Reason162 the only part of your post which is true are larger fish to an extent have greater market prices. 18" to 20'" are the prime commercial fish targeted which based on Rutgers Sex and Length study equates to 80% to 90% females being harvested, all sexually mature with significantly greater levels of egg production capacity then younger age fish. The future of the fishery in other words. Jumbo's are sold to the sushi markets and the very large breeders with little to no market value are thrown back dead. Almost all females with the highest egg production capacity.

In 1997, Fishery Specification Plan changed the commercial minimum from 13" to 14" and mesh sizes were increased 1/2" which was sold as a conservation measure to release smaller less sexually mature fish but appears based on catch statistics to have been a smoke screen to harvest larger more valuable fish. An elective reaction from commercial operators in 1997 when their landings decreased by almost 50%. If your landings are impacted 50%, you harvest larger higher market value fish to compensate in protecting ex-vessel values (commercial catch values) and that's exactly what happened. Sold as conservation, but ended up reaping havoc to the fishery in the form of higher discard rates, selective harvest of older sexually mature fish primarily females, a material alteration in SSB, weakened recruitment strength of the stock, lower recruitment levels and a declining biomass since 2004 which is not capable of recovering on it's own merit. This change in the fishery is over twenty years in the making and will continue until regulations are changed. 50% increase in commercial catch quotas this year and for 2020 and 2021 will only compound the problem and guarantee a continued decline in the fishery. There's no logical reason to think otherwise and marine fisheries data supports it.

"Conservation you say", you'd have to be smoking crystal meth to believe that. "Have to retain 14" fish and then retain their quota and go home", you're on Kool-Aid overload. Look at the attached charts and since 1997 explain the surge in the harvest of older age classes commercially, the absolutely incomprehensible increase in discard rates to catch (from trawls with fishery management observers on board no less so you can imagine the rates on unobserved trawls) and corresponding increase in ex-vessel values all at the expense of the fishery and subsidized by recreational discards. Because of the size differentials under the facade of conservation you speak of, commercial operators enjoy the benefit of harvest rights to approximately 35 million more fish from the biomass than the recreational community . 80% of the commercial harvest in 2017 consisted of age classes 3 to 7 years old, highly disproportionate percentage females and none 14". Younger age classes which at one time made up almost exclusively their annual harvest are now collateral damage in the process of harvesting older age classes with higher market values. Killing already materially impaired younger age classes due to depressed recruitment levels in the pursuit of harvesting older age classes which will guarantee recruitment levels become further depressed is not a formula for success and is certainly not a definition of "Conservation"

All these FACTS are from fisheries management and contained within the 66th Stock Assessment Report. If you're going to make posts about conservation or anything else, at least fact check your information first. Your comments mislead the public more than educating them to what's really happening in this fishery.

Attached Thumbnails