NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by reason162 (Post 471579)

One reason could be not every angler is opposed to the proposed regulations, or think the science/data is fatally flawed. Some anglers might think erring on the side of caution is not a terrible idea.

These people might be in the minority, or maybe this forum is structured in a way that gives that impression; hence the surprise that not everyone actually agrees with showing up at this meeting and blasting the "gov'mnt bureaucrats" and calling for their heads.

Other forums have a decidedly more diverse set of opinions, which probably reflects more accurately the makeup of a northeastern state's fishing population.

There's no doubt the data being collected especially biomass and annual harvest, both recreational and commercial, can be challenged. The ASCMF council members speaking at the meeting don't dispute that. The commercial count while having more structure I'd bet is under reported due to inaccurate reporting of dead discard and illicit trawling. Recreational harvest is a completely different situation, it's embarrassing how they arrive at a number and they essentially admitted that at the meeting. Biomass numbers who knows if they're correct, under reported or over reported but there's been valid arguments about the techniques used to collect that data which have merit and should be addressed. Put all that aside and for argument sake let's assume everyone agrees with the data. Check out the two charts on page 7 and then I would challenge your last comment about the feeling of the northeastern states fishing community.

http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file//5...16_Revised.pdf

MSA was adopted in 1976. Recreational regulations were implemented early 80's. Commercial and recreational were asked to make sacrifices to rebuild the stock which everyone agreed with. Not like we had a choice but I think it's fair to say everyone understood what MSA was trying to accomplish and supported it. For the better part of 35 years, we've sacrificed. Limits started I believe at 10 fish at 14 inches and the creel limit has been reduced ever since while the size limits have increased ever since. Everyone was told these short term (35 years!) sacrifices would result in a stable sustainable biomass and future benefits to anglers and commercials alike. In '10 or '11, NMFS publicly stated the biomass was rebuilt.

Compare all that to the data on the charts. The combined harvest has dropped from a high over the last 36 years from ~26,000 metric tons to ~8,000 metric tons in 2016. At the same time the biomass trend line doubled between 1980 and 2004. From 1988 to 2005 the trend line increased from ~7,000 - 8,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons, that's a 500% - 600% increase in biomass. Those are staggering statistics based on the existing data that have shown marked improvement in the biomass and significant reduction in harvest numbers. Most people looking at that data would conclude past sacrifices have rebuilt the biomass and the years of benefiting from the 35 years of sacrifice were upon us. Instead once again we're staring down the barrel of a loaded shotgun and being told to make further sacrifices to the extent we're almost looking at a closed fishery for the next few years.

As we've all said, NMFS increased the regulations and if you look at the recent downturn in the biomass trend line it certainly coincides with increases in size limits resulting in more female fluke being pulled out of the biomass. Here's another article which is an interesting read

http://www.cptdave.com/summer-flounder.html

Excerpt from article:

Reproduction:
Both males and females become sexually mature at the age of 3. The fecundity (number of eggs produced in a single spawning season) of females increases with size and weight. A 14 inch female produces about 460,000, and a 27 inch female about 4,200,000 eggs in a season. Reproduction takes place in the fall, as soon as the fish begin migrating to wintering grounds. Peak spawning activity occurs from early September through early November in water temperatures of 53 to 66 degrees F and at depths of 60 to 160 feet. The center of spawning activity occurs off the coasts of New York and New Jersey with less concentrated activity occurring in southern New England waters. The eggs float in the water column, hatching 72 to 75 hours after being laid.

As has been mentioned, the downward trend of recruitment numbers certainly coincides with the increased size limits legislated by NMFS. Add to that per the article that the prime spawning season for fluke is early September to early November, how about we protect the fishery during that time frame. The recreational season is almost closed by that time but when these fish school up and migrate to their winter grounds they get pounded bu commercials who to my knowledge have no closed season. If the biomass numbers are so important which no one is arguing, why not protect these fish during that spawn and close the fishery during that prime spawning period? I'm not suggesting cutting harvest quotas, just change the timing of the harvest.

I posted a video which has been around for a while of a commercial boat off Block Island tossing three totes of large female fluke in protest over the regulations. There's ~50 large fluke discarded dead. from the looks of it 26 - 27 inch fish. From the above article, that translates into potentially ~210,000,000 eggs taken out of the recruitment pool for at least one if not multiple years. Think about the exponential impact of that fact on recruitment numbers. Think about the impact of the entire harvest during the spawn, the numbers are unfathomable! Can you imagine the impact on recruitment and the biomass if these egg layers were given another year or two to procreate.

One last point regarding the second chart which may be the most significant factor driving proposals and further reductions. Where is the science or calculations that resulted in a ~62,000 metric ton biomass goal. A number which based on NMFS data has never in the history of the fishery been attained! It's such an important number since it's ultimately the goal driving or influencing all decisions yet no one discussed it or talks about how it was arrived at and what data supports it. As I mentioned at the meeting. NMFS continues to manage the effects and not the cause of biomass decline which in my opinion is a material flaw in their management of the resource. What their proposing makes no sense when you factor in their own data and what most believe it's suggesting.

While these points were being made at the very small unimportant meeting at Galloway Township, copious notes were being taken by a few members of the ACSMF Counsil. It was as if the light bulb went off and they were having a revelation. Hopefully these facts and interpretations of the data work their way back to the powers to be and are factored into the regulations were faced with in '17 and beyond but more important how NMFS views the fishery and manages it prospectively.

With all that said, while I agree recreational and commercial interests care immensely about the biomass numbers, I believe the vast majority of people impacted by this fishery view our current situation as nothing more than dysfunctional government selling hope to the general public and in the eleventh hour pulling the carpet out from underneath us. A completely contradictory position from when they publicly stated the biomass stock was rebuilt only five or six years ago. They've essentially taken the hope and promise of a better fishery which all of us clung to in the many years of sacrifice and destroyed it with the proverbial wrecking ball with these draconian reductions being proposed!