2024 Fluke Regs

[Gerry Zagorski]

Putting this here as a place holder to keep track of things and possible actions needed as the process unfolds.

Right now we're looking at a 28% reduction for all states and it looks as if Public Comments on NJ options will be just ahead of and at the NJMFC meeting on 3/7/24 where they vote on and finalize our regs.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Putting this here as a place holder to keep track of things and possible actions needed as the process unfolds.

Right now we're looking at a 28% reduction for all states and it looks as if Public Comments on NJ options will be just ahead of and at the NJMFC meeting on 3/7/24 where they vote on and finalize our regs.

Not trying to stir the pot but can someone reference a recent situation when public comments were actually listened to or influenced decisions made by NJMFC, NMFS, ASMFC or MAMFC in prior year regulations. Not trying to be a wet blanket but recreational anglers seemingly go through this process every year, which appears to be nothing more than an MSA mandated check the box process, only to be disappointed when the final regulations are set due to a handful of politically connected individuals with their own personal agendas. If the decisions were for the betterment of the fishery and both sectors no one would care but this fishery has been in a decline and regulations year over year more restrictive for longer than most people here can remember.


Talk about how many times you walk into the same wall before you realize you have to use the door. I hope this year is different but there's no reason whatsoever to believe it will be as we just keep following the same broken process.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I hear you Bill.

Last time we had an opportunity to choose Fluke options was 2022 and there were a fair amount of people who showed up on the webinar and voiced their preference followed by a lively discussion among the council. I think it changed some of the Council members minds and that option was chosen.

Human nature to think if the option you spoke up for and support is voted against, you think your voice was not heard.

Does the Council have a pre disposed favored option and do they discuss it prior to the meeting? Pretty sure they do which means you need get to the council members ahead of time too...

I also advocate a more open, formal and transparent way of collecting and tallying which options the public supports. The decision is ultimately still the council's but at least we'll know what the public wanted and everything is out in the light of day for all to see...

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

I hear you Bill.

Last time we had an opportunity to choose Fluke options was 2022 and there were a fair amount of people who showed up on the webinar and voiced their preference followed by a lively discussion among the council. I think it changed some of the Council members minds and that option was chosen.

Human nature to think if the option you spoke up for and support is voted against, you think your voice was not heard.

Does the Council have a pre disposed favored option and do they discuss it prior to the meeting? Pretty sure they do which means you need get to the council members ahead of time too...

I also advocate a more open, formal and transparent way of collecting and tallying which options the public supports. The decision is ultimately still the council's but at least we'll know what the public wanted and everything is out in the light of day for all to see...

That’s really not accurate .
Pat also explained it as such here after that meeting .

There is a preferered option before the deciding meeting . Anyone liking that option had ZERO need to listen to the webinar or call in .

Way more people were happy with a lengthy season at (3) above 17 1/2”
Than the handful of phone ins liking the longer season was well underscored by how many didn’t get to talk at that meeting , and signed a petition against its results the same night . Over 2000 signatures the next day


It came out well in advance of that meeting there was going to be a push for the longest season , no matter what the cost .(by a member of the council )
And many phone calls were made during the weeks preceding it .

The slot of less than 1” just so happened to be part of getting the longest season .


Then we get to 2023 regs and they state if we open up discussion for fluke regs to change them . We will also be opening other species of the master plan using the new management options .
Well what happens after another season of the slot , they still take away sea bass quota weeks later .

There has not been an honest input allowed for fluke since the original meeting where Kirby Roots was present at in 2017

It’s honestly very sad how quickly we have lost a huge majority of what we are allowed to fish for in just the past 15 years .

NMFS has done nothing correctly to stop the crash , and if anything they continue to make more mistakes yearly accelerating it .

.

[dales529]

Lets be brutally honest IMHO here.
There are basically a handful like 3 / 4 recreational fishermen responding in detail to these posts! All great stuff which I mainly agree with yet its "groundhog day"

What I believe ( Have posted and been involved often in "regulation bs" since 2008. No matter what "Model", "Formula", "Algorithm" put in to make us feel someone more intelligent is managing our fish the below is the same.
1) Any data on RHL is way over calculated
2) Any data on Mortality rate is double way over calculated
3) Any data on Recreational fishing EFFORT is triple way over calculated
3) Any data on trawl surveys for SSB / recruitment also BS as its not done properly or at all.

So all public input / all meetings by MAMFC. ASMFC, NJMFC etc should be held on 02/02/24. GROUNDHOG DAY!

Until the large sum of a few hundred thousand NJ recreational fishermen get off their ass and stop pretending that complaining or offering logical regulations on the internet is going to work than its "Groundhog Day" again for 2024.

Dont ask me what to do either, its all out there so just get off your ass and do it.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

Lets be brutally honest IMHO here.
There are basically a handful like 3 / 4 recreational fishermen responding in detail to these posts! All great stuff which I mainly agree with yet its "groundhog day"

What I believe ( Have posted and been involved often in "regulation bs" since 2008. No matter what "Model", "Formula", "Algorithm" put in to make us feel someone more intelligent is managing our fish the below is the same.
1) Any data on RHL is way over calculated
2) Any data on Mortality rate is double way over calculated
3) Any data on Recreational fishing EFFORT is triple way over calculated
3) Any data on trawl surveys for SSB / recruitment also BS as its not done properly or at all.

So all public input / all meetings by MAMFC. ASMFC, NJMFC etc should be held on 02/02/24. GROUNDHOG DAY!

Until the large sum of a few hundred thousand NJ recreational fishermen get off their ass and stop pretending that complaining or offering logical regulations on the internet is going to work than its "Groundhog Day" again for 2024.

Dont ask me what to do either, its all out there so just get off your ass and do it.

I agree with a lot of that Dave , but feel the way input is both collected and ALLOWED. To be used is not what anyone believes .
If looking for input from everyone wanting to be involved current format and timelines doesn’t allow it .

And just like anything else if we actually got 10% to be involved that would be huge .

Friends I have at FG did a decent survey last year after having success doing so in the freshwater formats .
The saltwater one after extensive work was not used

Currently hearing many models are being run , and a moderate season with a decent bag limit may still be able to happen .
So hopefully we get a little lucky and don’t loose as badly as we have been ,

[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