Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

You are the first person I ever heard that agreed with the way the science is collected and you are obviously willing to go along with it from what you wrote. That is amazing because I would really like to know your in-depth views on this issue because as you said the people that agree with the restrictions are few.
I honestly would be one of the first to dry dock my boat to save a fishery, but in this case I don't think that would fix anything.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

2 Fishery Councils, NJ and Atlantic (coast wide) think otherwise and they have way more collective knowledge of our Fluke fishery and the science then most... I think I'll trust their judgement on this since the easy out for both councils would have been to accept the regulations being handed down from the NFMS as is... They did not.


And check this out

Most of the reporting in the media about commercial fishing and declining stocks in the Northeast dwells on how dire the situation has become with the fault generally attributed to fishermen and “overfishing.”

The view on the waterfront is very different however. Fishermen have long maintained that there is a huge disconnect between what they see on the water and the conclusions derived from the NOAA surveys and stock assessments. Their claims have been dismissed as self-serving. Now it seems the fishermen have a strong case. On a recent bottom trawl survey, a typical industry net caught four times as many flatfish as the rig used on the government trawl surveys.

For years fishermen have clamored for more collaborative research using industry vessels. They were largely ignored. But in August, Dr. Bill Karp, director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, revealed a plan for NOAA Fisheries to shift all or part of its trawl surveys from its research vessel, the Henry B. Bigelow, to commercial fishing boats. At the same time, from August 7-21 the Point Judith fishing vessel Karen Elizabeth was at sea conducting a twin-trawl survey on behalf of the Science Center with a team of scientists working alongside the crew.

The boat was rigged to tow two nets simultaneously, each of the type used on the Bigelow, with one significant difference. One net was fitted with a rockhopper and the other had a chain sweep. Because different fish species behave differently, fishermen use a chain sweep, attached to the leading edge of the net and in contact with the sea floor, when targeting flatfish such as witch flounder. These fish hide in the sediment on soft bottom to evade predators. You will hear fishermen refer to fishing boats with rockhoppers as “hard bottom boats” because those boats typically go after other species such as cod and haddock which tend to be found over rocky or gravel bottom.

The Bigelow uses a rockhopper on every tow, despite surveying in our multispecies fishery. That is because this gear allows nets to be towed across a variety of habitats. A net equipped with a chain sweep is prone to snag on a rocky bottom. Its exclusive use of a rockhopper has been a point of contention with the fishermen since the Bigelow commenced operations in these waters. Fishermen openly questioned its accuracy in estimating flatfish abundance. The survey work on the Karen Elizabeth has provided the evidence that their skepticism is well founded. Here are some relevant quotes taken from the Science Center’s own paper, authored by the scientists who were on the Karen Elizabeth to conduct the study:

“On average, catch rates in the experimental chain sweep gear were about 4-fold the catch rates of the rockhopper sweep gear used on the standard survey.”
And here are some actual figures, also taken directly from the report: “A total of 53,495 witch flounder were caught during the 118 representative tows of the twin trawl, with 43,789 caught in the net with the experimental chain sweep and 10,706 caught in the net with the rockhopper sweep.”

These observations come as no surprise to the industry but it is startling to consider that our groundfishermen, many of whom are in straitened circumstances because of low catch limits, are constrained by surveys that are evidently underestimating stock abundance by a large factor, certainly with respect to witch flounder which were the principal focus of this study and more than likely with some of the other flounders such as yellowtail.

Chris Roebuck, owner and captain of the Karen Elizabeth told me that the witch flounder (fishermen know them as grey sole) caught on the survey trip amounted to 30,000 pounds which represents 4 percent of the TAC (total allowable catch) allotted to the fishing fleet for the whole year. On just one boat and in just two weeks! In theory a single boat could catch the entire yearly quota if it kept on fishing.

This example illustrates the fact that serious problems plague fishery management in New England. These problems are not, as some would have us believe, all attributable to rapacious fishermen. Groups with an agenda antithetical to fishing have been trying to sell the idea that the problems stem from “too many boats chasing too few fish.” In truth there are not many boats left and there are certainly a lot more witch flounder out there than the people at NOAA thought. I might also add that this is one of the best fish you could ever hope to find on your dinner plate.

The takeaway here is that solutions can be found if people continue to work together. NOAA Fisheries deserves credit for the willingness to partner with fishermen in undertaking this survey. The industry is hoping that it is an indication that the culture within NOAA is changing. We will withhold judgement until December when we learn whether the data gathered here will be accepted and incorporated into the next stock assessment.

Don Cuddy is program director at the Center for Sustainable Fisheries.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

That group aside, tons of people in agreement with those on this thread don't go. People that are close by. People in the industry. No one can make every meeting, that's a given. no issues. But no way, the amount of fishermen in south and central Jersey has were all completely tied down, plus the inland group that come from the west.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

Whether I agree with the data, your incredulity speaks to my point about this forum (and your own circle of fishing friends) being an echo chamber. I know people who feel that the science is flawed, that this is just nonsense from Big Government etc, and I also know people who feel the opposite.

My view is that the rec/comm industry have been remarkably myopic time and time again when it comes to conservation, and that while their input is part of the process, the regs should ultimately be based on what the data reflects. The fact that the industry cries "bad data!" is a surprise to no one; they are not exactly disinterested parties to the issue at hand.

Further, the argument I hear a lot on this forum re regulators setting capricious quotas because "they have to justify their job," I find completely nonsensical. If the bag limit on fluke is 50 fish per day @12", these guys would still have a job. It's an attempt at false equivalency --- "regulators have agendas just like the comm interests do!" --- that only unthinking people would take seriously.

You might be right, and if the sex ratio paper submitted by SSFFF passes peer review and gets incorporated into future reg paradigm, then I'm all for it. But just because something makes "common sense" to you or to all the fishermen you know, doesn't mean it's true. Much of science is counter-intuitive, and if we ignore data and just go with common sense...our species wouldn't have made it past the dark ages.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

Methods should be examined and updated as needed, and if the model is obsolete you abandon the model. But Gerry, recall that locked thread on NOAA incorporating climate change data into future models. It seems to me that people agree with the science only when the science agrees with them. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

OK so you want to bring Climate Change into this conversation? How about we stay on topic here.... Fluke.

Do you really believe the science being used to assess the Fluke stocks is accurate?

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

I bring it up as an example of incorporating new methods and data for regulation models, just like your example of using different trawling techniques. And since climate change is happening, and is affecting the distribution and migratory patterns of all life on this planet, I do think it's relevant to fisheries science.

I think it's a moving target. Methodology can always be improved, and there can always be more funding to make those improvements. But as it stands, I accept the benchmark studies over people's "common sense" instincts, or what they see out on the water, or industry-funded "data" that might or might not pass peer review muster.

Generally, when it comes to conservation, I'm a conservative in the true sense of the word: I take a pessimistic view on fish stocks, and don't like taking chances with the resource.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

Also throw this in the mix. It was asked WHO set the rebuild level at over twice the level it has ever been.
Wasn't answered at the meeting, but took very little research.
The unreasonable level was set by the Pew group .
Yep the same people who have over 50 million invested in running the catch shares program !

Follow the money



And for Reason.
How can you believe projected data above what's Actually found happening on the water ?

One of my friends who fishes for fluke commercially for over 30 years has had to fish for his catch running from manasquan from barneget to well past fire island every season .
During the summer months.

But the last two seasons there have been so many fluke around he hasn't had to fish more than 5 miles from manasquan for the entire season .
Normally catching his 500 pound quota is four hauls a night
.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

The insight I was hoping to get from you is obviously not there. I normally would thank a person for trying, but in this case I can't even give you a participation trophy on this matter.

Re: Last Nights Galloway Meeting....
 

Just when we thought you could not be more irrational, you plumb new depths.
Please enlighten us as to why a fish would travel hundreds of miles in reaction to a 2 degree temp change when they can travel a few miles to a different depth and get all the T delta it could need. Your absurd theories are as ridiculous as your notions of "climate change".

We see you have something against common sense and you prove the point very well, again and again.