Fluke and Sea Bass Returns

[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.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

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.

No.

My point is - if they drag up a 14" fish, they are forced to keep it and count it towards their quota. That's why they opposed the smaller size limit.

Nothing else you're claiming has anything to do with the 14" comm limit. If draggers are catching larger fish it's not bc there's a smaller size limit - that defies all logic. Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof.

I'm not sure if you're confused about this or just using the 14" comm limit cynically to whip up support for your dubious narrative. IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste.

Originally Posted by reason162

No.

My point is - if they drag up a 14" fish, they are forced to keep it and count it towards their quota. That's why they opposed the smaller size limit.

Nothing else you're claiming has anything to do with the 14" comm limit. If draggers are catching larger fish it's not bc there's a smaller size limit - that defies all logic. Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof.

I'm not sure if you're confused about this or just using the 14" comm limit cynically to whip up support for your dubious narrative. IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste.

I'll put this in terms a 3-yr old can understand just for your benefit. Difference in size minimums between NJ (18"), NY and CT (19") and the commercial size minimum of 14" gives the commercial sector approximately 40 to 45 million more fish to harvest than recreational anglers. That's a fact based on the data from science you so vehemently defend.

There is a significant difference in market prices between small, medium, large and jumbo fish. Commercial operators will harvest larger fish with higher market values and discard smaller fish. If you believe they're throwing back higher market value fish and keeping lesser market value smaller fish of 14", you should consider counseling. Look at the attached chart from the 57th assessment and see how commercial discard mortality as a percentage of landings exploded when commercial operators starting selectively targeting larger higher market value fish. Those percentages are nothing less than tragic. If you need help finding that information since I know you struggle with this, those tables are on pages 124, 125, 128 and 129 of the 66th SAW. Almost 100% in 2001, 85% in 2006, 140% in 2007, approxmately 100% in 2008 and 60% in 2009. Those statistics come from official observers on board vessels. In 2007 alone on observed trips, if the commercial sector harvested1,000,000 lbs, they killed an additional 1,400,000 lbs of smaller fish and tossed them overboard in the process. And you would ask us to believe they kept smaller fish fetching maybe $1.25 a lb. back at the docks and discarded larger fish at maybe $5. a lb. because they are bound by a 14" size minimum. And you call my narrative dubious.

I never said commercial are targeting larger fish because of the 14". I said they're targeting them because of higher market values which for the third time is called SELECTIVE HARVEST. And they're able to do so because recreational are forced to release those same fish due to bloated minimums which in turn commercial harvest to maximize catch values. Unless of course you want us to believe they're actually trying to minimize catch values by retaining smaller fish. Because recreational has no choice but to release them, it's not referred to as SELECTIVE HARVEST.

If per your argument 14' fish were forced on commercials to reduce hygrading and discards, which is laughable, why not force it on recreational anglers to cause the same result. It's called a slot and the recreational community has been asking for one for years. A request that has fallen on deaf ears for all those years. We can catch 3 fish at 18" per day but not 3 fish at 16", reduce the insane 10 to 1 discard ratio we're currently operating at and save a million or more female breeders in the process but that's not plausible because of these moronic regulations.

Maybe they're better at deploying their gear, maybe there are larger fish represented in the population, or some combination thereof. Or maybe they're simply destroying another stock. Nets have no conscience. Do yourself a favor, before opining on any of this talk to guys who've worked on commercial boats and ask them how this all works and how much waste is involved in the commercial fishery. Then do yourself a favor and research what happens with discard mortality when SELECTIVE HARVEST is involved. Then come back and we can have an intellectual fact based debate.

IDGAF about the draggers, but whatever else is wrong with fisheries management re fluke the 14" comm min size is not part of it. It was a step in the right direction to limiting waste. You couldn't be more wrong about limiting waste. The attached graph completely blows your statement out of the water. Dead discard mortality percentages are at record highs so I guess per you federal observers data must be dubious as well.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

I'll put this in terms a 3-yr old can understand just for your benefit.

Lol look, I understand that you are used to a chorus of agreement here on njfishing - please don't get too upset when someone looks at your tenuous claims and isn't convinced.

If comms are high grading 14"+ fluke, they are violating the law. If you think that's happening then the issue is enforcement, not the 14" minimum.

Your goal is to lower the rec limit, roping in the comm limit adds nothing to your argument except pad the illusion that us rec anglers are getting ****ed from all corners. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the rec limit should be based on best avail science, but it has nothing to do with the comm size limit. Just pointing that out.

[Billfish715]

This started out with my reaction (picture) of the posted prices for fluke and seabass at a local, well-respected fish market. The fluke fillets that I saw for sale were from average sized (market sized ) fish in the 14-18 inch range. The current commercial limit for fluke for each trip is 200 pounds. Do the math. Even if the fluke weigh 1lb. that means once they catch 200 fish, they are done. There is no doubt that the smaller fish bring in smaller dollars, so, where do you think they go if there are larger fish in the trawl; especially if the larger fish bring in bigger dollars? Two hundred pounds is still the same, but two hundred pounds of fish that bring in more money per pound is what brings the temptation to discard the smaller fish. I think it's more about the discards that causes the ire of recreational fishermen. Maybe Dakota know more about how the commercial discards (just like the rec's mortality rates) are figured into the commercial quotas. Or are they?

If smaller fluke are fetching $20 per pound at the market, how much will the fillets from a 5 or 6 pound fish bring?

[Capt Sal]

Originally Posted by reason162

Lol look, I understand that you are used to a chorus of agreement here on njfishing - please don't get too upset when someone looks at your tenuous claims and isn't convinced.

If comms are high grading 14"+ fluke, they are violating the law. If you think that's happening then the issue is enforcement, not the 14" minimum.

Your goal is to lower the rec limit, roping in the comm limit adds nothing to your argument except pad the illusion that us rec anglers are getting ****ed from all corners. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the rec limit should be based on best avail science, but it has nothing to do with the comm size limit. Just pointing that out.

I find your comments to be insulting to a person that has helped the recreational fisherman for a long time. Maybe you should listen to what he says and learn something.

[Billfish715]

Well said, Captain Sal. This more for me and less for thee attitude has to stop. Rules are rules and are set to provide limits to people’s greed. It sounds as if Reason wants it all. I’m not sure what his rules are or are not. Unless rules are changed and made more equitable for everyone, we are stuck with what we have. Facts and figures are all we have as ammunition in seeking any changes.we have a knowledgeable and supportive friend and NJF.com member who devotes his time for us. Give him the respect that he’s due.

Wasteful management programs are our nemesis. Until they are balanced, this controversy will continue. We need the facts and figures and we need friends like Dakota.