Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

I used to agree with that statement.. for decades.. I can't any longer, just too many people fishing these days, with equipment and knowledge that could only be dreamed of only a decade or two ago..

The population in the NY/NJ metroplex is staggering, and the pressure on inshore and offshore fish is relentless.. We need some regulation, thats for sure. Things have changed, and we really can no longer take what we want.. What we DO need is some common sense regulation.. Fluke are a prime example of what NOT to do.. Take ONLY the biggest fish out of the population, and throw all the small ones back??.. Stupidity, dreamed up by some non fishing egghead bureaucrat no doubt. Realistic slot limits make a lot more sense to me, but what do I know.. Let recs take a few smaller fish home to eat, and NOT keep all the breeders they catch on any given day. most fishermen would be happy to release some of their larger fluke if they could take some eating size fish... bob

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

I absolutely agree. A slot limit encourages the release of the the larger fish which are the breeders... If I remember correctly I saw some data that said 90% of the fluke over 19 inches are females. If our regs are 18 inches or more, aren't we encouraging the keeping the larger breeders?

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

I bet if I look back 6 or 7 years on this board I can find posts where I and others have asked for Slot fluke. It makes perfect sense. I'm sure recs can do damage to stock. But we're not literally destroying the ocean bottom doing it. I still think the burden of conservation needs to be on the ones who can do the absolute most damage to the stock. Not that we shouldn't adhere to rules, of course we should. But they need to make sense. And commercials keeping 16" fish while we search for 18s is ridiculous.

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

I brought the slot limit up at the last SSFFF meeting and the scientists looked at me like I had 3 eyes.... Not sure if that was because they thought it was a bad idea or impractical.... Hope someone can shed some light on this as it make perfect sense to me, but I'm no scientist.

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

One of the few correct statements in this entire thread.

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

Care to enlighten us Capt Joe??

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

I will also enter my 7 cents. The rec guys don't get out slot of days. When they do they are forced to throw back fish that are mortally wounded because of size limits. How many sea bass do you throw back while fluking ? How many guys fishing with bait have to throw back gut hooked fish. How many sea bass come up from 90 feet with there guts hanging out? Now on to the commercial by catch how many fish do they kill as a by catch ? Imagine if they could bring them to market and sell them. They would only have to fish probably half the days they do now to make the same money. Slot this !!!! Take what you want but be smart about the resource. Soon we won't even be fishing because these fkrs will ban boats and fishing poles.

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember back in the 60's and 70's when there were no creel limit or size limit on fluke and or flounder and year after year fluke and flounder were in abundance. Were there as many recreational boats fishing for them....no but there were a lot of boats. I remember spring flounder fishing in Shark River, a small sliver of water and people were lined on the bulkheads catching 40 / 50 flounder a day. There were all sizes as well which is the sign of a healthy fishery. Fluke fishing was phenomenal. I think the only difference today is the bigger fluke are more targeted by people fishing structure and jigs as opposed to open bottom back years ago. Definitely a difference from years gone by but both of those fisheries had heavy recreational pressure, maybe not comparable to today but heavy nonetheless, and every year the fish were there in numbers. I still believe recreational fishing can't destroy a fishery. It has it's impact but the issue here is commercial netting plain and simple. I agree the regs supporting the larger breeders being retained is insane and hurting the fishery but the main issue is commercial over harvest. How is it possible with basically a closed season for what 7 or more years now the flounder fishery is still in the shape it's in. That fishery should be completely rebuilt. Either the biomass was completely wiped out or these fish are being netted off shore. Today's commercial fleet coupled with advanced technology is wiping out one species of fish after another. And recreational guys bear that cross. I agree with Hammer the government is heading us down a pay per catch path. Our resource is no longer our resource. It's being bartered and sold to foreign interests or to the highest domestic bidder. As I said, there are no regulations on our boat this year, we'll use our conscience to determine catch regulations until someone can show the resource is a shared resource for all to enjoy.

You want to witness the problem first hand and see what happens every day along the eastern seaboard and throughout the world. One day take a trip to the Co-op, the commercial fishery not the retail store, on Channel Drive in Point and watch the tonnage of fish and shell fish being off loaded. It's absolutely insane. When the long liners come in, check out their catch as well. And then come back to the board and tell everyone the politicians haven't sold our resources to the highest bidders and the system isn't slanted towards commercial interests. It's a bullshit game and the recreational sector pays the price every year so government and big business can profit from our cuts. Time for another tea party guys....it's that simple. I'm with Captain Ron 100% on this one. Every year it's the same BS and every year it's the same idiots tightening the screws.

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

How long have "limits" on fluke been in existence. I remember the start of them, but I've forgotten just what year they all started. I remember that the early size limits were under 15" ( I think). They kept creeping up every few years until we got to where we are now. No one liked the limits back then, yet we were told that size and bag limits were going to save the fluke fishery. We didn't even know the fishery was in trouble but we accepted the proposals. There was no problem catching lots of fluke along the beaches so why was there such a doom and gloom forecast for the future? But, an increase of 1/2 inch didn't sound too extreme.

Until then, we could catch and keep the same size fluke as the commercial draggers did. The party boats were fishing along the beaches and their customers were happy with the 15" fluke they were taking home. That went on for years. There was never a time when that size fish was not around. How is that different now? Even with the draggers, the fishery was never decimated. It still isn't. There would still be plenty of fish around if the size limits were dropped to 15 inches.

So, even though the size limits were smaller than today, the fluke fishery continued to grow. Did fish growth suddenly change? How much do the scientists want the fluke populations to grow? Taking smaller fish never hurt the overall fishery before. Why would that not be true today? What is the proposed fluke population benchmark?

This mess has been going on for too long. Someone needs to call the scientists on the carpet and ask them how their regulations are working? Did they work in the 80's, and 90's? If they did, why didn't we stick with those limits? If they didn't work, explain why. They have to be accountable for their actions. I have to think the reason why they keep changing the limits is because they are constantly underestimating the total populations and yet they are still employed. There's nothing worse than moving the goal line back every time someone gets close to scoring. That's the way it seems to me.

By suggesting a "slot" limit, we are caving in to the regulators. By compromising with them, we are admitting that we accept their proposals. I used to think that slot limits were a reasonable answer for all of us. Now, I'd rather set my own limits and not give in.

Re: NOAA sets fluke reduction harvest for 2016:
 

The commercial size is 14 inches......
The 3 year study funded by SSFFF and done by Rutgers, proved that over 90% of 18 inch fish were female.
Unfortunately, all that data and hard work was tossed because it was an independent Study!! Now it is going to be done all over again "WITH" the blessing and credit going to you know who!