Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

No.

My point is - if they drag up a 14" fish, they are forced to keep it and count it towards their quota. That's why they opposed the smaller size limit.

Nothing else you're claiming has anything to do with the 14" comm limit. If draggers are catching larger fish it's not bc there's a smaller size limit - that defies all logic. Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof.

I'm not sure if you're confused about this or just using the 14" comm limit cynically to whip up support for your dubious narrative. IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste.

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

I'll put this in terms a 3-yr old can understand just for your benefit. Difference in size minimums between NJ (18"), NY and CT (19") and the commercial size minimum of 14" gives the commercial sector approximately 40 to 45 million more fish to harvest than recreational anglers. That's a fact based on the data from science you so vehemently defend.

There is a significant difference in market prices between small, medium, large and jumbo fish. Commercial operators will harvest larger fish with higher market values and discard smaller fish. If you believe they're throwing back higher market value fish and keeping lesser market value smaller fish of 14", you should consider counseling. Look at the attached chart from the 57th assessment and see how commercial discard mortality as a percentage of landings exploded when commercial operators starting selectively targeting larger higher market value fish. Those percentages are nothing less than tragic. If you need help finding that information since I know you struggle with this, those tables are on pages 124, 125, 128 and 129 of the 66th SAW. Almost 100% in 2001, 85% in 2006, 140% in 2007, approxmately 100% in 2008 and 60% in 2009. Those statistics come from official observers on board vessels. In 2007 alone on observed trips, if the commercial sector harvested1,000,000 lbs, they killed an additional 1,400,000 lbs of smaller fish and tossed them overboard in the process. And you would ask us to believe they kept smaller fish fetching maybe $1.25 a lb. back at the docks and discarded larger fish at maybe $5. a lb. because they are bound by a 14" size minimum. And you call my narrative dubious.

I never said commercial are targeting larger fish because of the 14". I said they're targeting them because of higher market values which for the third time is called SELECTIVE HARVEST. And they're able to do so because recreational are forced to release those same fish due to bloated minimums which in turn commercial harvest to maximize catch values. Unless of course you want us to believe they're actually trying to minimize catch values by retaining smaller fish. Because recreational has no choice but to release them, it's not referred to as SELECTIVE HARVEST.

If per your argument 14' fish were forced on commercials to reduce hygrading and discards, which is laughable, why not force it on recreational anglers to cause the same result. It's called a slot and the recreational community has been asking for one for years. A request that has fallen on deaf ears for all those years. We can catch 3 fish at 18" per day but not 3 fish at 16", reduce the insane 10 to 1 discard ratio we're currently operating at and save a million or more female breeders in the process but that's not plausible because of these moronic regulations.

Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof. Or maybe they're simply destroying another stock. Nets have no conscience. Do yourself a favor, before opining on any of this talk to guys who've worked on commercial boats and ask them how this all works and how much waste is involved in the commercial fishery. Then do yourself a favor and research what happens with discard mortality when SELECTIVE HARVEST is involved. Then come back and we can have an intellectual fact based debate.

IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste. You couldn't be more wrong about limiting waste. The attached graph completely blows your statement out of the water. Dead discard mortality percentages are at record highs so I guess per you federal observers data must be dubious as well.

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

Lol look, I understand that you are used to a chorus of agreement here on njfishing - please don't get too upset when someone looks at your tenuous claims and isn't convinced.

If comms are high grading 14"+ fluke, they are violating the law. If you think that's happening then the issue is enforcement, not the 14" minimum.

Your goal is to lower the rec limit, roping in the comm limit adds nothing to your argument except pad the illusion that us rec anglers are getting ****ed from all corners. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the rec limit should be based on best avail science, but it has nothing to do with the comm size limit. Just pointing that out.

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

This started out with my reaction (picture) of the posted prices for fluke and seabass at a local, well-respected fish market. The fluke fillets that I saw for sale were from average sized (market sized ) fish in the 14-18 inch range. The current commercial limit for fluke for each trip is 200 pounds. Do the math. Even if the fluke weigh 1lb. that means once they catch 200 fish, they are done. There is no doubt that the smaller fish bring in smaller dollars, so, where do you think they go if there are larger fish in the trawl; especially if the larger fish bring in bigger dollars? Two hundred pounds is still the same, but two hundred pounds of fish that bring in more money per pound is what brings the temptation to discard the smaller fish. I think it's more about the discards that causes the ire of recreational fishermen. Maybe Dakota know more about how the commercial discards (just like the rec's mortality rates) are figured into the commercial quotas. Or are they?

If smaller fluke are fetching $20 per pound at the market, how much will the fillets from a 5 or 6 pound fish bring?

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

I find your comments to be insulting to a person that has helped the recreational fisherman for a long time. Maybe you should listen to what he says and learn something.

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

Well said, Captain Sal. This more for me and less for thee attitude has to stop. Rules are rules and are set to provide limits to people’s greed. It sounds as if Reason wants it all. I’m not sure what his rules are or are not. Unless rules are changed and made more equitable for everyone, we are stuck with what we have. Facts and figures are all we have as ammunition in seeking any changes.we have a knowledgeable and supportive friend and NJF.com member who devotes his time for us. Give him the respect that he’s due.

Wasteful management programs are our nemesis. Until they are balanced, this controversy will continue. We need the facts and figures and we need friends like Dakota.

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

You can criticize my work all you wish as your entitled to your opinion, but I’d ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Once again, I never said the 14" size minimum commercially is the driving force for commercial operators harvesting larger fish. To the contrary I’ve repeatedly said significantly higher market prices for larger older age class fish based on market demand created that opportunity. I’ve stated and believe size increases to the recreational sector have been implemented as a means of managing catch to facilitate those age classes being inaccessible to the recreational sector and available exclusively for harvest by the commercial sector due to the size disparity between sectors. You can disagree all you wish with the intent of management, but the result is 40 – 45 million older age classes in the biomass have become the exclusive property of the commercial sector and not available to the general public for harvest. The recreational community can catch them, be assessed a 30% discard penalty further reducing the portion of their RHL quota for harvest, but they can’t harvest them. Personally I call that an egregious disparity in the regulations between sectors and what I believe is a violation, as stated, of Standard 4 of MSA. Recreational has become the stocking arm so to speak for the commercial fishery in the sense the fish we’re forced to release are subsequently targeted by commercial operations for their higher prices. Review the attached graph trending commercial landings weights, ex-vessel values and wholesale price per lb. for the period 1994 through 2018, source page 7 of the “MAFMC Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document” dated August 2019. If you need a copy, I’d be happy to provide it. Annual landing weights have been cut in half, while simultaneously ex-vessel values (catch values) have tripled and the price per lb. has quadrupled. I guess based on your argument, you would want us to believe that’s being driven by all the 14” fish being retained because of the commercial minimum size limit. If you do, stop here because truthfully there’s no sense continuing.

My goal is not and never has been to lower recreational limits or increase commercial size limits. My focus from day one has been and continues to be understanding what's happened and is happening in this fishery leading to a 70 million fish or 40% decline in the population between 2009 and 2017, a 40 - 45 million decline in the female component, why recruitment levels have precipitously declined this past decade by 200 million from the preceding decade, why every age class has undergone a significant decline in gender composition and why discard rates have approached levels never before seen. Discard rates which I believe are under-reported in the commercial sector based on unbiased reports from federally mandated observers reflected in the attachment. Those percentages are a disgrace. For the 5-yrs I referenced in my previous post, '01, '06, '07, '08 and '09, commercial discards averaged close to 100% of landings those years. I want to quantify that statement so everyone understands what that means. For those five years, commercial landings were slightly in excess of 55 million pounds. So the commercial sector harvested 55 million lbs. of older age classes and in the process based on onboard observers killed 55 million pounds of lesser market value younger age classes to promote higher ex-vessel values. At the time, commercial harvested weights averaged roughly 2.25 lbs. per fish and discard weights averaged 1.25 lbs. consisting almost entirely of age classes 0 to 2. Older age classes harvested, younger age classes killed. If you don’t believe my analysis, I strongly suggest you read pages 58 and 59 of the 57th SAW under “Commercial Discard Estimates at Age”. 55 million pounds at an average of 1.25 lbs. means in those 5 years 44 million fish were killed in the process of harvesting the equivalent weight of older age class higher market value fish. Want to repeat that, 44 MILLION fish were killed in the process of harvesting the same weight of older age class higher market value fish. That’s 36% of the last reported biomass, too unreal to imagine but the graph I posted yesterday which I’ll include again with this post doesn’t suggest it, it validates it. To further put it in perspective, the recreational harvest limit for 2019 – 2021 is 7.69 million lbs. a year in comparison.

I’ve been vocal regarding my concerns about the commercial harvest being allowed during the spawn on the most concentrated biomass in the history of this fishery. With today’s technology, highly concentrated biomass and a complete lack of understanding what impacts that practice has on the efficacy of the spawn, it’s impossible to quantify the effects this is having on the health of the fishery. 64% of the 2018 commercial catch came from three regions right in our backyard. Areas 537, 613 and 616. View the attached graph “Summer Flounder Catch” from the same “Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document” referenced above. And then tell me trillions of eggs being destroyed harvesting a highly concentrated and materially gender impaired spawning stock isn’t hurting this fishery. The season should be shut down during September / October and the 10% – 15% of the commercial quota being harvested in those months re-allocated to other months of the year. Don’t take away quota, reallocate so as not to coincide with the spawn. 200,000,000 less new fish recruited into the stock decade over decade and management does nothing to address the problem and even worse indicates after a decade or more of declining recruitment they have no idea what the cause is. Any fishery with below average recruitment already has one foot in the grave. This fishery is no different and while management hypothesizes about ocean acidification, global warming, climate change, density differential, predation etc. the problem worsens with no remedial action taken. Many fisheries have regulations, closed seasons, closed regions, catch and release to protect the spawn and the spawning biomass, not sure why this fishery is any different.

Billfish to answer your question, it's my understanding the basis for commercial discards come from data provided on Vessel Trip Reports "VTR's" which operators are required to submit each trip. It's strictly an honor system, they can have 100% discards on a trip and report 20% and no one would know otherwise. There isn't enforcement at sea when it comes to discards. Look at the graph I posted yesterday and again with this post today and note the glaring differences in percentages reported between observers and operators on VTR's (blue and black bars in the first attached chart). In the video you posted, which I'm well aware of, does anyone honestly believe those large fish were tossed overboard and 14" fish retained. Please, at some point in these discussion common sense has to be applied.

The fishery needs to come first and management has been operating under the same flawed management philosophy for the last 15 - 20 years while the fishery is failing. If the above statistics in your opinion don't paint the picture of a failing fishery, you and I have a different definition of failing. Commercial operations over all these years and through all these cuts have increased ex-vessel prices due to elevated market prices of their catch, the most critical metric for commercial operators. In the meantime, recreational has sacrificed ridiculous decreases in possession limits and increases in size minimums, been forced to endure shortened seasons and lost harvest rights to 40 - 45 million fish. In 2018, 67% of angler trips ended up with one fish landed, 24% ended up with two fish. And that excludes trips were no fish were harvested. Reference attached graph. The sacrifices in this fishery have fallen squarely on the recreational sector and we’re still at risk of further cuts if recruitment continues its decline which is pretty much a statistical certainty.

All these problems are created in my opinion and based on what the data is telling us for two reasons. You can't harvest a resource twelve months out of the year, pound them during their spawn, target older age classes selectively or due to regulatory mandates and think you can have a sustainable fishery. It is precisely those reasons the stock crashed in 1988 and the biomass population declined to 78 million fish of which age groups 0 - 2 accounted for 75 million of that population. Meaning the older age classes were wiped out. We’re doing exactly the same thing today. Kill the breeders, kill younger age classes in the process, destroy the strength of the spawning stock, recruitment is decimated and the cycle continues.

Your comments don’t concern me based on who they’re coming from. I’ve done more analysis, research, communicated with marine fisheries, the Commission and Counsel more in the last three years than you will in your lifetime. All my comments, interpretations and conclusions are based on data developed by the science you so adamantly espouse. You show complete lack of respect for the members on this site and provide no tangible contribution to the issues plaguing this fishery. My efforts have been to focus attention on what the data is telling us are the problems. I have no concerns about my approach yet you dismiss them as dubious and tenuous for reasons only known to you and reasons truthfully I could care less about. My efforts and fight are for the recreational angling community, the commercial sector, future generations and upmost the fishery itself. It's being grossly mismanaged and the time has more than come for fisheries management to be held accountable.

I’ll finish by asking three questions I’d like you to answer for the site and its members since you seem to have such great insight into this fishery. First, I’ve never come across language in MSA, state regulations or any material which said commercial operators are required to retain any fish over 14”. All the language I’ve seen basically says “commercial operators will not be allowed to harvest or be in possession of fish under 14”. I’d be interested where that language exists. Second if my interpretations and conclusions are wrong, I’d be interested in your theory as to why the biomass declined by 70 million fish or 40% of its population between 2009 and 2017, what caused 40 - 45 million decline in the female composition, why recruitment levels have tanked this past decade by 200 million from the preceding decade, why every age class has undergone a material and significant decline in gender composition and why discard rates have approached levels never before seen. Please address each of those five issues. And lastly, I know what my efforts have been these last three years fighting for the fishery and the rights of both the commercial and recreational sector. Regardless of the outcome, I can sleep soundly at night knowing I tried making a difference. The same way the RFA, SSFFF and many others have given their time willingly to fight for the fishery and our collective rights to access it. Without them, we'd have no voice and no representation whatsoever and this fight would be over. I know what I’ve done or tried to do, would appreciate hearing what your contributions have been for the same. Remember “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

Thanks for your tireless work tom!

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

That is for sure!

Re: Fluke and Sea Bass Returns
 

Dakota 560: I too appreciate your efforts and respect your thoughts. Please continue until your goals are met.