ASMFC meets tomorrow to review Fluke reg's for Mass & RI

[hartattack]

– The Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management Board will meet via
conference call on Thursday, March 30 at 12:30 p.m. to consider approval of 2017 summer flounder recreational
fishery proposals from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. These proposals require Board approval since they offer
alternative management measures from those specified in Addendum XXVIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup and
Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan.**

http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/SFlounderScupBSBBoardMaterials_March2017.pdf

http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/58d162b4pr13SFlounderScupBSBBoardConfCall_SFLPropo sals.pdf

Addendum 28 option 5 was approved with a 7-3 vote. MA, RI, NJ voted no!

[dales529]

Interested and will listen if I have time as to what alternative measures they are proposing. They could have drawn a line like NJ and really said NO. Instead they chose to approve Addendum 28 Option 5 with alternative measures within their region which is different than ours ( CT, NY and NJ)

[hartattack]

... what alternative measures they are proposing...

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MarineFisheries) is proposing to adopt the following
regulations for Massachusetts’ 2017 summer flounder recreational fishery: a 17" minimum size, a 5-
fish possession limit, and a 125-day season from May 22–September 23. In terms of projected harvest,
these regulations are conservationally equivalent to the Addendum XXVIII option 5 requirements for
Massachusetts (17" minimum size, 4-fish possession limit, and 125-day season).

RI: Applying the following recreational measures in 2017:
 Minimum Size: 19” (same as option 5)
 Season: May 19 – Dec 31 (227 days vs option 5's 245)
 Bag Limit: 6 fish (option 5 is 4 fish)

[dales529]

Both States proposals failed.
MA: 2 Y / 8 N / 1 abstain MA and RI Y
RI: 3 Y / 7 N / 1 abstain MA, RI and CT Y

[Gerry Zagorski]

So once again, states desire to deviate from the NMFS options falls on deaf ears :mad:

I wonder what would have happened if RI and MA had joined us here in NJ to refuse any of the NMFS options?? ;)

As usual these meetings are fruitless since they've already decided on the options and won't budge. Time to make a stand and take our fisheries back!!

Not sure how things are going to work our here in NJ but we are not going down without a fight!!

[reason162]

I wonder what would have happened if RI and MA had joined us here in NJ to refuse any of the NMFS options?? ;)

The short term answer might be very different from the long term results.

If all the states succeed in revolting, check back in 10 years and you might be singing a different tune.

[dakota560]

The short term answer might be very different from the long term results.

If all the states succeed in revolting, check back in 10 years and you might be singing a different tune.

There's going to be a revolt as we're already in the early stages of it. If '17 poses an issue, what can we expect for '18 and '19 since the trend we're on will absolutely continue as NMFS has already discussed further reductions in catch limits for future years most likely in the form again of increases size limits. If the current proposal for our region is 3 at '19 and NMFS / ASMFC traditionally doesn't put as much weight on possession limits as they do size limits to reduce overall recreational harvest, then '18 will more likely than not based on the current path we're on be 2 fish at 20" or above and '19 I would imagine will be 1 fish limit at 21" / 22" or above. I imagine shorter season will be mandated as well. Maybe in 2020 NMFS will extend the season from 5/1/20 thru 9/30/20 giving us 153 days but by then the possession limit will be zero..............fishery closed! We're at a point where there's almost nothing left to lose for every state governed by ASMFC so to think within a year or two all states won't revolt is almost baseless. On that note, for southern states and or councils to have the same weight in decisions needs to be revisited. North Carolina as I previously mentioned for '16 had a projected harvest of summer flounder of ~21,000 lbs relative to ~$6,300,000 lbs for the entire coast. That translates to .00455% of the total catch, less than a half a percent, yet North Carolina gets an equal vote for Option V as New Jersey, New York and Ct. which made up ~85% of the harvest. So for a resource which is essentially meaningless to the economy of NC, they receive an equal vote which could have a negative impact to our region's economy estimated well north of $5 billion! Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina combined make up ~8% of the coast wide harvest yet they have 4 of the 11 seats on the council or ~36% of the vote!

Your post suggests this "revolt" as you refer could end up with different long term results. And from the context of your post you imply those results might be detrimental to the fishery. I would agree with you we're all hoping for different results since the results being caused by the current management of this fishery for the last 14 to 15 years are precisely the problem confronting the fishery. Peer review, scientific models, questionable data by their own admission, random theories, overall catch reductions, continued size limit increases and possession limit reductions for the last 15 years have arguably caused not changed the nature and trajectory of the fisheries problem yet NMFS continues down the same path while SSB continues it's tumultuous decline and recruitment strength rages towards a complete collapse. Your post implies recreational anglers in general have no regard for the fishery as a whole, their only concern is seasonal regulations and increases catch limits. I would view that as a very myopic and discourteous opinion about the recreational community. No one is saying fisheries don't need over sight and management to survive and be considered sustainable, but when those same management ideologies have failed to bolster the resource over the last 15 years, people have every right to question the current management and lobby for change.

I wrote an article which Gerry was good enough to share on this site under a separate thread. I took NMFS's own data which removes any arguments challenging the data itself or the science used in arriving at it. I'd suggest everyone look at some of the analysis presented in the article over a 34 year period of time. The problem jumps off the page if you look at it from a relational perspective over the years 1982 to 2015 and review trends over that 34-year period of time. There are theories suggesting global warming, water quality or acidity levels are effecting the fishery. All theoretical arguments. SSB has increased 400% from 1988 thru 2015. It was ~7,000 metric tons in '88 and is sitting at ~35,000 metric tons in '15, the last year of reported statistics. If global warming and or acidity or water quality conditions were a problem, I'd argue SSB would never have attained these levels for the same reason. It actually spiked in the '02 / '03 period to ~50,000 metric tons, the climax of a robust run up between 1989 and 2003 after which it began a gradual and continuous decline from 2003 until today, a decline which has not only continued but accelerated in the last 3 - 5 years.

There are self proclaimed "experts" in fisheries management who have written pieces disputing the analysis and conclusions based on NMFS's own data. Yet their own arguments are based on nothing more than generalizations and theories. As a whole, this fishery is being theorized to collapse. Political mandates and biased theories are destroying the fishery while raw data developed by NMFS themselves and the findings that data supports is being ignored.

There is absolutely no reason to believe and zero data to suggest the 25-year trend we've experienced with crashing recruitment statistics resulting in a precipitously declining SSB will reverse anytime soon and as I state in the article Option V will guarantee that continued decline through at minimum the year 2019. By that time the fishery for all practical purposes will be doomed by the failures of past regulatory changes and the reproductive capacity of SSB will be irreparably damaged for years. All this in spite of the "steepness" theorists who purport another theory that NMFS's own scientists themselves can't agree on. A theory being used to deflect attention away from the many years of bad decisions made by NMFS and ASMFC. A theory which is intended to have us believe that SSB will miraculously start producing recruitment classes without regard to gender composition contradicting a 15 year trend which shows no signs of reversing. These are the fundamental arguments the governing body would want us to believe. There's a saying in business "Hope is not a strategy", NMFS, ASMFC and certain self proclaimed experts in fisheries management should start embracing that concept.

Personally I wish all states ban together in revolt and what comes out of it is a completely new approach to the management of this fishery and others since the current ideology can't be viewed as anything other than an outright failure for the last 15 or more years.

[Rocky]

Well said Dakota! We can't continue doing the same thing and expect different results. If the fishery management is so great why are we in this position that we are in today?

[Ttmako]

Dakota
The fair voting issue you bring up is interesting. I think the votes should be weighted on harvest.