Petition to Change Summer Flounder Regulations

[shrimpman steve]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

See that even Florida fisherman get it .
Wish more NJ guys did .

Thanks Steve

My pleasure guys. Gotta stick together

[shrimpman steve]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Steve can always count on you, thanks my friend!

Anytime Tom!

[Detour66]

I posted it on two Fluke fishing sites that I belong to on Facebook. Let's see if that helps!

Originally Posted by Detour66

I posted it on two Fluke fishing sites that I belong to on Facebook. Let's see if that helps!

Detour thanks so much, every signature matters!

[AndyS]

I'll sign the petition but how are you aware of this "The stock has lost 70 million in population between 2010 and 2017. 70 million or approximately 40% of the overall population. Mature female population has declined by more than 35 million fish or 50% over the same period. Recruitment levels, the future of every stock, are lower than they were in the 80's. Discard rates are near all time highs because of asinine regulations. In three years around 2010, the recreational sector caught approximately 157 million fish in order to harvest 11 million because of insane increased size minimums. Add insult to injury, 30% of the recreational harvest limit is subsequently lost to release mortality because they're forced to release fish which for decades were eligible for harvest", but NOAA, ( National Ocean Atmospheric Association) ASMFC ( Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) MAMFC (Middle Atlantic Marine Fishery Council) are unaware of this, are you looking at different data than them. Where do you get your information from ?

Originally Posted by AndyS

I'll sign the petition but how are you aware of this "The stock has lost 70 million in population between 2010 and 2017. 70 million or approximately 40% of the overall population. Mature female population has declined by more than 35 million fish or 50% over the same period. Recruitment levels, the future of every stock, are lower than they were in the 80's. Discard rates are near all time highs because of asinine regulations. In three years around 2010, the recreational sector caught approximately 157 million fish in order to harvest 11 million because of insane increased size minimums. Add insult to injury, 30% of the recreational harvest limit is subsequently lost to release mortality because they're forced to release fish which for decades were eligible for harvest", but NOAA, ( National Ocean Atmospheric Association) ASMFC ( Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) MAMFC (Middle Atlantic Marine Fishery Council) are unaware of this, are you looking at different data than them. Where do you get your information from ?

Andy thanks for signing. Fair question about where I get my information from. I've spent a good amount of time over the last five years building tables and comparing historical data to various trends to policy decisions and regulations in place over the last 40 or more years. A majority of the data used in my analysis and the basis of my conclusions and recommendations comes directly from the 66th Summer Flounder Stock Assessment "SAW", the yearly Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document and PP presentations and Memorandums from numerous ASMFC and MAFMC calls and webinars. I've developed tables and trend analysis over these past five years that compares and evaluates policy changes in the regulations to corresponding impacts on the stock.

The 66th SAW is 456 pages long. I've poured through the entire document numerous times as I have the 57th Stock Assessment.
Here's a link to the pdf for the detailed 66th SAW if your interested.

http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5d...t_SAW_SARC.pdf

To answer a few of your questions, the biomass population is shown on page 240 of the SAW. In 2010 the population was estimated at ~194 million fish, in 2017 it had declined to ~122 million, a 72 million or ~37% decrease in 7 short years. Same time frame size minimums were increased from 14" to 15.5" in the nineties (the period of exponential growth in this fishery) to between 18" and 21" for NJ, NY, Ct. and RI around 2010, since reduced to the still elevated 18" and 19" for those four states for the last 5 or 6 years. Four states that combined make up almost 85% of the summer flounder recreational quota. At that point, we exceeded the threshold of harvesting a balanced mix of males and females and the composition and balance in the fishery completely changed and the fishery has declined ever since driven by ridiculously poor recruitment classes caused by the decimation of the spawning stock and mature female population. Spawning Stock Biomass population in metric tons is with great detail extrapolated from the graph on page 449 of the 66th SAW for your reference. Look at the trend yourself, its continuing to decrease as the regulations mandate or promote the harvest of sexually mature older age classes. You don't need science to figure that out, it's common sense.

As far as the substantial declines in sexually mature females in the population, all you really need to read is the Sex Ratio section on pages 60 and 61. EVERY relevant age group 3 years and above (essentially the spawning stock biomass) has decreased or strongly decreased as size minimums were increased over the last two decades, intensifying this past decade. Read the section titled Sex Ratio, decreased or strongly decreased female proportions is mentioned 14 times, increased proportion is mentioned once for age group 1 (about 75% sexually mature group) in the spring indices. The regulations today are targeting almost exclusively the spawning stock and in particular a higher proportion of mature female breeders. Doesn't take a genius to understand it, just need to analyze the data as I have.

But to quantify the magnitude of these declines, I took the Sex Ratio statistics on pages 60 and 61, applied them to the Maturity statistics on pages 61 thru 64 and applied those percentage to the biomass population tables by age group on page 240 referenced above. In addition, I took an average between the spring and fall female proportion trawl studies by year on pages 315 and 316 and again applied them to the biomass population statistics for a more detailed analysis. Each analysis shows significant declines in the female proportion of older age groups, the reason recruitment statistics have fallen off the cliff.

As far as discard statistics, look at the below table based on a memorandum from Kiley Dancy to Chris Moore included in Kiley's PP presentation at the December Summer Flounder Meeting in Annapolis Maryland I attended. Image attached. In particular, look at the catch to discard numbers for the three years 2009 thru 2011, 165 million fish caught to harvest 11 million recreationally. And look at how the regulations have increased the release percentages over the years from a low of 19% to a high of 94%. The recreational sector has essentially been turned into a catch and release fishery.

To answer your questions about recruitment statistics, again reference the biomass population tables, age 0 represents new recruits each year. As you will see from those tables on page 240, todays recruitment is considerably lower than what it was in the nineties even at a considerably greater biomass population because again regulations have completely altered the gender composition of this fishery.

Your question regarding my statement that discard mortality now makes up 30% of the Recreational Harvest Limit "RHL", reference second attached file source "The Summer Flounder Specifications" document from the October 2019 Joint Meeting. Elevated size minimums and its impacts on catch composition has reduced the harvest portion of the recreational quota by 20% - 25%. It's precisely why 7,000,000 directed recreational summer flounder trips in 2018 resulted in ZERO fish being retained! Just ponder that statistic for a minute, mind blowing.

My work and analysis is not just supported by but it's based on marine fisheries data. Data and trends the public doesn't hear about because fisheries management doesn't want it heard. It's intended to show key trends in significant attributes of the fishery relative to policy decisions. Believe me when I say this, the increase of recreational size minimums beyond 15" - 16" created an imbalance in this fishery that has continued from 2010 and will continue until the regulations are changed to the regulations in place in the nineties that instilled a balance between sectors and a balance between the gender composition of the stock. The regulations we've been living with since approximately 2010 are literally killing this all important fishery. That's, to answer your earlier question, what this is all about.

Again I appreciate you signing the petition even if you weren't quite sure why. Hopefully now you know why. I sincerely appreciate your support.

Just thinking out loud, we should have over 10,000 signatures by now. We have about 325 which I thank those who have signed but with the number of people effected by these regulations, with the fishery at risk, and the number of people who utilize this resource recreationally or as a source of income, for the life of me I don't understand how this petition isn't being signed by significantly more people.

Not going to change my plans one bit but afraid with that amount of signatures, Washington, fisheries management and our elected officials by default will use that as an excuse to say most anglers and industry people consider the regulation fair and to be working which is anything but the truth.

I hope I'm wrong!

[togzilla]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Just thinking out loud, we should have over 10,000 signatures by now. We have about 325 which I thank those who have signed but with the number of people effected by these regulations, with the fishery at risk, and the number of people who utilize this resource recreationally or as a source of income, for the life of me I don't understand how this petition isn't being signed by significantly more people.

Not going to change my plans one bit but afraid with that amount of signatures, Washington, fisheries management and our elected officials by default will use that as an excuse to say most anglers and industry people consider the regulation fair and to be working which is anything but the truth.

I hope I'm wrong!

Perhaps if you had not used a link from “Change.org” you would have had more people sign up

Originally Posted by togzilla

Perhaps if you had not used a link from “Change.org” you would have had more people sign up

Tog,

Help me understand your point. I'm not a technical guy and asked for help from the site for the best way to doing something like this online. Got zero replies so like Capt. Dave "MuskyNut" who got 1,900 plus people to sign in the freshwater forum for the petition to allow public access rights to Greenwood Lake, I went online and used Change.org. I tried to make this as simple as possible for multiple websites and people here to sign so thought a web based petition would fit the mold. My thought process was if it worked for the Greenwood Lake access rights petition, we'd far exceed those signatures just based on the number of saltwater anglers, commercial anglers and businesses who depend on this fishery. The petition has almost 12,000 views but only 329 signatures. Just surprised at that ratio.

What in your opinion is the downside of Change.org. Would appreciate your insight.

[togzilla]

I signed the petition but there are many people that would see “Change.org” and refrain from going any further given their hard left political philosophy. Not trying to start a political debate but this country is so divided right now that I’m sure some who saw this simply ignored it. After I signed the petition I was immediately asked for a donation for a political issue. Whether you are far on the right or left, if you want to get maximum participation on an issue like this from an online forum where you have no idea of people’s political preference I would make sure your link does not involve any political ties. While I don’t think for a minute that was your intent others may not.