2024 Fluke Regs

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

The stock assessments for this fishery have all the peer reviewed data you need regarding how the gender composition of the stock has drastically changed over the years at the detriment of females commensurate with changes to increases in size minimums over the last two decades. My above comments aren't based on Rutgers Study, they're based on data from science contained in SAW's.

Common sense would also tell you in any fishery, especially one with a significant commercial presence, if you target exclusively the spawning stock you won't have a fishery for long. That and the fact that the only time this fishery grew in the last 5 decades is when both sectors were harvesting younger age classes and not targeting exclusively older sexually mature age classes made up disproportionately of females. Something current management might want to consider. What fisheries can you speak of which exclusively target breeders, don't protect the spawn, kill millions of juveniles in the process every year which you'd consider sustainable. If you put as much effort and energy into educating yourself with the data that exists as you do into criticizing those who do, one day we might actually be able to have a productive discussion. Until then, keep advocating for peer review as if it's the holy grail of fisheries management since it's done absolute wonders for this fishery over the last 40 years and other stocks which have been wiped out and why we're faced with the strong possibility of a two fish limit in New Jersey next year and a 28% or greater quota cut.

Yeah I don't care about gender composition - I only care about recruitment. You and others who want lower size regulations grasped the sex ratio straw years ago and continue to talk about it as if it's settled science. It's not. "Common sense" is not science, no matter how much it makes sense in your own head.

Fish are not pandas, "breeding females" means nothing when a species' steepness is close to 1. And even if protecting "breeding females" is a valid goal (again, zero evidence that it makes any difference with fluke and most fish), lowering the size limit is no guarantee that you achieve that goal. It's just as likely a 16" fluke is female. In which case you removed a breeding female 2 spawn cycles earlier than otherwise if the regs stayed at 18".

And once again I must point out that there has been zero mention of the obvious elephant in the room - a warming Atlantic that is driving every species northwards for the past few decades. If regulators and biologists aren't taking that into account when they tinker with their models, then you really have something to bitch about.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by reason162

Yeah I don't care about gender composition - I only care about recruitment. You and others who want lower size regulations grasped the sex ratio straw years ago and continue to talk about it as if it's settled science. It's not. "Common sense" is not science, no matter how much it makes sense in your own head.

Fish are not pandas, "breeding females" means nothing when a species' steepness is close to 1. And even if protecting "breeding females" is a valid goal (again, zero evidence that it makes any difference with fluke and most fish), lowering the size limit is no guarantee that you achieve that goal. It's just as likely a 16" fluke is female. In which case you removed a breeding female 2 spawn cycles earlier than otherwise if the regs stayed at 18".

And once again I must point out that there has been zero mention of the obvious elephant in the room - a warming Atlantic that is driving every species northwards for the past few decades. If regulators and biologists aren't taking that into account when they tinker with their models, then you really have something to bitch about.

Actually I have written and asked that question here in many threads .
As recently as the other regulations thread . Why no one is addressing NC commercial landings crushing stocks there , when even a recreational season was only 2 short weeks long .
One day if the migration that’s showing is accurate that would be our stocks here .

Just as states east of us ask for Nj to have stricter guidelines to protect stripers in their states . We should be pushing to protect stocks south of us in the same manner .

[reason162]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Actually I have written and asked that question here in many threads .
As recently as the other regulations thread . Why no one is addressing NC commercial landings crushing stocks there , when even a recreational season was only 2 short weeks long .
One day if the migration that’s showing is accurate that would be our stocks here .

Just as states east of us ask for Nj to have stricter guidelines to protect stripers in their states . We should be pushing to protect stocks south of us in the same manner .

I thought the NC comms had to steam way north and even then they couldn't fill their quotas? The biomass was right off the NC coast when those quotas were decided decades ago.

If the northward trend holds we might become the southern tip of the range for fluke in a few years regardless of what we do on the management side.

And don't get me started on NJ voting down the emergency SB measures last year. Every state's managers/biologists looked at the same data and were sufficiently alarmed to take drastic action - every state except NJ. Absolutely shameful.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by reason162

I thought the NC comms had to steam way north and even then they couldn't fill their quotas? The biomass was right off the NC coast when those quotas were decided decades ago.

If the northward trend holds we might become the southern tip of the range for fluke in a few years regardless of what we do on the management side.

And don't get me started on NJ voting down the emergency SB measures last year. Every state's managers/biologists looked at the same data and were sufficiently alarmed to take drastic action - every state except NJ. Absolutely shameful.

That’s my point . Allowing those boats to go anywhere they want outside of 3 miles to fill a 30k a week quota should be the first thing changed to this fishery .
I know guys working on those 7 day boats , and for about a month of the season they are as far north as Massachusetts.
.

As far as the striped bass , guys can’t see past how great a fishery we have here in NJ .
But at least other states understand the Hudson stocks are only supposed to make up 25% of the fishery east of us .
If Chessy stocks aren’t there the Hudson strain gets all the pressure and could easily be hurt quickly .
.
But more needs to be done by states south of us to correct issues there to make the chessy stocks rebuild solidly .
Might be one of the fisheries they are actually doing the right thing .
As every other inshore fishery we have has been crushed to all time record lows .
.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by reason162

Yeah I don't care about gender composition - I only care about recruitment. You and others who want lower size regulations grasped the sex ratio straw years ago and continue to talk about it as if it's settled science. It's not. "Common sense" is not science, no matter how much it makes sense in your own head.

Fish are not pandas, "breeding females" means nothing when a species' steepness is close to 1. And even if protecting "breeding females" is a valid goal (again, zero evidence that it makes any difference with fluke and most fish), lowering the size limit is no guarantee that you achieve that goal. It's just as likely a 16" fluke is female. In which case you removed a breeding female 2 spawn cycles earlier than otherwise if the regs stayed at 18".

And once again I must point out that there has been zero mention of the obvious elephant in the room - a warming Atlantic that is driving every species northwards for the past few decades. If regulators and biologists aren't taking that into account when they tinker with their models, then you really have something to bitch about.

Another Charles Witek, Peer Review, blind faith disciple. I'll be the first to say the world would be lost without science guiding us, any other mindset would be foolish. Science provides us with data, it's incumbent on us to interpret that data and make smart decisions. God gave us a brain, the use of which is to make those smart decisions. If you believe the management of this fishery has used data from Peer reviewed models and techniques intelligently AND are making smart decisions destroying one of the greatest and most important fisheries the Mid-Atlantic states have ever had, then lets agree to disagree. NMFS and the other Councils and Commissions tasked with managing this fishery are destroying it with asinine policy decisions. The results are all anyone needs to see that.

There's a 20 - 25 year trend, if you take time to do the research, that shows an inverse relationship between size minimum increases, the erosion of females and sexually mature fish across every age class, a proportionate, simultaneous and substantial decline in recruitment levels and a sharp decline in the overall population of the stock. Don't start with steepness, science itself isn't in agreement it has any bearing on this fishery. And the reason I know is I've been involved in those discussions. Next you'll be citing the Tony DiLernia school of management deception by talking about the impacts of ocean acidification on this stock which is absolute BS. You live in a world of theory, I live in a world of analyzing data which is what MSA mandates. The data couldn't be more telling why this fishery is struggling. When a stock declines by 60,000,000 fish or more than a third of its population, it's not due to climate change and neither is the decline in gender composition of females across every age group by 20% - 50%.

Back to Hammers initial post, do you honestly believe the protected commercial fishery would have quotas cut to the degree he posted and NMFS talking about a 28% - 40% decrease in quota if this was climate change. Climate change is maybe impacting stock movements and spatial distribution, it's not causing 60,000,000 fish to disappear from the stock over a relatively short period of time. You wrote "There's no evidence protecting breeding females makes any difference with fluke or any species".....really! So you're of the opinion if the regulations were changed to disallow commercial netting during the spawn and sectors regulations were changed to harvest younger more gender balanced age classes currently succumbing to an assumed 25% annual natural mortality rate the fishery wouldn't be better off? There's no logic in that statement.

Instead of talking about theories, steepness and panda bears, maybe you can share some hard facts as to why you believe the stock is down and we're staring at quotas and regulations reverting to levels in 2024 that could represent 50 year lows. As I've said before, it's easy criticizing others posts. State your case why this fishery in your opinion continues to decline and is in the dire position it is and support those opinions with facts instead of citing people or institutions that caused us to be looking at essentially emergency measures being adopted next year.

You wrote "I don't care about gender composition, I only care about recruitment" That's like saying I don't care about murder rates, I just care about public safety. How do you separate the two? What you're explicitly saying is a biomass made up of, for argument sake, 100 million sexually mature fish with a gender composition of 10% females and 90% males will have the same effects on recruitment as the same biomass made up of 50% males and 50% females. Is that based on settled science which has passed Peer Review? I don't think so and if it is maybe you can point everyone in the right direction where that's been stated.

You also wrote, "Common sense" is not science, not matter how much sense it makes in your own head". After over two decades of a declining fishery, more restrictive regulations almost every year, potential pending cuts which will bring this fishery to regulations the most restrictive in our lifetimes and recruitment levels not seen since the 80's, maybe we should reconsider basing policy decisions on common sense and not the science and Peer Review process you hold in such high esteem in your head as it's resulted in an epic failure with this fishery.

[hartattack]

Here are the choices that NY anglers are facing. These same regs need to be followed by NJ anglers who fish/travel NY waters...... it appears that larger females are doomed SMH
Below are six recreational summer flounder options that will achieve the required minimum 28% reduction. Only one of these options will be chosen to achieve the minimum 28% reduction. Please select your 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice option for the six options listed.

2023 Regulations: 4 fish at 18.5in Open Season: May 4 - Oct 9 (158 days)

Option 1: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Sep 8 (130 days) 28% reduction

Option 2. 3 fish at 19in May 5 - Sep 14 (132 days) 28% reduction

Option 3: 3 fish at 19in May 17 - Sep 20 (126 days) 28% reduction

Option 4: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Jul 24 and Aug 4 - Oct 9 (120 days) 30% reduction

Option 5: 4 fish at 19.5in Apr 1 - Oct 31 (213 days) 37% reduction

Option 6: 3 fish at 18.5in Jun 12 - Aug 28 (77 days) 28% reduction

[Broad Bill]

I remember Kiley Dancy's power point presentation years ago saying increasing size minimums is the best way to manage recreational catch. They've been wrong for decades and they're still wrong. This has been the root problem of this fishery for years causing a radical decline in recruitment and decrease in the spawning stock. As hartattack points out, NY will be harvesting even more females, discard mortality rates will go through the roof and we've been forced yet again by the *******s at NMFS to give the commercial sector exclusive harvest rights to a higher percentage of the overall biomass. Many people will go right to the 4 fish at 19.5" option and an extended season. Looks great on the surface but we're killing this fishery every year we increase size minimums and every year recreational minimums go up we give fish between 14" and those increased minimums exclusively to the harvest of the commercial sector. Shore fisherman get crushed, this is a complete f****** disaster for anyone interested in the conservation of this stock. Absolute f****** morons, won't be long before we're at 6 fish at 24" minimum and a year round season even though we can only access the fishery 4 months out of the year.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by hartattack

Here are the choices that NY anglers are facing. These same regs need to be followed by NJ anglers who fish/travel NY waters...... it appears that larger females are doomed SMH
Below are six recreational summer flounder options that will achieve the required minimum 28% reduction. Only one of these options will be chosen to achieve the minimum 28% reduction. Please select your 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice option for the six options listed.

2023 Regulations: 4 fish at 18.5in Open Season: May 4 - Oct 9 (158 days)

Option 1: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Sep 8 (130 days) 28% reduction

Option 2. 3 fish at 19in May 5 - Sep 14 (132 days) 28% reduction

Option 3: 3 fish at 19in May 17 - Sep 20 (126 days) 28% reduction

Option 4: 3 fish at 19in May 1 - Jul 24 and Aug 4 - Oct 9 (120 days) 30% reduction

Option 5: 4 fish at 19.5in Apr 1 - Oct 31 (213 days) 37% reduction

Option 6: 3 fish at 18.5in Jun 12 - Aug 28 (77 days) 28% reduction

Seems like NY usually leans towards bigger fish so they get the longest season so my bet is they go with option 5.. My preference would be option 3.

[frugalfisherman]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Seems like NY usually leans towards bigger fish so they get the longest season so my bet is they go with option 5.. My preference would be option 3.

If you live in northern Long Island option 5 is great. Coney Island fishing Raritan Bay not so good.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by frugalfisherman

If you live in northern Long Island option 5 is great. Coney Island fishing Raritan Bay not so good.

For sure a very different fishery up that way....