NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey - Bluefish regs not looking good for next year

Traveled 9 hours and spent probably $200 in tolls to witness first hand how corrupt the fishery management process is. As Dave mentioned, the meeting was a complete disaster as far a the outcome of regulations are concerned. The ability for the Council and Committee to insulate itself from any other external influences is a work of art. And this is after they spent the better part of Monday discussing their 5-yr strategic plan which included increases focus on "stakeholder" communication, transparency, communication and involvement from the public. All complete BS.

Here's a few comments from the Summer Flounder presentation:

MC Comments: Biological Implications of
Size Limits
Several ongoing trends in stock
dynamics over past 10-15 years:
– Slower growth rates for both sexes
– Reduced mortality rates overall have
allowed fish of both sexes to live
longer/grow larger
– Males living longer/growing to larger sizes
– Sex ratio shifting closer to 50/50 for
larger fish

– MC does not believe there is necessarily
cause for concern about current
recreational harvest of females and

Assessment work exploring sex-based
modeling:
– Most total fishery catch now appears to be
male, due to factors described on previous slide
– On an absolute basis, removals of females
are far less than they were a decade ago due
to lower F rates
– Effects of recreational measures and
selectivity on recruitment unclear

– Fish over 24" primarily females, fish under 24" inches 50 / 50 proportion of males and females

YOU'LL LOVE THIS SLIDE

– 67% of trips and 45% of fish harvested in
2018 were angler-trips landing only 1
summer flounder
– Affected by size limits & availability of
legal sized fish
– Higher harvest per angler would likely
occur under slot depending on bag limit

67% OF ANGLER TRIPS AND 45% OF RECREATIONAL LANDINGS INVOLVED THE RETENTION OF ONE SUMMER FLOUNDER!

So what does the Board and Council recommend, another inch increase in size limits but hey we could get a bump in possession from 3 to 4 even though 67% of the anglers in 2019 only landed one keeper at 18". If Fishery Management really wants to help recreational community, they should make the 2020 regulations 10 fish possession limit at 28", this way harvest levels should decrease by about 95%. That's where this is headed so why wait.

Almost every comment mentioned above in the presentation contradicts data published earlier this year in the 66th stock assessment. Now this new data is the result of 10-15 year trends! Where was that data when the stock assessment was published? The extent of BS is epic. Why......it supports the position they want which is past decisions made aren't harming a fishery currently in a 17-yr decline and increased recreational minimums allows even more fish in the biomass to be transferred to the exclusive harvest of commercial operators. That assumes state conservation equivalency measures don't negate that from happening but yet to be determined.

THIS IS AWESOME LOGIC
– Slot limits would impact yield per recruit
over time
– If mortality too high within slot, not
enough survive through to higher sizes
– Protecting large females in rec. fishery
does not reduce their availability to
commercial fishery (likely to increase it)

Slot was discussed between 17" and 20", again a disproportionate amount which would be females in spite of their new found BS that fish under 24" have a 50/50 sex ratio. So if we're still harvesting mostly females at a slot range that simulated current size minimums, how would that benefit the fishery?

ARGUABLY THE MOST TELLING COMMENT IN THE PRESENTATION OF WHERE THEIR PRIORITIES ARE
Protecting larger females in recreational fishery does not reduce their availability to commercial fishery (likely to increase it)

I agree but then why has the same governing body increased recreational size limits from 13" in the 80's, 14's in the 90's to 18" and 19" inches today while commercial operators can harvest 14" fish. Same exact argument with a different policy decision. Answer is it makes about 35 million more fish in the biomass exclusively available to harvest by commercial operators. Recreational anglers throw them back, commercial operators either harvest or kill them later in the year during the spawn / fall migration or while wintering offshore. So the same arguments allows the shift of ~35 million fish in the biomass to be harvested exclusively by commercial concerns, causes most recreational anglers to go home with empty coolers but is a key reason why a slot limit wouldn't work because it would increase availability of the continued harvest of larger fish commercially. Hows that for sound reasoning!

Game is absolutely rigged. Our own state Commission and Council representatives are as much to blame but I won't get into that since I don't want this post deleted. What I will say without mentioning names is they are collectively as much to blame if not more in killing this resource and taking it away from the recreational community. Just do your research, see what associations they're affiliated with and decide who each of you want to be affiliated with or who you want to support.

The fishery experienced it's most explosive growth when size limits between recreational and commercial were the same and either 13' or 14" yet we not only won't consider reverting back to those regulations, we can't even get the Monitoring Committee to consider one slot fish without years more analysis. Never experienced a more dysfunctional governing body in my entire career and if they were in the private sector every one of them would have been fired by now for decisions made which have caused declines in the fishery over the last 17 years. Declines in the biomass, SSB, recruitment levels, gender composition of SSB and catch levels. The only two tings which have increased are size fish being harvested and discard rates which are through the roof as a result.

17-yr decline, status quo measures, two terms which should never be used together yet our distinguished governing body continues down the same path (only worse with this years 50% commercial increase). Hows that for logic? Based on the rate of decline in the areas mentioned over the last ten years, this fishery has 4 maybe 5 more years until emergency measures are adopted and then everyone should expect the same type fishery as winter flounder. 2 fish at by then probably 23".

Feel sorry for the people whose livelihoods depend on this fishery, another nail was placed in their coffins yesterday.

One last comment re bluefish. They started with a motion of a 16" across the board minimum which would have put an end to kids fishing for snappers. Thank the lord one Member pointed that out and the motion failed. But that was the initial motion recommended.

Process is completely out of control and biased to commercial harvest and political agendas.