Ignorant Fisheries Question.........

[Duffman]

......And I'm sure this will be as transparent as can be but I gotta ask.......

When was the last time any legislation regarding fisheries went the recreational anglers way?

[hartattack]

In 2019 NJ went 'out-of-compliance' with fed Fluke guidelines. We didn't accept the 19" minimum size in hopes of protecting breeders. Outcome was we stayed at 18" minimum, but bag limit was reduced from 4 to 3.
Many thought NJ would be penalized with a complete Fluke moratorium, thankfully that didn't happen.
Editorial: we learned that the fed agencies are reluctant to drastically penalize out-of-compliance states. Maybe NJ should consider doing this again!

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by hartattack

In 2019 NJ went 'out-of-compliance' with fed Fluke guidelines. We didn't accept the 19" minimum size in hopes of protecting breeders. Outcome was we stayed at 18" minimum, but bag limit was reduced from 4 to 3.
Many thought NJ would be penalized with a complete Fluke moratorium, thankfully that didn't happen.
Editorial: we learned that the fed agencies are reluctant to drastically penalize out-of-compliance states. Maybe NJ should consider doing this again!

Was 2017
And we went from 5 fish to 3 pushing for status quo

That’s a 40 percent cut

.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hartattack

In 2019 NJ went 'out-of-compliance' with fed Fluke guidelines. We didn't accept the 19" minimum size in hopes of protecting breeders. Outcome was we stayed at 18" minimum, but bag limit was reduced from 4 to 3.
Many thought NJ would be penalized with a complete Fluke moratorium, thankfully that didn't happen.
Editorial: we learned that the fed agencies are reluctant to drastically penalize out-of-compliance states. Maybe NJ should consider doing this again!

And Larry correct me if I'm wrong but I believe rec's going out of compliance not only risked a shutdown for the recreational community but it pulled the commercial sector in as well. If true, there's no way the federal government would do that or the commercial sector would sit by and allow it. I'll check it out but it also might have included a shutdown for all fisheries other than just fluke. I'm not 100% certain about the latter but I'm pretty sure if the recs went out of compliance commercials were affected as well and that's why ultimately the feds ruled the way they did. Recs still took a huge hit.

I remember sometime ago Dan saying "until the powers to be stop managing sectors and start managing the fishery, these fisheries will continue their declines". No statement could be more true

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

And Larry correct me if I'm wrong but I believe rec's going out of compliance not only risked a shutdown for the recreational community but it pulled the commercial sector in as well. If true, there's no way the federal government would do that or the commercial sector would sit by and allow it. I'll check it out but it also might have included a shutdown for all fisheries other than just fluke. I'm not 100% certain about the latter but I'm pretty sure if the recs went out of compliance commercials were affected as well and that's why ultimately the feds ruled the way they did. Recs still took a huge hit.

I remember sometime ago Dan saying "until the powers to be stop managing sectors and start managing the fishery, these fisheries will continue their declines". No statement could be more true

So basically, what you're saying is if the rec sector drags the comm sector into this we would see better results on our side by default.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by Duffman

So basically, what you're saying is if the rec sector drags the comm sector into this we would see better results on our side by default.

Duffman,

Read this article which was written on 6/1/2017 regarding the year Hammer and Hartattack are referring to.

https://www.nj.com/entertainment/201...egulation.html

As I thought, commercial "could" be banned or effected as well. Doesn't appear though it would carry over to other fisheries.

So could it be used as leverage to change the regulations and bring commercials to the table to negotiate changes with the recreational sector? Maybe. Could there be dire consequences involved? Absolutely as in if there wasn't an agreement regardless of the chances of that happening that would mean fluke fishing could be banned in the state meaning party boats, charter boats and recreational anglers would have no season. Commercials on the other hand might have the ability to offload their catch or register in other states to get around the ban. That's beyond my pay grade. If it were ever to get that far, it would be a cluster and and a half to many hard working people.

I don't know the laws and or consequences that accompany them so in my opinion this is a risky move by New Jersey putting a lot of small businesses at risk. Imagine a summer with no fluke fishing but everything needs to be considered since we're in my opinion headed to that result anyway.

This is where ASMFC and NMFS have their heads up their ass. They haven't been addressing the problems of the fishery in at minimum two decades, they've caused them by using recreational size minimums to manage the stock and ignoring the implications of not protecting the spawn for now over a decade. How long should a management committee be allowed to say "Recruitment is down but we have no idea what's causing it!" when the cause is self inflicted and staring them in the face? Every age group is down in population, the biomass is down, the proportionate percentage of females in every sexually mature age group is down and recruitment is down. Yet it's business as usual netting during the one primary spawn the fishery has every year and when a state challenges the logic of regulations NMFS threatens to close the fishery down for the entire year which would crush businesses and shore based economies.

Your suggestion which I've thought about myself over the years isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff. Party and commercial boats if they lost the fluke season in certain situations would be out of business as would some commercial operators so it'd end up being a game of chicken where all entities dependent on the fishery would lose. And NC and Va. would still mop up the stock in the fall / winter months and their catch would go against their own states landings quotas so the fishery would still get pounded at the worst possible time of year.

[dales529]

So who has the power ASMFC or MAMFC?
Technically ASMFC found NJ "out of compliance" but then at the MAMFC meeting while we all waited for the "Out of Compliance" repercussions we heard NJ was a separate region from NY and CT and 18" fluke were OK but at 3PP.

OK so we took being a separate region from NY and CT which is a good thing IMHO but to be honest I was stunned hearing the shift in NJDEP etc and that we didnt hold our ground but I do get that there was a threat to revoke all federal permits which is why commercials came into play.

Long story short NJ was never technically found out of compliance but wish we were / maybe / sort of

[Broad Bill]

Dave I never fully understood who was the ultimate decision maker. I always thought ASMFC was responsible for decisions within 0-3 miles while MAFMC decisions took over beyond the three mile line which would both factor into the management of summer flounder.

I'm sure you remember the moron from the Advisory Panel who responded to my emails I sent to the Commission and Committee. I believe his name was Mike Plaia, Rocky remembers him well, who said I'm barking up the wrong tree. Decisions are made by NMFS and when they get down to the two governing bodies you referenced they have virtually have very little say so my questions is for the money spent funding these groups, what are we really getting in return if their hands are tied? All they appear to do is make dysfunctional decisions and argue between states for the largest share of quotas they can get both recreationally and commercially. Personally I view them as authoritative bodies with no authority other than to play lets make a deal with state allocations once NMFS determine quotas. Whoever is making the decisions about size being the the most effective means of managing the fishery should be tar and feathered as it's arguably the worst way of managing the stock which history has proven.

Question for the board, how many fisheries does anyone know where the regulations promote the harvest of breeders as opposed to younger age class fish with a presumed 25% annual natural mortality rate. It's counter intuitive to how the fishery should be managed.

[hammer4reel]

Question for the board, how many fisheries does anyone know where the regulations promote the harvest of breeders as opposed to younger age class fish with a presumed 25% annual natural mortality rate. It's counter intuitive to how the fishery should be managed.[/QUOTE]


Here’s a better question .
What percentage of the fluke is born male vs female ?
Is it 50/50 80/20 ?

And if what a person involved in trawl studies has told me , predominantly only females come inshore .
Males mostly grouping outside of 12 miles , do we close the fishery inside of 12 miles ?

Or do we fish for what’s available ?

.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Dave I never fully understood who was the ultimate decision maker. I always thought ASMFC was responsible for decisions within 0-3 miles while MAFMC decisions took over beyond the three mile line which would both factor into the management of summer flounder.

I'm sure you remember the moron from the Advisory Panel who responded to my emails I sent to the Commission and Committee. I believe his name was Mike Plaia, Rocky remembers him well, who said I'm barking up the wrong tree. Decisions are made by NMFS and when they get down to the two governing bodies you referenced they have virtually have very little say so my questions is for the money spent funding these groups, what are we really getting in return if their hands are tied? All they appear to do is make dysfunctional decisions and argue between states for the largest share of quotas they can get both recreationally and commercially. Personally I view them as authoritative bodies with no authority other than to play lets make a deal with state allocations once NMFS determine quotas. Whoever is making the decisions about size being the the most effective means of managing the fishery should be tar and feathered as it's arguably the worst way of managing the stock which history has proven.

Question for the board, how many fisheries does anyone know where the regulations promote the harvest of breeders as opposed to younger age class fish with a presumed 25% annual natural mortality rate. It's counter intuitive to how the fishery should be managed.

I willing to bet, if you ask anyone who has ZERO knowledge of fish or fishing, "should you keep larger or smaller fish" almost every single one would respond with something like "ya gotta let the babies go". Not knowing the larger fish are the breeders. maybe that's what in the decision process made by the powers that be.

2 questions......

1) Once the fluke get to a point where they are no longer feasible to fish for, what do the head boats do then? Once stripers move out, what to do in June July August September? Thats a big gap to fill.

2) Why are larger fluke more valuable to the comm fleet? If they are allowed X number of pounds per trip, what's it matter what size they are? You guys know way more than i do, but to me it can't make heads or tails of it. To simplify it, if I can keep 10 pounds of fluke, what's it matter if I have one 10 pound fish or ten 1 pond fish?