, divided by the number of recruits typically produced by a population with just 20% of the spawning potential of an unfished population, expressed as a number between 0 and 1. The higher the number, the less important a large biomass is to recruitment, and the easier it is for a small biomass to produce an average year class. The figure can vary widely, being very low for some fish, such as sharks, which begin breeding late, and then only produce a very few young every couple of years, to very high for other fish, which produce a lot of surplus spawn.

If you take a look at the stock assessment, you'll find that the calculated steepness for fluke is very high, somewhere in the 0.95 range, which would suggest that very few females are needed to produce an average year class. That steepness figure is actually so high that it was deemed suspect and wasn't used in the assessment (a more typical figure for flatfish is around 0.80); however, there is little doubt that a relatively small biomass can produce an average fluke year class if oceanographic conditions are right.

[dakota560]

Excellent summary of your main point, everyone should read this carefully.

In many ways, I am rooting for the sex ratio study to pass peer review AND substantially impact the model. That would be, in this context, an "easy" solution to the recruitment problem. I'm not nearly as certain of this hypothesis as you are, but the correlation is there and it behooves the scientists to investigate any potential causality.

Another hypothesis, which I find more compelling than selective harvesting of females, is the overall impact of climate change. These two hypothesis are not mutually exclusive, of course, but if climate change is substantially driving poor recruitment (directly or indirectly), the solution is not nearly as easy as playing around with slot or size limits. The fundamentals of resource management needs to change to fully appreciate the impact.

Having said that, I vehemently disagree with you that keeping the status quo (5@18"), even if assuming sex disparity is driving poor recruitment, is a better solution for 2017 than the current 3@19" regs. If the vast majority of fluke over 18" are female, the sex ratio imbalance wouldn't be much affected at 19". Meanwhile, the same 18" female gets another chance to spawn if the size limit is increased by 1 inch. Ditto on the bag limit decrease...so now instead of potentially removing 5 fecund females per day, you are removing 3 AND giving the 3 an extra year to reproduce. The relationship is not linear from 18" to 19", anything over 18" is subject to diminishing returns under the sex ratio hypothesis.

I hope that makes sense.

Reason,

I'll go back and check my post but I don't believe I said status quo is incrementally better than 3 at 19. It is certainly from a catch perspective but in terms of my thesis I believe I said or at least meant to say that Option V and or status quo will further continue the trend line spiral because we're still harvesting too many females from an already depleted female SSB population. My vote is 3 fish at 14 - 15 or even 13 to 14 to grab a higher percentage of the male populations. Reverse the imbalance. Keep two fish at 18 or structure it in a way to protect the producers. The proposals for '17 and beyond should address the reasons we believe are causing the decline, not just be catch driven which has been my point all along and when I very first responded to your post. I still feel strongly about the commercial fishery closing during prime spawn but I'm a realist and don't expect that to happen any time soon. If it did, the positive impact on the biomass to be significant.

I'm not one of the climate change believers but I'm not saying your wrong. I believe if climate change were at the heart of the matter, two things in the analysis would have changed. First I don't think we'd be seeing a 22-year trend, think it would have been shorter and more recent. Second is I wouldn't have expected climate change to radically effect relative recruitment strength as quickly as it changed in 1998 thru 2002. I can't back that up with science or data, just intuitively wouldn't have expected those relationships if climate were in play here. The increases in size limits over the years fits the declining trend line in recruitment strength and SSB like a glove. Right or wrong, I choose that theory.

I need to absorb the steepness issue. I don't want to respond one way or another until I better understand the concept.

[tautog]

I would rather see slot limits for a lot of species. I think it is good for fish populations and fishermen. For fluke maybe something like 6 fish 14"-19" with one allowed over 19". Tourney guys wouldn't like it, but I think it would be good business and the environment.

[dakota560]

Is it fair to say steepness is equivalent to saying "nature will find a way?". Again it's anyone's guess but who knows how the steepness ratio of .95 was arrived at and whether it makes sense. The theory of a smaller biomass being able to create an average biomass I would think needs to consider size fish, proportionate mix of gender within that biomass and other conditions. Not as many larger fish left, a significantly smaller percentage of females in the SSB I would guess and concentrations of fluke migrating off shore every year and getting pounded by the technology advancements of commercial operator's equipment can't be promoting growth and I would be skeptical at best if I'm interpreting steepness correctly in saying "nature will find a way". It hasn't over the last 22 years in particular from 2013 to today so why believe it will reverse for the same reasons which have repeatedly failed.

I'm not a scientist or statistician but I'll say this anyway.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

To me there are so many assumptions being made while Rome literally burns and we're out of time. Some times the simplest of explanations is the right one. Personally I think the answer is staring us in the face but politics is preventing anyone from standing up and saying we're going about this the wrong way because by default they're saying they mismanaged the resource over the last 12 years. Sometimes when everything else tried fails, do something different. In this case there's really only one thing they've tried which is manage total catch and it's failed miserably over the last 20 or more years. So what does NMFS do again, the same thing for '17, I just don't see the sense.

[reason162]

Is it fair to say steepness is equivalent to saying "nature will find a way?". Again it's anyone's guess but who knows how the steepness ratio of .95 was arrived at and whether it makes sense. The theory of a smaller biomass being able to create an average biomass I would think needs to consider size fish, proportionate mix of gender within that biomass and other conditions. Not as many larger fish left, a significantly smaller percentage of females in the SSB I would guess and concentrations of fluke migrating off shore every year and getting pounded by the technology advancements of commercial operator's equipment can't be promoting growth and I would be skeptical at best if I'm interpreting steepness correctly in saying "nature will find a way". It hasn't over the last 22 years in particular from 2013 to today so why believe it will reverse for the same reasons which have repeatedly failed.

I'm not a scientist or statistician but I'll say this anyway.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

To me there are so many assumptions being made while Rome literally burns and we're out of time. Some times the simplest of explanations is the right one. Personally I think the answer is staring us in the face but politics is preventing anyone from standing up and saying we're going about this the wrong way because by default they're saying they mismanaged the resource over the last 12 years. Sometimes when everything else tried fails, do something different. In this case there's really only one thing they've tried which is manage total catch and it's failed miserably over the last 20 or more years. So what does NMFS do again, the same thing for '17, I just don't see the sense.

Well, re the context of sex imbalance: for a highly fecund, "steep" species like fluke, sex imbalance matters less than for a "flat" species like sharks (and humans) to maintain biomass.

Taking your human analogy: if you get rid of X% of human females, you will immediately affect recruitment among the human biomass. That is because human females gestate for 9 months and bear few offspring...and the majority of human offspring reach sexual maturation (at least now, compared to most of history and prehistory).

Now imagine if human females, instead of spending the resources for a long gestation...give birth to hundreds of thousands of offspring, once a year, while only expecting a tiny fraction of a % to survive to adulthood. Now you take away X% of human females, and you've done nothing to dent recruitment, in short because there are a superabundance of human offspring waiting in the wings to take up the slack.

Considering the basic limits on population growth (inter/intraspecies predation and competition), the reproductive strategy of a "steep" species generally afford them more of a "buffer" against freak, black swan type events.

Nature might very well "find a way," but human technology lies outside of the natural order. Commercial fishing should most definitely be banned during the spawn, for all species. And referencing an earlier point you made re comm high-grading: If those guys are tossing back dead 14" fish then they are greedy scum and should be called out as such. The 14" min for comms was instated precisely to prevent high grading, and force them to return to port once their quota is met.

[dakota560]

Commercial fishing should most definitely be banned during the spawn, for all species. And referencing an earlier point you made re comm high-grading: If those guys are tossing back dead 14" fish then they are greedy scum and should be called out as such. The 14" min for comms was instated precisely to prevent high grading, and force them to return to port once their quota is met.

Nothing to prove my concerns other than human nature and people trying to make ends meet. I'm sure there's operators who completely abide by the rules but others who will do whatever they can to make ends meet. No oversight and an honor system when it comes to a self indulgent process is a conflict of interest. Again don't want to cast a wide net or give anyone a black eye but money and the drive to make ends meet is as motivating a factor as anything in life. Inshore summer flounder commercial harvest is limited to 250 lbs a day and winter off shore I believe is 2,500 per trip no more than 5,000 a week. Costs are sunk to turn the lights on, pay the crew and steam to your location. Smaller fish I've heard average maybe $3 to $3.50 a pound. Larger fish fetch $4.50 to 5 a pound, 50 - 60% premium over smaller fish. I would find it hard to believe, especially in the winter fishery where boats have to travel far offshore, that operators stop when quotas are hit if they can high grade and improve their take by 50 - 60%. The added costs for additional trawls are negligible, all other costs have been sunk into the trip. Are we supposed to believe operators travel 50, 60 70 miles, hit their quota and simply return. Some might but I assume most don't. Drop the nets again once you're on the fish, run a few more trawls to increase your take by 50%.........has to be happening. 5,000 pound a week in the winter at 3.25 is $16,250 gross for the week. Increase that to 5 a pound and your at $25,000 a week. You're already out there, what's it cost to drop your nets a few more times to high grade. The problem is larger females are harvested and there's a significant amount of unreported dead discard. I'd bet it happens every day. If there's that much frustration with the regulations, I have to believe this is almost standard protocol at sea. I'd do it myself if my mortgage and kids tuition depended on it. And to compound matters, much of this happens in their wintering grounds or during prime spawn when schools are concentrated and more vulnerable than other times of year. Who knows what the effect is on fluke not even caught disrupting the spawning process. Maybe it stresses fish out and effects reproduction efficiency aside from the amount of female tonnage being removed from SSB. Does the trawl process for that matter destroy eggs already released? All these issues should be the focal point of NMFS to save this fishery, not politics and MSA SSB goal attainment which I won't say isn't relevant but it's not the number we should be focusing on. If recruitment strength was as strong today as it was in the late 80's to mid 90's, 36,240 metric tons of SSB in 2015 would blow away the 62,000 MSA SSB goal within a year or two. If 7,000 metric tons of SSB in 1988 improved to ~50,000 metric tons by 2002, with the same recruitment strength 36,240 metric tons of SSB in 2015 would eclipse 200,000 metric tons within 10 years with the correct gender mix and relative recruitment strength. Everyone would benefit but we need to change the paradigm at NMFS. Science might be correct, certainly some of the data is wrong or flawed by their own admission but the wrong questions are being asked and the same ideology which has failed us all is continuing to dictate policy decisions.

[reason162]

Nothing to prove my concerns other than human nature and people trying to make ends meet. I'm sure there's operators who completely abide by the rules but others who do whatever they can to make ends meet. No oversight and honor system when it comes to a self indulgent process is a conflict of interest. Again don't want to cast a wide net or give anyone a black eye but money and the drive to make ends meet is as motivating a factor than anything in life. Inshore summer flounder commercial harvest is limited to 250 lbs a day and winter off shore I believe is 2,500 per trip no more than 5,000 a week. Costs are sunk to turn the lights on, pay the crew and steam to your location. Smaller fish I've heard average maybe $3 to $3.50 a pound. Larger fish fetch $4.50 to 5 a pound, 50 - 60% premium over smaller fish. I would find it hard to believe especially in the winter offshore trips that boats stop when quotas are hit if they can high grade and improve their take by 50 - 60%. The cost for additional trawls is gas, all other costs have been sunk into the trip. Are we supposed to believe operators travel 50, 60 70 miles off shore, hit their quota and return. Some might, I would assume most don't. Drop the nets again once you're on the fish, run maybe a half dozen more trawls to increase your take by 50%.........has to be happening. 5,000 pound a week in the winter at 3.25 is $16,250 gross for the week. Increase that to 5 a pound and your at $25,000 a week. You're already out there, what's it cost to drop your nets a few more times to high grade. The problem is larger females are harvested and there's a tremendous amount of unreported dead discard. I'd bet it happens every day. If there's that much black market and illicit trawling you know this is standard protocol on many boats. I'd do it myself if my mortgage and kids tuition depended on it. And to compound matters, much of this happens at the prime spawn when schools are concentrated and probably more vulnerable than any other time of year. Who knows what the effect is on fluke which aren't even caught disrupting the spawning process. Maybe it stresses fish out and effects reproduction efficiency aside from the amount of female tonnage being taken from SSB. All these issues should be the focal point of NMFS to save this fishery, not politics and MSA SSB goal attainment which I won't say isn't relevant but it's not the number we should be focusing on. If recruitment strength was as strong today as it was in the late 80's to mid 90's, 36,240 metric tons of SSB in 2015 would blow away the 62,000 MSA SSB goal within a year or two. If 7,000 metric tons of SSB in 1988 went to ~50,000 metric tons by 2002, with the same recruitment strength 36,240 metric tons of SSB in 2015 would eclipse 200,000 metric tons within 10 years with the correct gender mix and relative recruitment strength. Everyone would benefit but we need to change the paradigm at NMFS. Science might be correct, certainly some of the data is wrong or flawed by their own admittance but the wrong questions are being asked.and the same ideology which has failed all of us is continuing to dictate policy decisions.

Your general point re management philosophy, we can agree to disagree (and we're probably not that far apart to begin with).

As for the comm guys high grading in the high seas...zero excuse. I don't care if they have to make ends meet, or pay the mortgage, or buy their kid's medication...might as well go rob a bank!

How about putting cameras on these boats? Camera + GPS tracker...wouldn't that be a low-cost solution to keep people honest? If high grading occurs as much as you think it occurs, esp on the spawning grounds, we might even see the data reflected within a couple of seasons.

[dakota560]

I know this is just one video but as they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inSNl01unzw

Listen to what the gentlemen in the video is saying. "Fluke are everywhere, can't get away from them". I assume when they migrate off shore they're more concentrated making them more vulnerable to netting. Maybe that's a bad assumption but I'd bet it's not. Everyone of those fish dumped was probably a female, they're large fish. If those are the ones dumped, imagine the size of the ones retained. And if they already had their limit, why so much dead discard. Those ~ 50 fish averaged probably around 5 lbs. or 250 lbs. in total. Their daily quota as the guy says is 250 lbs. Dead discard just from those fish alone is ~100%. Now add the smaller fish that came up in the nets and who knows how many larger ones which didn't make the video and it wouldn't surprise me if dead discard on that trip was 200%. I'd love to check the trip log or FVTR and see what they reported, probably 5% - 10%. NMFS might as well print those forms with 5% filled in because I'm sure operators don't track that number and if they do they're certainly not going to shoot themselves in the foot and report anything higher than a modest percentage. How many other boats were fishing that same area and doing the same thing. Look at the :39 to :41 mark of the video. Check out the size of the fluke ribbon going over board. I thought these fish were brought back and sold whole. That ribbon is probably 20 inches by itself. Again this is only one video of one operator who was brazen or stupid enough to make the video and post it on line but it wouldn't surprise me if this is representative of what happens every day. If it's gone that far, are we honestly expected to think when it comes to making ends meet significant high grading isn't happening by a majority of the commercial fleet. It's a tough way to carve out a life and I'm not advocating what I'm suggesting is happening is right but I'm a realist and understand extreme circumstances promote extreme behavior.

As far as video and GPS tracking devices. I'm pretty sure every boat has some type of transponder already which can be tracked. I know there's applications you can download to track vessels now. Videos I don't know. They can be shut off, footage erased, inclement weather might be an issue etc. I'm not a proponent of more government regulation but it would be great if somehow market prices for fluke were the same regardless of size. Meaning a 2 lb fish fetches the same price at the dock as a 6 lb fish. That would all but do away with the issue of high grading. It wouldn't impact illicit trawling when it occurs but it would effectively put an end to high grading which I believe to be a more significant problem with unreported dead discard. As I said earlier, are we supposed to believe operators in the winter are traveling 80 miles off shore in adverse weather conditions and once they hit their allotted quota they stop fishing and head in. When they can just drop the nets again and maybe improve their take by 30 - 50%. If fluke floated like all the ling and whiting we saw over the years in the Mud Hole area we'd see this at sea but they sink and the evidence literally never rises to the surface!

[reason162]

Videos I don't know. They can be shut off, footage erased, inclement weather might be an issue etc. I'm not a proponent of more government regulation but it would be great if somehow market prices for fluke were the same regardless of size.

I share your outrage but not your sympathy for scumbags like these.

Sure they can turn the video off or mess with the footage, that just depends on how the law is structured/penalties involved etc. Even cheap cameras have GPS markers these days, which can sync with their existing trackers. My sony action cam comes with a waterproof case that can be purchased for 15 dollars. Sensors rigged to their equipment could be another layer of surveillance, and all of it can be centrally linked to a simple monitoring program. This kind of technology is very, very cheap these days: think of the smart home setups that can be bought for a couple hundred dollars.

There are probably other issues involved with using cameras, I just can't think of a cheaper alternative to enforcing existing laws off the top of my head. Like you said, these guys are in the middle of nowhere dragging fluke, they can break the law with impunity, and you can't put an observer on every boat.

[Rocky]

they can break the law with impunity, and you can't put an observer on every boat.

That would be a horrible job. Every crew member would be spitting in your food and pissing in your boots! :eek:

[reason162]

That would be a horrible job. Every crew member would be spitting in your food and pissing in your boots! :eek:

I think that's about the best you can expect to be treated!