Now what????

[captain george angler]

The State fish and game sold us out for fear the commercial fisheries could be shut down. Well I am sure that many who in the past followed the law have lost all respect for the new laws. I do not blame any one who takes what they want for a dinner or two. If I were on a private boat I would do the same. Head boats and large charter boats have a problem in that we have fillet permits allowing us to fillet at sea. We do not know who is on board and if caught we loose the permit

Our big problem is the bag limit and short season. While a small boat with 6 guys will be allowed 18 fluke and who knows if the hot hand caught 8 and put them in the box for all to share. If I have 30 fares and could keep 90 fluke we would carry many more people than we are going to. We do not for the most part catch 3 per man and the average is probably around 1 1/2 per man. When people go fishing they always hope for that special day and it is that, that keeps them coming. The state and Feds know we do not catch 3 per man but they also do not care.

If we whine and cry enough to the right people maybe we can get the season extended. Keep records on what the new rules are coasting you. Tackle stores less income, charter boats less trips and head boats less fares.

Our motto should be we have just begone to fight.

Any ideas on who would help us?
Thanks captain George Angler

[Hotshot1]

Party Boats need to count fairs and keep that amount of fish no matter who catches. Mark the fish keep in a common cooler then disperse on land

[Hotshot1]

I will certainly have a sharp knife on board

[Sullivan]

Just a thought , we have a governors race coming , at a town hall meeting let them know how we have been screwed for years while abiding by the law , let them know how fishing related business is being hit ! And let them know how a family oriented , father and son way of life is being destroyed . Like I said , It's just a thought , but having a governor on our side would not hurt .

[captain george angler]

Thanks for the inpuy. George

[frugalfisherman]

I believe Captain George in order to loose your permit you have to fillet a short fish. The mates shouldn't worry what I put in my cooler as I will fillet at home. If someone gives you a short fish to fillet. you hand it back without filleting. If I get caught it's on me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[hammer4reel]

Realistically the new limit should help the party boat fleet .
As you have posted very few patrons actually catch more than a few keepers anyhow .
So in that respect the size limit of 18" is way better for you than 19" or worse yet 21" would have been .
But is is going to really hurt the charters boats , as not many guys will want to pay 150 a guy to fish for three fish .

Private boaters who are the biggest group may really see a decline of Guys traveling as far to find fish .

That being said , I didn't see many party boat captains at Any of the meetings , so it's a little late to bitch now. Unless of course it's to get the ball rolling to correct all this for the 2018 season .

As I think many now can see what sitting around and waiting on others did for us .

[bunker dunker]

that funny i've been waiting since the early 80's for them to do something for the
rec fishing community.

[Capt Joe]

Realistically the new limit should help the party boat fleet .

hmmm...what world of realism might this comment come from?:eek:
Oy Vey!

[hammer4reel]

hmmm...what world of realism might this comment come from?:eek:


Oy Vey!


How about because guys will fish on a party boat instead of a charter boat because now they can only keep 3 fish it makes sense to go on a boat that cost a little bit less that's the point.
They can fish three times on a party boat for the same cost as fishing one time on a charter boat and end up having more fish to put in the freezer for the same amount of money.
Many private boaters may just jump on a head boat to go catch their three fish instead of spending $100 on fuel

[Reelron]

"If we whine and cry enough to the right people maybe we can get the season extended. Keep records on what the new rules are coasting you. Tackle stores less income, charter boats less trips and head boats less fares. "

If whinning & crying doesn't work take those same records so you can show how much you lost because of these new regs and start a class action suit against those that made the new regs!
Remember the bottom line, "Money talk, BS walks!" I am starting to believe that it really is all about money. Make the catch regs restrictive enough so that it may put people out of business, then offer some sort of permit for Head & Charter Boats to catch & keep more. For a price ofcourse! Ca-ching, another hidden tax!

[jakesdad]

Hear tell NJ sold a pin hook permit for Shark River only. I have seen a Pt. Pleasant charter boat fluke fishing in Shark River on the 2 days this week I was down. A body of water this small cannot support the taking of up to 500 pounds a day. By opening day the River will have been raped!

All because someone paid the state for the permit.

[captain george angler]

Dan, First off if you think any one will benefit from a reduced bag limit you haven't been in the business very long and I have been attending these meeting since they started with the 200 mile limit in the 70's. They do not care about sports. They only care about themselves and their jobs. George

[hammer4reel]

Dan, First off if you think any one will benefit from a reduced bag limit you haven't been in the business very long and I have been attending these meeting since they started with the 200 mile limit in the 70's. They do not care about sports. They only care about themselves and their jobs. George



George i dont think for a moment that NMFS felt they were doing anything to help anyone .
But i do feel thr NJ council felt if they didnt give some type of compromise the fishery would be shut down.

That at least getting something to possibly get by with this year was better thsn the alternative .

How would anything benifit an entire closure of t h e season , or even t h e 2/21.
That would have been a complete loss.

They also were not gojng to let the commercial guys get shut down ,and im sure they had pressure from them.
As currently due to reduced cstch their pricd per pound has nearly doubled .


.

[bhackemup]

hmmm...what world of realism might this comment come from?:eek:
Oy Vey!

The logic of a 3 fish limit ..."HELPING"...anyone, escapes me!

[dakota560]

The "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" rallying cry we all applauded and subscribed to vaporized when NMFS didn't back down. NJMFC blinked, NMFS didn't, it's that simple. I remember the Galloway meeting with all the conviction NJMFC showed about taking a stance when everyone knew the consequences of that decision yet when it came decision time New Jersey acquiesced. Truthfully I think that caused more harm than good since it further demonstrates weakness. Have seen many posts citing commercial pressure causing the committee to accept the alternative proposal but look at the chemistry of the NJMFC committee, there's more sport fish and public members than commercial so not sure this decision was primarily driven by commercial concerns. Maybe James Alexis and Dr. Eleanor Ann Bochenek sided with commercial, don't know but collectively the committee caved on their earlier stance when pushed.

New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council:
Richard N. Herb, Acting Chair (Sportfish)
James Alexis (Public)
Scott Bailey (Del. Bay Shellfish Cncl.)
Erling Berg (Processor)
Dr. Eleanor Ann Bochenek (Public)
Walter L. Johnson, III (Atl. Coast Shellfish Cncl.)
Frances Puskas (Commercial)
Sergio Radossi (Sportfish)
Joe Rizzo (Commercial)
Robert R. Rush, Jr. (Sportfish)
Joseph A. Zaborowski (Sportfish)

Everyone loses here but I guess as a State we're willing to lose in a relative sense by less than the possible alternatives of standing our ground and fighting the fight. I know there's business dependent on this so my comments aren't intended to be cavalier and ignore those facts. Washington is playing russian roulette with people's livelihoods. As Dan pointed out, if a 30% reduction in harvest for commercial operators translates to an increase in wholesale prices of summer flounder at the docks, this is a win / win for commercial operators. All that matters to them is net price for their haul. If I have to catch 30% less and get a 100% premium over last years prices because of simple "supply and demand" economics, I couldn't be happier. Plus commercials are still allowed to fish year round including the primary spawn period September thru November and harvest large female breeders! How NMFS allows this when the data not only suggests but emphatically shows we have a recruitment problem is without conscience or concern of the fishery.

On the other hand, for hire charter operators, party boat operators and all businesses tied to the recreational fishing industry will absolutely be hurt by these continuous size limit increases and possession limit decreases. Whether for hire charter are hurt more than party boat owners or visa versa, it doesn't matter in a relative sense who losses more than the other, the point is everyone in that category losses.

The below was part of MSA's charter when adopted and to my knowledge is still part of their legislative mandates today.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. First passed in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act fosters long-term biological and economic sustainability of our nation's marine fisheries out to 200 nautical miles from shore. Key objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are to:

Prevent overfishing
Rebuild overfished stocks
Increase long-term economic and social benefits
Ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood

As I've posted here for everyone to see, (R) reproduction and (SSB) Spawning Stock Biomass are on a 21 year and 13 year decline respectively and it doesn't take an NMFS scientist to figure out an 80% decline over that 21 year period in reproduction statistics is causing the associated SSB decline. This in spite of significant on-going reductions to catch levels. So the fact that SSB, the primary metric governing MSA oversight and regulatory decisions, is being destroyed by ongoing NMFS size increases, they continue down that path. The same strategy which produced the 21 year 80% decline in reproduction and the current 13 year causative decline in SSB. Their decision making is unfathomable.

So the problems we face today will be further exacerbated next year when SSB and R continue their decline, which is GUARANTEED, and we're faced with another 30% cut. If we think 3 fish at 18' with a shortened season is problematic, what harm would 1 or 2 fish at 19' or 20' inches cause?

Back to the MSA mandate, "increase long term economic and social benefits". MSA was initially adopted in 1976, I assume conditions in 2017 qualify as long term. This fishery is in a free fall and as I've previously posted, we're on the precipice of an industry collapse and closure. Which is why I believe the recent decision made by NJMFC ultimately will cause more harm than good. A lawsuit against NMFS on the basis of economic disaster requesting an injunction on these policy decisions should be considered otherwise in my opinion we seal our fate an economic disaster will occur. If that means gambling a closure of the fishery than so be it because the path we're on is going to mandate a closure possibly as early as next year or '19. The summer flounder stock is being mismanaged to collapse and NJMFC accepted that fact in return for basically a three month season with a 3 fish possession limit. I know it's important to a lot of people, folks whose livelihood depends on it, but when it's closed next year or the year after everyone is going to look back and say we should have taken a hard line stance when we had the chance.

All NJMFC did was once again acquiesce their position and kick the can down the street for another year hoping next year will bring with it a different outcome. As they say, hope is not a strategy and the ONLY outcome next year will bring is continued cuts in overall harvest, another round of size limit increases and possession limit reductions and an even shorter season. In my opinion, we should have maintained our stance, in spite of the possibility of a closure, because the battle and risks associated haven't been eliminated, they've been deferred until next year when conditions will be worse. We've effectively dug the hole deeper from my perspective and accepted legislation which will further hurt the fishery. We're in a free fall.

[howardrf]

To dakota560...
Most informative posting I have read in years!!!!
I fish in Florida in the winter and we can join their "everything is closed" ..No you can keep Grunts.
In a few years we will be able to say "remember when"
We are seeing sport fishing die before our eyes. We are apathetic as a society so we reap what we sow.
Enough ranting. GREAT job dakota560

[GDubya07]

To dakota560...
Most informative posting I have read in years!!!!
I fish in Florida in the winter and we can join their "everything is closed" ..No you can keep Grunts.
In a few years we will be able to say "remember when"
We are seeing sport fishing die before our eyes. We are apathetic as a society so we reap what we sow.
Enough ranting. GREAT job dakota560

I second that thank you Dakota for breaking it down again

Gdubs-:cool:

[Capt Sal]

Very informative Dakota.Desperation time? We knew it was coming and now that it is here politicians and the public are more involved. They did it and we lost again! Time to regroup and unite NATION WIDE!!!!!!!!!!! The only way it will work.

[Gerry Zagorski]

The "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" rallying cry we all applauded and subscribed to vaporized when NMFS didn't back down. NJMFC blinked, NMFS didn't, it's that simple. I remember the Galloway meeting with all the conviction NJMFC showed about taking a stance when everyone knew the consequences of that decision yet when it came decision time New Jersey acquiesced. Truthfully I think that caused more harm than good since it further demonstrates weakness. Have seen many posts citing commercial pressure causing the committee to accept the alternative proposal but look at the chemistry of the NJMFC committee, there's more sport fish and public members than commercial so not sure this decision was primarily driven by commercial concerns. Maybe James Alexis and Dr. Eleanor Ann Bochenek sided with commercial, don't know but collectively the committee caved on their earlier stance when pushed.

New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council:
Richard N. Herb, Acting Chair (Sportfish)
James Alexis (Public)
Scott Bailey (Del. Bay Shellfish Cncl.)
Erling Berg (Processor)
Dr. Eleanor Ann Bochenek (Public)
Walter L. Johnson, III (Atl. Coast Shellfish Cncl.)
Frances Puskas (Commercial)
Sergio Radossi (Sportfish)
Joe Rizzo (Commercial)
Robert R. Rush, Jr. (Sportfish)
Joseph A. Zaborowski (Sportfish)

Everyone loses here but I guess as a State we're willing to lose in a relative sense by less than the possible alternatives of standing our ground and fighting the fight. I know there's business dependent on this so my comments aren't intended to be cavalier and ignore those facts. Washington is playing russian roulette with people's livelihoods. As Dan pointed out, if a 30% reduction in harvest for commercial operators translates to an increase in wholesale prices of summer flounder at the docks, this is a win / win for commercial operators. All that matters to them is net price for their haul. If I have to catch 30% less and get a 100% premium over last years prices because of simple "supply and demand" economics, I couldn't be happier. Plus commercials are still allowed to fish year round including the primary spawn period September thru November and harvest large female breeders! How NMFS allows this when the data not only suggests but emphatically shows we have a recruitment problem is without conscience or concern of the fishery.

On the other hand, for hire charter operators, party boat operators and all businesses tied to the recreational fishing industry will absolutely be hurt by these continuous size limit increases and possession limit decreases. Whether for hire charter are hurt more than party boat owners or visa versa, it doesn't matter in a relative sense who losses more than the other, the point is everyone in that category losses.

The below was part of MSA's charter when adopted and to my knowledge is still part of their legislative mandates today.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. First passed in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act fosters long-term biological and economic sustainability of our nation's marine fisheries out to 200 nautical miles from shore. Key objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are to:

Prevent overfishing
Rebuild overfished stocks
Increase long-term economic and social benefits
Ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood

As I've posted here for everyone to see, (R) reproduction and (SSB) Spawning Stock Biomass are on a 21 year and 13 year decline respectively and it doesn't take an NMFS scientist to figure out an 80% decline over that 21 year period in reproduction statistics is causing the associated SSB decline. This in spite of significant on-going reductions to catch levels. So the fact that SSB, the primary metric governing MSA oversight and regulatory decisions, is being destroyed by ongoing NMFS size increases, they continue down that path. The same strategy which produced the 21 year 80% decline in reproduction and the current 13 year causative decline in SSB. Their decision making is unfathomable.

So the problems we face today will be further exacerbated next year when SSB and R continue their decline, which is GUARANTEED, and we're faced with another 30% cut. If we think 3 fish at 18' with a shortened season is problematic, what harm would 1 or 2 fish at 19' or 20' inches cause?

Back to the MSA mandate, "increase long term economic and social benefits". MSA was initially adopted in 1976, I assume conditions in 2017 qualify as long term. This fishery is in a free fall and as I've previously posted, we're on the precipice of an industry collapse and closure. Which is why I believe the recent decision made by NJMFC ultimately will cause more harm than good. A lawsuit against NMFS on the basis of economic disaster requesting an injunction on these policy decisions should be considered otherwise in my opinion we seal our fate an economic disaster will occur. If that means gambling a closure of the fishery than so be it because the path we're on is going to mandate a closure possibly as early as next year or '19. The summer flounder stock is being mismanaged to collapse and NJMFC accepted that fact in return for basically a three month season with a 3 fish possession limit. I know it's important to a lot of people, folks whose livelihood depends on it, but when it's closed next year or the year after everyone is going to look back and say we should have taken a hard line stance when we had the chance.

All NJMFC did was once again acquiesce their position and kick the can down the street for another year hoping next year will bring with it a different outcome. As they say, hope is not a strategy and the ONLY outcome next year will bring is continued cuts in overall harvest, another round of size limit increases and possession limit reductions and an even shorter season. In my opinion, we should have maintained our stance, in spite of the possibility of a closure, because the battle and risks associated haven't been eliminated, they've been deferred until next year when conditions will be worse. We've effectively dug the hole deeper from my perspective and accepted legislation which will further hurt the fishery. We're in a free fall.

Exactly Tom!! And if you think we are screwed this year just wait until next year. I'm pretty sure we will be deemed to have over fished again and be facing more cuts and declining stocks according to their science.

Right now we are fighting for left over scraps they decide to throw us. The root of the issues we are facing here are unfavorable laws like Magnuson and how they use set size, season and bag limits to manage to the measly quotas left over.

Magnuson needs to be overhauled, there is no flexibility what so ever and by law certain actions need to be taken if the stock are deemed to be in trouble.
It's pretty cut and dry and there is no social or economic impacts being taken into account and their stock assessments methods are questionable at best.

Right now the quotas are being managed to by us horse trading with regulations with higher sizes, lowered bag limits or shortened season or a combination of the all the above. It's assumed that it works but time has proven it hasn't... How about a slot fish or regulations that don't force us to target the large breeder females??

The whole system is deemed to fail and you don't have to be a scientist to see what we're doing now does nothing for the anglers or the Fluke.

Time for some big changes here. We need a better way to set quotas and assess the stocks so we are not fighting over scraps. We also need regulations that help rebuild the fishery instead of putting it in a continued decline, if in fact you believe their numbers.

Any way you cut it we need to fight for long term reform or we are going to continue to face the short term issues every year.

And BTW, thank you Tom for taking what is a complex issue and boiling it down so people can understand it.

[Honger]

This country put a man on the moon and turned a black guy into a white dude.

Why can't this country do this ?

https://youtu.be/b_BMmQ6tnsQ

[Kup]

It's human nature vs. nature. Human's put more value on the young and nature puts more value on the adult. We are the only predator that takes the largest mature prey and returns the smallest and weakest. It doesn't make sense from a management standpoint to continue down this path.

[FISHGERE]

Protest don't go fishing no bait tackle . Gas up buy ice and beer just party. Why get aggravated. Maybe they will get the message and listen to the fisherman next year

[Capt Sal]

Protest don't go fishing no bait tackle . Gas up buy ice and beer just party. Why get aggravated. Maybe they will get the message and listen to the fisherman next year

That will really help the charter and party boats?:eek:

[bunker dunker]

i too help and fought for the 200 mile limit.
it was strange how the gov helped and did everything to make the rec folks feel
like it was being done all for them.i wonder if that was the beginning of the end.
maybe they wanted that 200 miles for their selves.once they got that then they
started selling fishing permits to other countries so they could come inside the 200 mile limit and take our fish.then when they saw what it did to the mackerel ,whiting & cod they stopped giving permits and started giving more regs to the rec fishing sector.i still don't see what they are doing for the rec's but i can sure see what they are not doing.