Fluke option 6

[hammer4reel]

After seeing how they are getting their catch numbers, as well as only being willing to rely on their own data I believe we use their historical data and offer option 6.
A (5) fish bag limit composed of
(3) fish 16 to 19"
(2) fish over 19"
as their historical data shows best reqruitment was ALWAYS when we had a smaller length limit than 18" .
It showed when the catch was spread where it possibly added males to the daily creel as well as taking smaller less egg quanity filled females the fishery reruitment was always in an upward path.
It is only since they imposed limits that take 90% females and it also targets the fish carrying the most eggs to be the total daily creel.
Thier own data showed the fishery had only failed under their management plan of raising the limit to allow less target fish .

It would spread the harvest over 3 top 4 years of age class fish/
Lower our poundage due to taking fish that weigh less as part of the creel etc.
and allow many people to much better enjoy the resource.while meeting their reduction requirements.
Lower throwback mortality number status quo hasn't worked 18 inches is the wrong number to have as a starting point
.
they wont use our data. use theirs against them.


.

[Charlie B]

That would be nice...Charlie

[Ttmako]

That would be great.
We just need NOAA/NMFS to do nothing but focus their efforts on accurately measuring the biomass and fishing effort.
Then implement sound reasonable measure to ensure the stock is sustainable.

[hartattack]

Thanks Dan. You presented the male/female issue well last night; I saw Kirby from ASMFC scribbling down notes while you spoke of large breeders having far many more eggs than small breeders.

I have also posted the NJ outcome from last night on a NY fishing message board - if ASMFC hears the same from other states it can't hurt.

It ain't a report if there ain't no pix . . .

[Capt John]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

After seeing how they are getting their catch numbers, as well as only being willing to rely on their own data I believe we use their historical data and offer option 6.
A (5) fish bag limit composed of
(3) fish 16 to 19"
(2) fish over 19"
as their historical data shows best reqruitment was ALWAYS when we had a smaller length limit than 18" .
It showed when the catch was spread where it possibly added males to the daily creel as well as taking smaller less egg quanity filled females the fishery reruitment was always in an upward path.
It is only since they imposed limits that take 90% females and it also targets the fish carrying the most eggs to be the total daily creel.
Thier own data showed the fishery had only failed under their management plan of raising the limit to allow less target fish .

It would spread the harvest over 3 top 4 years of age class fish/
Lower our poundage due to taking fish that weigh less as part of the creel etc.
and allow many people to much better enjoy the resource.while meeting their reduction requirements.
Lower throwback mortality number status quo hasn't worked 18 inches is the wrong number to have as a starting point
.
they wont use our data. use theirs against them.


.

Well done Dan....I am in favor of this proposal. I was at the meeting last night and was very impressed with the comments that were made by many sources. They CANNOT be allowed to "force feed" their ludicrous proposals on an already hurting charter and party boat business.

[jakesdad]

I was also at the meeting, Dan made a strong case for having a mixed size bag limit. The SSFFF sex study of a few years ago proved his case. They are not only hurting the boating industry but all the other businesses that we use. Tackle shops, coffee stops, lunch stops, ice stops, gas stations, and the list goes on.

Let's make OPTION 6 REEL in the correct data so that we can continue to enjoy our sport.

[Detour66]

Thank you Dan....very well done! That works for me. Let's hope it's works for them and all.

[Rocky]

I really like this option. My last fluke trip with my friend we landed 56 fluke between us. Most were in the 16"-17 3/4" range with only 3 keepers for the box. If it goes to 19" we would have had zero.

Last night's meeting was truly an eye opening experience in how government works. Between the NJMFC, ASMFS, F&G, NMFS. Commissioners, Directors, Advisors, Scientists, Division of Stock Assessment, Division of Mortality Rating, Delaware Bay Shellfish Council, Atlantic Coast Shellfish Council, Division of Survey Analysis etc. you need a Xanax to understand it all! It's an impenetrable layer of bureaucracy which represents exactly how insanely structured government is.

That said, I agree with Dan in Option 6 but not sure government can work fast enough to change anything to salvage the '17 season, or the '18 season for that matter. I'd also add that any adjustments to the recreational regulations allowing the retention of a smaller "slot fish" to hopefully harvest more male and less female breeders needs to be accompanied by some comparable changes to the commercial regulations that prevent all those bigger breeders from being harvested which would result in no net benefit to the fishery. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished other than an overall quota reduction for commercial since mesh size adjustments obviously address the harvest of smaller fish not larger fish. In the 4:30 session run by the NJMFC, there was a motion made to maintain the status quo in '17 until a new stock status report could be determined. Members of the council are

Marine Fisheries Council
Richard N. Herb, Acting Chair (Sportfish)
James Alexis (Public)
Erling Berg (Processor)
Dr. Eleanor Ann Bochenek (Public)
Warren Hollinger
John J. Maxwell
Sergio Radossi (Sportfish)
Joe Rizzo (Commercial)
Robert R. Rush, Jr. (Sportfish)
Joseph A. Zaborowski (Sportfish)
Vacant

Robert R Bush (sportfish) made the Motion, Joe Rizzo (commercial) seconded it and eventually it was agreed to. As a point of interest, Frances Puskas (commercial) who doesn't even appear on the above Division of Fish and Wildlife Marine Council's list published as of December 31, 2016, was also in attendance and voted against the motion. Her position might in fact be the vacant position mentioned. The motion was eventually approved 9-1 by the council. Question was asked how that motion by the NJFMC might eventually factor into or influence the ultimate decision made by the NMFS in a month or so regarding '17 summer flounder regulations and the answer was essentially for the public to call our representatives to push the matter. Not really the best answer to that question.

It was pointed out on multiple occasions throughout the evening that if NJ were to elect none of the 5 options presented, we would in fact be considered out of compliance by NMFS. In that scenario, there would be emergency measures implemented of 1 fish at 21 inches with the strong possibility of a complete closure to the fishery for both commercial and recreational interests. Tom Fote discussed that process if it happened and truthfully almost unanimously everyone in attendance took the position that it's time to draw a line in the sand and take a stance since with the regulations being proposed we're almost at a point where there's nothing left to lose. Commercial operators whose livelihood depends on this fishery would obviously be more hurt if we proceeded down that path. I believe it was asked in the 4:30 session run by NJMFC is anyone in the room would vote for any one of the five options being proposed and the answer was a resounding NO.

As a side note, early in the 4:30 meeting, a CO presented a violations report. As part of his update, he mentioned there were 30 violations written (not sure the time frame) in southern waters for boats bass fishing beyond the EEZ zone. One guy was actually ticketed twice in the same day! Best part of this story is councilmen Joseph A. Zaborowski (Sportfish) commented to the CO that he was in fact one of the 30 ticketed and went on a tirade over the next 5 minutes of how unfair it is to not be able to fish for bass beyond the 3 mile limit if fish were being released. So here we have a New jersey Marine Fisheries Council member who knowingly violated the law and has no problems questioning a CO in a public meeting about the sensibility of the regulation. It was actually embarrassing for people in attendance but this is our representation.

While there was decent attendance, maybe 130 - 145 people as someone already mentioned, there should have been 1,000 people there at minimum which was disappointing. There were very good comments and insight provided, question is whether or not those insights and comments fall on deaf ears or start moving the needle in the other direction. We'll know more in a month or so.

One chart in particular in my opinion sums up the entire mess we're in. It was a stock biomass assessment with recruitment statistics (summer flounder reproduction) compared to the MSA quota set by NMFS. With their own data, it showed a SIGNIFICANT improvement in the fluke biomass between the years 1985 through 2006 with almost a 500% increase in stock over that time frame. Post 2006 the biomass numbers presented tailed off slightly which as Dan pointed out more likely than not coincides with the increased size restrictions and too many females being taken out of the population. Makes perfect sense. But the point is the biomass numbers improved dramatically over that period of time and are at the highest they've been in probably 30 or so years even with the recent modest decline over the last 10 years. Throughout that same time frame, regulations continued to become more and more stringent and overall coastal wide quotas continued being slashed. The issue is the stock assessment goal which NMFS has set for the fishery. As Paul Haertel pointed out during the comments session, the NMFS stock biomass goal is set at a level which has never existed in the history of the fishery so while there's been significant improvement in biomass numbers that fact is being completely discounted and further draconian reductions are being proposed to attain a goal which is probably unrealistic and God only knows how it was arrived at. Most likely in a manner similar to how recreational harvest counts are determined! More about that debacle below.

It was mentioned repeatedly that the recreational and commercial community want to and have done the right thing over the years to rebuild this fishery. The numbers support that statement. in 2010 NMFS themselves said the stock was rebuilt but six years later they take a completely contradictory position based predominantly on the same data. There was much discussion while talking about data concerning how the recreational numbers are calculated and if you weren't on some form of pain killers or Xanax it was a difficult discussion to witness. It's completely out of control. PEMS was mentioned in the discussion as the process or service used to conduct recreational surveys (not sure if I have the acronym correct or what it stands for) but it was basically said the process is completely flawed so in fact no one really knows what the true recreational harvest counts really are much less the commercial counts. Sad statement for a governing body which has been working on this sustainability plan for 40 or more years!

We'll see where the cards fall in a month or so but it was clear last night most of us have been pushed to a point where there's nothing left to lose so why give in. I feel for Party Boats, Charter Boats and people who make a living from the sea, losing your past time is one thing, losing your business is a different issue and revelation all together. That said, almost complete lack of attendance from the significant Charter and Party boat Captains / Operators on this forum at yesterday's meeting was a bit of a surprise and disappointment. Everyone contributes in their own way I get that but as we all mentioned yesterday's meeting was extremely important since we're probably at the door step of what could effectively translate into a complete closure of the fishery and not being there to show support and share your concerns is not helping the cause. Just something to keep in mind when the hammer falls because it's going to.

[AndyS]

A (5) fish bag limit composed of
(3) fish 16 to 19"
(2) fish over 19"

Personally I think when you start fudging numbers like this people just tend to give up and keep whatever they want. An inch here, an inch there, forget about it. Same thing happened with the striped bass a few years ago, X amount at this length, X amount at that length, people just give up.