2024 Fluke Regs

[Broad Bill]

First I completely agree with everything on Hammers post. And there's still so much more seriously broken with how sector quotas are set and how the fishery in general is being managed but I won't bore you with those details even though they're substantial. And I'd guarantee, after extensive research, almost no one knows how these statistics are put together to arrive at annual regulations. That's how NMFS, ASMFC and MAMFC want it so the basis of their misguided decisions never see the light of day.

I want to add a few key points to what Hammer said and comment briefly on Dclark2's question about 18" fish. Remember we once had a successful management formula and effective regulations for this fishery which promoted historical growth in the 90's. The stock went from an estimated 78 million population in 1988 at a 13.5" size limit to 183 million population in 2004 before the recreational size minimum started being increased by NMFS with yearly increases raising the then 15" - 15 1/2" size limit in 2001 to an average of 18" to 19" coastal wide today. 105 million fish were added to the stock population in 16 years, if we retained those regulations the stock based on analytics would exceed 300 million fish today and both the commercial and recreational sector would be benefitting from that growth and the stock would be the healthiest its ever been. Why did we switch? Some have an opinion, here's mine. Larger fish, older age classes, bring materially higher market values to commercial operators and NMFS's primary goal for the commercial sector, as stated, is to protect and increase commercial catch values.

What's the easiest way to accomplish that? Increase recreational size minimums so that a substantial portion of the entire summer flounder biomass is now only harvestable by commercial operators by pushing access to and the harvest of those classes from the recreational sector to the commercial sector. Classes which would accomplish NMFS's goal of increasing catch values to the commercial sector. That's entirely what this has been all about for the last 25 years. Adding insult to injury, commercial operators maintained their right to harvest fish at 14" minimums which obviously recreational anglers can't so they have the best of both worlds and since they don't want 14" fish as that's not where the money is they simply get thrown back dead. That's where this fisheries problems began.

Second problem this change of philosophy transformed the fishery from the practice of harvesting younger age classes, protecting the spawning stock and letting the breeders insure the future of the stock to harvesting all sexually mature fish, killing God only knows how many sexually immature juvenile age fish in the process. Fish which represent the future of this and any stock. Short term greed at the expense of long term sustainability of the resource. A management philosophy which will never work providing us the dire regulations we've had forced down our throats for years along with another fishery struggling to survive.

Dclark2, to answer your question, now that the average size minimum of all states is in the area of 18 to 18 1/2", if you do your own research or clean your own fish you'll realize that 100% of fish over 18" are sexually mature fish. And over 95% of fish over 18" are female, compounding the problem, and one reason we've been seeing lower recruitment numbers for decades. NMFS's own data says so as does other independent studies conducted on the fishery.

If you look at male / female size to age class tables, an 18" fish on average is a 6-year old male since they grow slower and don't grow as large as females or a 4-year old female. Now factor in, which most people don't realize, the 25% per year natural mortality rate assumed in this and most fisheries. Think through what that means, it's significant. Year 1, for every 100 fish, the assumption is 25% are lost to just natural mortality, sickness, predation etc., which would bring every new recruitment class from 100 to 75 after the first year. After year two that same class goes to 56. Year three that class, just based on natural mortality, goes to 42 and by year 4 the population of that age class is now 31 fish. After year five, the population loses another 25% or approximately 8 fish and drops to 23 and after year 6 you lose another 6 fish and the age classes population drops to 17 fish. So by increasing size minimums for recreational anglers, NMFS has not only allowed but guaranteed 70% to 85% of every recruitment class will succumb to natural mortality alone, before factoring in the impacts of fish related mortality, before the recreational sector can harvest those classes. Assuming those statistics are remotely accurate, it's amazing there's any 18" fish left for the recreational sector to harvest. This is a very questionable, dangerous and proven failed approach to managing this stock. It's actually counter-intuitive to how most stocks are managed. NMFS and North East Fisheries Science Center "NEFSC" need to seriously rethink their approach to managing the summer flounder fishery. Their argument is current regulations are the best means of managing catch in the recreational sector and gives age classes more years to spawn. The reality is those fish, which we release all season long, get annihilated by commercial netters during their spawn and migration in the fall to their offshore wintering grounds and for the fish that survive the gauntlet of nets, no one managing this fisheries has any idea what impact dragging nets through spawning fish has on the efficacy of the spawn which could be causing massive impacts to annual recruitment. These fish are so stressed out someone at least needs to explore the implications of dragging during the spawn. Why do so many other fisheries have closed seasons during the stocks spawn but with this fishery management refuses to address that issue. Because the fish are still in shore and the powers to be want the commercial sector to have access to them without having to travel 50 to 70 miles offshore two months later and they want the commercial sector to have a 12-month year-round fishery to promote catch values which everyone else pays the price for. As I've stated before, short sided management decisions not for the benefit of the stock itself will only lead to long term problems and that's what we're dealing with here.

Until, if ever, we change this thought process, the management of this fishery will never change and the results we've been seeing over the last two to three decades will follow suit and continue in a downward spiral. Revert back to harvesting younger age classes before natural mortality kills 70% - 85% of those classes, stop targeting the harvest of exclusively sexually mature fish, let the large breeders insure the future of the stock and protect the yearly spawn from the current onslaught by the commercial sector. The population will increase exponentially, landings will follow suit, we'll substantially reduce the harvest of sexually mature fish, reduce discard mortality rates and recruitment will sky rocket higher. Change the regulations to promote the harvest of younger age classes before losing those classes to natural mortality, stop all commercial netting in September and October and this fishery within three years will explode to levels never before seen.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Dclark2

I can’t believe that anyone in this day and age would still think that a person goes fishing to put meat on the table. Those days are long gone when they started having limits. No one would get up in the middle of the night to get on their favorite boat to reserve THEIR spot. That has nothing to do with how many fish you are bringing home. You choose your boat for service provided, friends, mates and captain. GOOD DAY OUT..

I do believe that states that border each other should have the same regulations and seasons as close to possible.

If the breeders are in fact over 18 inches then that limit should be 1 fish and the lesser size should be higher.

Gerry could you help with posting a pole on your site as to people that would like certain size limits ex. 2 fish under 18 and one over just an example....

I'd be happy to post a poll, the problem is there are so many variables, like bag limits, size limits, season length, start and stop dates as well as how many slots and how narrow the slot size is that there could be well over 20 or 30 options. EG you change the bag or size limits and the season length changes or visa versa... That and all those options have to be submitted by that states to the feds to see if they meet the conservation equivalency, in other words, would those options when fed into a model with a bunch of assumptions over exceed a given quota. EG some people might prefer 3 fish at 17 inches and a long season and that might not even get approved as an option because when feed into the model it would project that we'd exceed our quota. So, why even ask people's opinion on an option that will never get approved? This is why the states submit options for approval and once approved it's those options are discussed and eventually put out for public comment.

As far as neighboring states having the same regs, be careful what you wish for... We in NJ can't even agree on what we'd like our own regs to be and now you'd have to include NY in those discussions?? The further you push those decisions out geographically the more disappointed everyone will be since no one will get what they'd prefer. In fact, I think some in our state would even prefer that North and South NJ have different regulations to better serve their local preferences. South usually prefers an earlier Fluke start date and North a later. When you have to make one decision to try and serve both, there has to be compromises and that means neither gets closer to what they want. Can you imagine if NY was involved in this mix too? Would it be great if I were fishing in Raritan bay and didn't have to worry about adhering to the NY and NJ regs? Yes but would it be worth the trade off and compromises that would have to be made? I don't think so. Bottom line is I feel the more local the decisions are made the more it serves the local differences and preferences.

[Detour66]

A 28% reduction?? I thought they admitted that they over estimating the Recreational Angler catch last year by 30-40%? Now this slap in the face!! https://www.outdoorlife.com/conserva...al-catch-data/

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by Detour66

A 28% reduction?? I thought they admitted that they over estimating the Recreational Angler catch last year by 30-40%? Now this slap in the face!! https://www.outdoorlife.com/conserva...al-catch-data/

It wouldn't surprise me this is how it's spun. "New Procedures" indicate we're overfishing the FMP so a 40% cut is required. However, since MRIP has previously overstated historical recreational catch levels by 30% - 40%, instead of reducing quotas by 40% we're ONLY reducing them by 28% representing a 30% benefit to the recreational sector. Smoke and mirrors. They control the data, take no accountability for the integrity of the data and can essentially say anything they want to create the narrative they need to support the result they want and in no case will those results be for the benefit of the recreational sector.

If you complain to the state, they tell you they're constrained by ASMFC and MAMFC. If you go to ASMFC or MAMFC, they tell you they're constrained by NMFS. If you go to NMFS, they'll tell you they're bound by MSA or any of the subsequent modifications. So what's left is lobby or sue the federal government, NOAA and the Secretary of Commerce, and good luck with that. It's a very sad state of affairs involving so much money and corruption that truthfully I don't think there'll ever be decisions made for our benefit or the health of many fisheries and I don't believe our opinions or concerns are even on the radar screen of the people pulling the strings and ultimately responsible for the decisions being made about how these fisheries are being managed.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Detour66

A 28% reduction?? I thought they admitted that they over estimating the Recreational Angler catch last year by 30-40%? Now this slap in the face!! https://www.outdoorlife.com/conserva...al-catch-data/

I hear you and everyone, including the scientists know how flawed MRIP is. Unfortunately it's what we're stuck with for now and according what was spit out when they spun the MRIP prize wheel for last year, we apparently did not exceed our quota. The 28% reduction is more about the declines in the current and future estimated biomass.

[pddmd]

The 28% reduction is based on the biomass being at a level where the previously projected quota falls below the confidence level. There are no comments in the MAFMC press release concerning individual state conservation equivalency.
That being said, this is the timeline going forward on fluke
1) NJMFC fluke committee will meet to discuss possible options for 2024
Including
2 slots 1 over season reduction
1 slot 2 overs season reduction
3 over a single size season +/-
2) Committee will decide on several options to bring to ASMFC for approval
3) if a consensus can be reached by the Council members on the committee it will move forward as the "preferred" option
4) As that is the preferred option, it goes to the full Council as a motion with a second to enable debate
5) Council votes and it goes to the Commissioner for his signature

Gerry has said 2022 the people who wanted the slot stacked the comments, reached out to Council, to get what they wanted. Not the preferred option

[hammer4reel]

While no individual data , their worksheet (which contradicts itself a few times )
Claims the stocks aren’t overfished , but over fishing did occur in 2022 , and continued at a higher level in 2023 estimated landings .


Copy of summer flounder track assessment

draft working paper for peer review only
Summer flounder
2023 Management Track Assessment Report
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
Compiled 06-08-2023

This assessment of the Summer flounder ( Paralichthys d entatus) s tock i s a n u pdate o f t he e xisting 2021 Management Track Assessment (NEFSC 2022). Based on the previous assessment the stock was not overfished and overfishing w as n ot o ccurring. T his 2 023 M anagement Track A ssessment u pdates fi shery ca tch da ta, research survey indices of abundance, the ASAP assessment model, and biological reference points through 2022. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2025.
State of Stock: Based on this updated assessment, the Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) stock is not overfished and overfishing is occurring (Figures 1-2). Retrospective adjustments were not made to the model results. Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) in 2022 was estimated to be 40,994 mt which is 83% of the biomass target for this stock (SSBMSY proxy = 49,561; Figure 1). The 2022 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.464 which is 103% of the overfishing threshold proxy ( FMSY p roxy = 0.451; Figure 2).
Table 1: Catch and model results for Summer flounder. All weights are in (mt), recruitment is in (000s), and FFull is the fishing mortality on fully selected
age 4. Model results assessment.
2013
are unadjusted values from the current updated ASAP
Commerciallandings Commercial discards Recreationallandings Recreationaldiscards 2,119 Catch for Assessment 17,483
Spawning Stock Biomass 52,155 FFull 0.473 Recruits (age 0) 35,208
2014
4,989 830 7,364 2,092 15,275
47,841 0.439 38,700
2015
4,858 703 5,366 1,572 12,498
2016 2017
Data
3,537 2,644 772 906 6,005 4,565 1,482 1,496 11,796 9,611
2018 2019
2,787 4,109 979 783 3,447 3,537 1,003 1,379 8,216 9,808
37,599 38,846 0.304 0.37 43,028 39,933
2020
4,282 1,163 4,571 1,141
11,157
43,024 0.417 35,629
2021
4,936 873 3,092 997 9,898
41,615 0.371 42,323
2022
5,683 680 3,916 1,336 11,615
40,994 0.464 38,371
5,696 863 8,806
Model Results
42,424 39,209 37,040 0.427 0.428 0.345 27,000 30,551 38,876
Table 2: Comparison of biological reference points
assessment and from the current assessment update. An F35% proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and SSB and MSY proxies were based on long-term stochastic projections.
estimated in the previous
2021
2023 0.451 49,561 (38,181 - 64,301) 14,097 (11,020 - 18,114) 46,966 Yes No
0.422 55,217 15,872 49,954
No No
FMSY proxy
SSBMSY (mt)
MSY (mt)
Median recruits (age 1) (000s) Overfishing
Overfished
Projections: Short term projections of catch (OFL) and Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) were derived by sampling from an empirical cumulative distribution function of the 12 most recent recruitment estimates from the ASAP model results (2011-2022). The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights at age used in projections are the most recent 5 year averages; no retrospective adjustments were applied in the projections.
2023 Management Track Assessment Summer flounder draft working paper for peer review only 1

Table 3: Short term projections of total fishery catch (OFL) and Spawning Sstock Biomass (SSB) for Summer flounder based on a harvest scenario of fishing atFMSY proxybetween2024and2025.Catchin2023wasassumedtobe1 5,023 (mt).
Year 2023
Year 2024 2025
Catch (mt) 15,023
Catch (mt) 10,422 10,839
SSB (mt)
37,233 (30,000 - 46,000)
SSB (mt)
38,541 (32,000 - 46,000) 39,127 (33,000 - 46,000)
FF ull 0.622
FF ull 0.451 0.451
Special Comments:
ˆ What are the most important sources of uncertainty in this stock assessment? Explain, and describe qualitatively how they affect the assessment results (such as estimates of biomass, F, recruitment, and population projections).
Declining trends in growth rates and changes in the sex-ratio at age may change the productivity of the stock and in turn affect estimates of the biological reference points. Changes in growth, maturity, and recruitment may be environmentally mediated but mechanisms are unknown.
ˆ Does this assessment model have a retrospective pattern? If so, is the pattern minor, or major? (A major retrospective pattern occurs when the adjusted SSB or FF ull lies outside of the approximate joint confidence region for SSB and FF ull
The 7-year Mohn’s ρ, relative to SSB, was 0.03 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.06 in 2022. The 7-year Mohn’s ρ, relative to F, was 0.01 in the 2021 assessment and was 0.03 in 2022. No retrospective adjustment of SSB or F in 2022 was required.
ˆ Based on this stock assessment, are population projections well determined or uncertain? If this stock is in a rebuilding plan, how do the projections compare to the rebuilding schedule?
Population projections for Summer flounder are reasonably well determined.
ˆ Describe any changes that were made to the current stock assessment, beyond incorporating additional years of data and the effect these changes had on the assessment and stock status.
No major changes, other than the addition of three years of data, were made to the Summer flounder assessment for this update. Minor changes to the survey input CVs and fishery and survey input Effective Sample Sizes improved model diagnostics but had limited affects on the model results.
ˆ If the stock status has changed a lot since the previous assessment, explain why this occurred.
Overfishing status has changed since the last assessment for Summer flounder. The stock status remains
as not overfished but overfishing is occurring.
ˆ Provide qualitative statements describing the condition of the stock that relate to stock status.
The current fishing mortality rate is near the threshold, and so recent near-average recruitment has
resulted in relatively stable SSB. SSB is projected to remain relatively stable in the short term at current fishing rates.
ˆ Indicate what data or studies are currently lacking and which would be needed most to improve this stock assessment in the future.
The Summer flounder assessment could be improved with more intensive and comprehensive sampling of the fishery catch by sex.
ˆ Are there other important issues?
Sufficent length and age sampling of the fishery catch needs to be maintained.
2023 Management Track Assessment Summer flounder draft working paper for peer review only 2

References:
NEFSC. 2022. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Management Track Assessment June 2021. US Dept Comm

[hammer4reel]

Oh well I tried to copy the download . Anyone else looking to see it can find it on the NOAA site looking under summer flounder

[frugalfisherman]

You guys must have gone to college.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by pddmd

The 28% reduction is based on the biomass being at a level where the previously projected quota falls below the confidence level. There are no comments in the MAFMC press release concerning individual state conservation equivalency.
That being said, this is the timeline going forward on fluke
1) NJMFC fluke committee will meet to discuss possible options for 2024
Including
2 slots 1 over season reduction
1 slot 2 overs season reduction
3 over a single size season +/-
2) Committee will decide on several options to bring to ASMFC for approval
3) if a consensus can be reached by the Council members on the committee it will move forward as the "preferred" option
4) As that is the preferred option, it goes to the full Council as a motion with a second to enable debate
5) Council votes and it goes to the Commissioner for his signature

Gerry has said 2022 the people who wanted the slot stacked the comments, reached out to Council, to get what they wanted. Not the preferred option

Pat
Really appreciate you posting here. Been too long that someone was willing to stick their neck out a little. Thanks
I know its a little early in the game but any idea what season reduction would look like for the options that "MAY" be presented? Front end of the season or back end?
2 slots and 1 over would benefit the Biomass depending on slot range of course so any idea on slot range?
What data is the committee going to use knowing the input data is flawed when developing these options?