How many going to fluke meeting

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

BB: Keep in mind this is as I am sure you are aware a NJMFC meeting and their obligation is to decide on the options dictated by ASMFC and MAMFC to be compliant so no reason not to weigh in on the options at this meeting.
The larger issue as you stated is on the federal level but we all can at least support the for hire, tackle shops and related service industries that could benefit most from the options dumped down to our state.
I opt for # 32 / 3 @ 18 / 145 days ,the longest season for economic and moral support to those NJ industries.

The Feds admit MRIP data on the recreational side is flawed up to 40% relative to NJ recreational effort, mortality and landings so it appears NJ recreational fishing for summer flounder has little to no proven effect on recruitment or biomass of the stock.
While I don't like the options for the overall stock this meeting is what's available for NJ at this given time and the rest is another battle which I agree we have been fighting way too long with little results on the Federal level.

Either way NJ Rec Fishermen should still make comments and attend the meeting to support the best option in their opinion so NJMFC can hear and make the best decision possible. I hope its what appears to be overwhelming support for option #32.

Having said all that I understand that the whole "keeping 18" females " is against rebuilding a stock in decline and agree with your opinion that protecting the spawn and further commercial regulation is mandatory just remain in my opinion its not this meeting.

This meeting is about our access to the fishery while maintaining the 28% cut
.
All approved option meet the standard being imposed for rebuild .

So now it’s all about how we want the seasons access to break down .

.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

This meeting is about our access to the fishery while maintaining the 28% cut
.
All approved option meet the standard being imposed for rebuild .

So now it’s all about how we want the seasons access to break down .

.

Exactly: Apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

Exactly: Apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

You were on access portion ,
But it’s also meeting the rebuild requirements

[Broad Bill]

Dales and Hammer, I agree with both your posts. And Dales I know the problem starts at the federal level and as I said trickles down to the states from there. I've been to too many of these meetings where the voice of the recreational angler is essentially ignored with decisions made counter to what overwhelmingly was favored at the meeting. And we usually find out later it was a handful of people involved in the decision making process with a completely different agenda than the overall recreational angling community.

I'm not suggesting people don't attend, I guess maybe I'm just beaten down by the number of times our opinions have fallen on deaf ears which I know is what many (not all) involved in this process, both at a federal and state level, want.

I hope the majority gets what they want, just don't be surprised if a different option at the last minute comes out of left field. No one ever sees it coming.

[Broad Bill]

Someone help me understand the logic here. Option 32 is 3 fish at 18" for 145 days. Option 24 is for 3 fish, one a micro slot again between 17" and 18" and 2 over 18" with a 89 day season or 56 days less of fishing effort or an ~40% shorter season. EVERYTHING about recreational catch and MRIP is based on fishing effort so we have 56 days less fishing effort, same possession limit albeit one fish a slot and the projected reduction in catch is higher for option 24 by only 8/10th of a percent from 28.2% to 29%!

How do the models remove 56 days from a season, still keep a three fish possession limit and the only difference is one allows the third fish to be over 18" and the other the third fish has to be between 17" and 18", which will probably result in more fish killed being discarded, and there's only an 8/10th of a percent difference in projected catch!

Compare the same between option 32 and 23 with three fish at 17.5" and 41 less days in the season. Everyone complained this year about how hard it is to find fish between 17" and 18" yet 41 days less in a season by giving up a half inch in size minimum equates to the same conservational equivalency as option 32. Lose 30% of the season for three size fish that are hard to come by and the percentage reduction in catch mirrors option 32. I'd love to see how these models work because on the surface from a relative perspective they don't make any sense.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Someone help me understand the logic here. Option 32 is 3 fish at 18" for 145 days. Option 24 is for 3 fish, one a micro slot again between 17" and 18" and 2 over 18" with a 89 day season or 56 days less of fishing effort or an ~40% shorter season. EVERYTHING about recreational catch and MRIP is based on fishing effort so we have 56 days less fishing effort, same possession limit albeit one fish a slot and the projected reduction in catch is higher for option 24 by only 8/10th of a percent from 28.2% to 29%!

How do the models remove 56 days from a season, still keep a three fish possession limit and the only difference is one allows the third fish to be over 18" and the other the third fish has to be between 17" and 18", which will probably result in more fish killed being discarded, and there's only an 8/10th of a percent difference in projected catch!

Compare the same between option 32 and 23 with three fish at 17.5" and 41 less days in the season. Everyone complained this year about how hard it is to find fish between 17" and 18" yet 41 days less in a season by giving up a half inch in size minimum equates to the same conservational equivalency as option 32. Lose 30% of the season for three size fish that are hard to come by and the percentage reduction in catch mirrors option 32. I'd love to see how these models work because on the surface from a relative perspective they don't make any sense.

Add in totals are based on tonnage , so 17 1/2” fish weigh less .
So you should be able to harvest more. .


So has to be based on throwing back more fish (which are heavier ) to find the shorter fish .

We have said if for years , throw back 10 shorts with their 40% mortality and you over fished by 30 % and didn’t take a fish home .
.

Then throw in the belief that the majority of the male fish stay well offshore all year . Meaning most fish targeted here will be females no matter what the size is .

[Broad Bill]

Hammer I know a 17 1/2" or 17" fish usually weigh less but again that depends on its gender and the slot will cause higher discard mortality while in theory a straight 17 1/2" should reduce discard mortality. The decrease in fishing effort by 56 or 41 days should cause substantially greater catch reductions than what the models are calculating relative to a straight 3 fish at 18". 17" or 17 1/2" don't weigh 30% - 40% less than 18" inch fish. I especially don't understand the marginal difference in catch reduction between options 32 and 23 with a season shortened by 41 days or 30%, a 1/2 inch reduction in size minimum with 30% less days to fish should produce significantly greater catch reductions than a fraction of a percentage.

The other point in you post regarding males hanging further offshore. Recreational is an inshore fishery and from a relative standpoint will have equal impact on all options whether we're harvesting mostly makes or females. Commercial's catch is highly geared around spring, fall and winter when the stock is schooled up so they're harvesting more females than males at that time. I had a few friends years back working in processing plants and asked them how many fluke in the fall coming in are females versus males. Females have to make the migration offshore just like males. Their answers were in September and October, the majority of fish they processed were females loaded with eggs.

[pddmd]

Just a thought
We just spent 2 years focusing our catch on a small component of the fishery
17"-18" fish
That will greatly impact the expected success of landing 18"-19"fish this year
Dropping down to a slot sized fish will be impacting a year class that we have been releasing throughout
Just a thought as it is a question I have asked earlier

I always think of the quote...
"There are 3 types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.."