In the early 80's the summer flounder fishery collapsed. To compensate for quota cuts made by fisheries management, commercial concerns with multi species permits set their sites on other species including winter flounder. Fishery has never been the same with current catch and stock levels about 10 - 15% of 80's levels. There are inshore habitat issues due mostly to continued over development as mentioned earlier, but that's not what caused a four decade decline. For all practical purposes, winter flounder (especially the SNE/MA stock) is an exclusive commercial fishery today with only occasional incidental recreational catches on deep water mudhole trips as by-catch while targeting other species. In the below charts, look at the increase in commercial harvest in the 80's and the associated decline in recruitment (60 million to 5 million) between 1980 and 2010.

Following charts reflect what occurred with catch, recruitment, spawning stock biomass and the fishery in general over the last four decades. Rest is history. No different than ling, whiting, cod, mackerel, weakfish and many other fisheries. You get the picture.

If you want to understand fishery management perspectives, read the following excerpt from the last winter flounder stock assessment in 2017:

The winter flounder commercial fishery was once a highly productive industry with annual harvest up to 40.3 million pounds. Since the early 1980's, landings have steadily declined. Total commercial landings of all three stocks combined (Gulf of Maine "GOM", SNE/MA and Georges Banks "GBK") dipped to 3.5 million pounds in 2010. Commercial landings have risen since 2010 due to increased quotas in 2011 and 2012 in the GOM stock, and the lifting of the SNE/MA moratorium in 2013 by NOAA. States, however, have maintained a restrictive commercial trip limit of 50 pounds and a recreational bag limit of two fish in state waters of SNE/MA.

Stock Status: The 2017 GOM operational stock assessment indicates overfishing is not occurring and the stock biomass is unknown. However, biomass reference points remain unknown and overfished status cannot be determined. The 2017 SNE/MA operational stock assessment indicates the stock is overfished, but overfishing is not occurring.

Stock and landings are down 85% - 90% since the 80's, yet overfishing is not occurring. How can a governing body tasked with managing a resource use the phrase "overfishing is not occurring and the stock biomass is unknown" simultaneously? The statements are mutually exclusive. Fail to understand their perspective. Stock assessments and the associated results are the report card of the effectiveness of policy decisions. How these statistics are overlooked or ignored at the detriment of a once thriving and valuable fishery is inexcusable. Lot of resources are committed to the collection of data representing "best available science". How that effort results in these policy decisions and essentially the ruination of an important fishery which thrived for years is the question anyone with half a brain should be asking.

Attached Thumbnails