Fluke and Sea Bass Returns

[Capt Sal]

Originally Posted by bunker dunker

we hear everyday now the phase"follow the science",why don't we?????so if
"science" says that 78%{+ or -} of all fluke over 18 inches are female then why would we have a keeper size of 18"??? i have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but i can tell you that if if there are no hens there will be no eggs.maybe its just me but if the feds really wanted a solution wouldn't they at
least try something new rather than travel a road that keeps getting worse.

BECAUSE IT AIN'T "WE" IT IS "THEM". We did our part with proving the science. We are controlled by the Federal Government in more ways than just Fishing and fish stocks.

Originally Posted by Capt Sal

BECAUSE IT AIN'T "WE" IT IS "THEM". We did our part with proving the science. We are controlled by the Federal Government in more ways than just Fishing and fish stocks.

Capt. Sal....that pretty much sums it up. Marine fisheries controls the data, controls the models they use, controls the states, has all the leverage and has legislation written in such a manner that the scales of justice weigh heavily in their favor. If this were a fresh water fishery regulated by states with no commercial value, this resource would be managed for the benefit of the fishery and general public. Introduce industry, Secretary of Commerce, hundreds of millions of dollars economic impact in a year round fishery for the commercial sector and everything changes.

This fishery has been ripped away from the general public and recreational angler and handed to the commercial sector. Can only imagine what degree of horse trading goes on behind closed doors. Lot of money changing hands funded from the public's sacrifices. Wouldn't surprise me if size minimums in five years were 22" so commercial essentially has the entire biomass to harvest themselves. Remember when NY went to 2 fish @21" in 2010 and what we all felt. Well we're not far behind.

Don't get me wrong, the commercial sector should have access rights just as well as the recreational sector to the resource but the allocation of this resource, and I'm not talking about the 60 / 40 split, couldn't be any more inequitable than it is with the regulations in place. 3 more days in a season.....please. What ever happened to "Enough is Enough"? Year round fishery for commercial, 150 odd days recreational. 14" fish size minimum to commercial, 18" for NJ and 19" for NY and Ct. Those size minimums based on the stock assessments mean length by sex and age classes means recreational at 18" don't start harvesting females until age 4 and males since they have a slower and shorter growth rate won't be harvested until age 6. Age 6 with a 25% yearly natural mortality factor! 83% of the male age class will succumb to natural predation by the time our 18" size minimum allows those fish to be harvested recreationally. And that's before factoring in the impacts of discard mortality and commercial harvest of those age classes! And marine fisheries disputes recreational is harvesting 90% - 95% females. Commercial as a result of the size minimum differential has based on my calculations between 40 - 50 million more fish available for harvest than recreational, a staggering discrepancy between sectors. Someone please refer me to the provision in MSA that allows for that type of inconsistency in the allocation of this stock to exist.

[bunker dunker]

dakota best of luck and i hope and pray that someday the feds will call you and ask you to help with this disaster.give & take works in all other states,why not where?.
take & take has always and will always destroy no matter what situation.they never did any studies they just kept taking.started with 13 or 14 inches and kept going up and as long as we put up with it they kept raising it.they don't care about science,quota,studies or us,they just care about the bottom line that takes up space in their pockets.

Originally Posted by bunker dunker

dakota best of luck and i hope and pray that someday the feds will call you and ask you to help with this disaster.give & take works in all other states,why not where?.
take & take has always and will always destroy no matter what situation.they never did any studies they just kept taking.started with 13 or 14 inches and kept going up and as long as we put up with it they kept raising it.they don't care about science,quota,studies or us,they just care about the bottom line that takes up space in their pockets.

Didn't wait for the feds to call me, I called them. They have my material and quite frankly could care less. In '19 and '20, I had probably a dozen calls with high level people and arguably 40 - 50 email exchanges with the Commission, Council, North East Science Center "NESC" Woods Hole, Technical Committee and Advisory Panel Members including the lead scientist overseeing this fishery. Names aren't important but state representatives were included from every state in the Mid-Atlantic and the highest ranking Members of Marine Fisheries, the Commission and Council were included in all correspondence. End result is it all falls on deaf ears.

Our problem as a sector is we have limited voice. It takes money and resources for change to happen. Many don't know the commercial sector over the years has successfully sued the federal government regarding increased quotas. If your interested in a good read, search for "The Summer Flounder Chronicles: Science, Politics and Litigation 1975 - 2000 written by Mark Terceiro, lead scientist at NMFS, NESC.

If we're hanging our hats on MSA and MRIP reform, I think we're going to be disappointed in what the future holds. If MSA and subsequent reauthorizations haven't helped in almost 50 years, I'm not holding out hope they will in the near future. Also don't believe Washington will allow their multi-million investment in MRIP go by the wayside. I do however believe there's potential room arguing NMFS and the Commerce Department are in violation of MSA National Standards 4 – “Allocations” as well as FMP 9.2.1.4 (A), (B) and (C) “regarding non-discriminatory measures between fisherman of all states”, “fair and equitable allocation of the resources” “carried out in such a manner not to prejudice any individual, corporation or other entity acquiring excessive shares of such privileges”.

Problem we have starting that fight, funding. My opinion, parties benefiting from recreational spend should fund such a campaign. If the recreational sector can't figure out a way to organize as commercial has and litigate current legislation on the books to get our fair share of the resource, I'm afraid we're destined to the same fate of getting the proverbial short end of the stick going forward. Don't mean to be the wet blanket in all this or throw in the towel but we're David fighting Goliath without the benefit of a sling shot this time around.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Didn't wait for the feds to call me, I called them. They have my material and quite frankly could care less. In '19 and '20, I had probably a dozen calls with high level people and arguably 40 - 50 email exchanges with the Commission, Council, North East Science Center "NESC" Woods Hole, Technical Committee and Advisory Panel Members including the lead scientist overseeing this fishery. Names aren't important but state representatives were included from every state in the Mid-Atlantic and the highest ranking Members of Marine Fisheries, the Commission and Council were included in all correspondence. End result is it all falls on deaf ears.

Our problem as a sector is we have no voice. Recreational is fragmented, not organized, and no funding or true lobbying effort. It takes money, commitment, resources for change to happen. Many don't know the commercial sector over the years has successfully sued the federal government regarding increased quotas. If your interested in a good read, search for "The Summer Flounder Chronicles: Science, Politics and Litigation 1975 - 2000 written by Mark Terceiro, lead scientist at NMFS, NESC.

If we're hanging our hats on MSA and MRIP reform, I think we're going to be disappointed in what the future holds. If MSA and subsequent reauthorizations haven't helped in almost 50 years, I'm not holding out hope they will in the near future. Also don't believe Washington will allow their multi-million investment in MRIP go by the wayside. I do however believe there's potential room arguing NMFS and the Commerce Department are in violation of MSA National Standards 4 – “Allocations” as well as FMP 9.2.1.4 (A), (B) and (C) “regarding non-discriminatory measures between fisherman of all states”, “fair and equitable allocation of the resources” “carried out in such a manner not to prejudice any individual, corporation or other entity acquiring excessive shares of such privileges”.

Problem we have starting that fight, funding. My opinion, the parties benefiting from recreational spend should be approached to fund such a campaign. Bait and tackle industry, rod and reel manufacturers, boat dealers or manufacturers etc. Sycamore Partners who owns Pure Fishing who owns Berkley should fund the initiative alone based on the profits they make in one year from Gulp. If they refuse, don't use their product and I'm sure we'd have their attention. If the recreational sector can't figure out a way to organize as commercial has and litigate current legislation on the books to get our fair share of the resource, than I'm afraid we're destined to the same fate of getting the proverbial short end of the stick from here on out. Don't mean to be the wet blanket in all this or throw in the towel but we're David fighting Goliath and we don't even have the benefit of a sling shot this time around.

Every manufacture gives a ton of money to the ASA to fight for fisherman’s rights .
I believe it’s actually a decent percentage of all net sales .
It’s up to groups to approach the ASA for funding for lawsuits .


.

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Every manufacture gives a ton of money to the ASA to fight for fisherman’s rights .
I believe it’s actually a decent percentage of all net sales .
It’s up to groups to approach the ASA for funding for lawsuits .


.

One last post I'd like to leave the board with and it'll be my last regarding regulations. The use of increased size minimums to handicap the recreational sector is at the center of all that's wrong with this fishery. It creates a huge disparity in the harvest rights of the biomass which I'll illustrate. Its the cause of significantly more females being harvested proportionately both recreationally and commercially which is a contributing factor of why recruitment levels have tanked and discard mortality levels have gone through the roof. That's not to say I agree with all the data, but it is the data being used to make policy decisions and regulate this fishery.

The last reported biomass in 2018 was 121 million fish. Of that, ~70 million were age groups 0 (new recruits / eggs) or 1 year old fish and under the 14" threshold for the commercial sector as well. Age two exceeds the 14" threshold so commercial had ~51 million fish to harvest from the biomass. Conversely, an 18" fish (NJ size minimum) allows for 4 yr old females and 6 year old males to begin being harvested. Based on the biomass population by age that gives NJ recreational anglers ~13 million fish to harvest, an almost 40 million difference in the number of fish available between sectors. Use NY and Ct. at 19". the disparity is even greater.

So the question. If size minimums create a 40 - 45 million disparity in fish eligible to be harvested by sector and if the funding is there to support a law suit against marine fisheries, why haven't those funds been used to argue a 4" to 5" size minimum difference between commercial and recreational is a violation of MSA National Standards 4 addressing fair allocation of the resource. It seems to me from reading the legislation, that standard was enacted to prevent precisely the unfair allocation size minimums have created between sectors. There's no guarantee a lawsuit would be successful but based on the complete inequity size minimum differentials have caused in this fishery along with the negative impacts to the stock itself, why not at least try. Curious what others opinions are.

[reason162]

You are aware that the 14" min size limit was imposed on comms to curb high grading?

Originally Posted by reason162

You are aware that the 14" min size limit was imposed on comms to curb high grading?

As acutely aware as I am it didn't accomplish it's intended purpose. All you need to do is track the average commercial landings weights over the last 20 years and the age classes harvested over that same time frame. Sector went from harvesting predominantly age classes 1-3 to predominantly 3-5 age groups. Average landings weight doubled and discard rates soared due to selective harvest. How many younger age class fish do you think survive an hour and a half tow. Just about every fish coming up in a plugged net will go back belly up.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

As acutely aware as I am it didn't accomplish it's intended purpose. All you need to do is track the average commercial landings weights over the last 20 years and the age classes harvested over that same time frame. Sector went from harvesting predominantly age classes 1-3 to predominantly 3-5 age groups. Average landings weight doubled and discard rates soared due to selective harvest. How many younger age class fish do you think survive an hour and a half tow. Just about every fish coming up in a plugged net will go back belly up.

How does forcing comms to take 14" fluke lead to more selective harvesting?

They don't want to take 14" fluke. Smaller fish are worth less per lb. They are forced to take 14" fluke bc otherwise they discard and high grade to bigger fish which are worth more.

I assume you know that the comms fought tooth and nail over the 14" limit. It was imposed upon them by fishery managers.

Originally Posted by reason162

How does forcing comms to take 14" fluke lead to more selective harvesting?

They don't want to take 14" fluke. Smaller fish are worth less per lb. They are forced to take 14" fluke bc otherwise they discard and high grade to bigger fish which are worth more.

I assume you know that the comms fought tooth and nail over the 14" limit. It was imposed upon them by fishery managers.

I'm trying to be nice but truthfully I'm shocked at your question. Your position is basically if commercial had an 8" minimum size, they would be forced to harvest 8" fish. Not true.
They target and harvest fish that bring the higher market prices. That will always be larger fish than 14". Minimumm size that is four to five inches lower than recreational is not an imposition at all, it provides flexibility to the commercial sector if they choose to harvest smaller fish for whatever reason. Reality is they're not, you seem to think they are. If that were true, why have commercial landings by age gone from harvesting predominantly 2-3 year-old fish twenty years ago to predominantly 3-5 year old fish today? 3 to 5-year-old fish, male or female, are not 14". Landing weights over the last 20 years subsequent to the 14" minimum being put in place have doubled for commercial. So if you think of 14" fish on average weighs 2 1/2 lbs., you need to let me know where you're fishing. Commercial operators are harvesting larger age class fish because that's where the higher market value is. Why do you think ex- vessel values have increased even though quotas have been cut. 14" fish are collateral damage in the commercial fishery. All you need to do is reference the dead discard levels in the 57th stock assessment I referenced earlier on observed commercial trawls and it'll illustrate the carnage taking place from commercial operations. Because commercial concerns choose to harvest older age groups in spite of the 14" minimum they have, that's called selective harvest. Select to retain the larger fish and select to toss the smaller less valuable fish back dead. Nobody is forcing them to keep the smaller fish and I assure you they're not.