NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke

[reason162]

Originally Posted by gnuisance

I welcome your thoughts, insults and criticisms

I think blaming past regulations for our current situation is tomfoolery, based on eggshell-thin evidence and bro-science talk of sex ratio for a species that by all accounts is extremely fecund and resistant to sex ratio imbalance. I'll stand corrected if/when the sex study passes peer review, but even then...the net impact of rec fishing sex selection cannot explain the past decade of low recruitment.

The larger story is climate change, the thing that is turning global ecosystems upside down for every species (including us). To ignore that awesome phenomenon and point your entire finger at NOAA regulations...is insanity.

[gnuisance]

Originally Posted by reason162

I think blaming past regulations for our current situation is tomfoolery, based on eggshell-thin evidence and bro-science talk of sex ratio for a species that by all accounts is extremely fecund and resistant to sex ratio imbalance. I'll stand corrected if/when the sex study passes peer review, but even then...the net impact of rec fishing sex selection cannot explain the past decade of low recruitment.

The larger story is climate change, the thing that is turning global ecosystems upside down for every species (including us). To ignore that awesome phenomenon and point your entire finger at NOAA regulations...is insanity.

I think climate change is a factor as well. I hesitate to bring that up here because this crowd doesn't want to hear about it and the entire thing devolves into a climate change debate.

What I really want to talk about is why aren't the fluke here this year and what is the solution for sustainable summer flounder fishing moving forward? Everyone blames the commercial by catch situation but nothing ever changes. Do these guys have any accountability? How can we start the process of making sure they have some?

[Duffman]

fe·cund
ˈfekənd,ˈfēkənd/
adjective
producing or capable of producing an abundance of offspring or new growth; fertile.


Just helping out here.....

[Striper80]

Originally Posted by reason162

I think blaming past regulations for our current situation is tomfoolery, based on eggshell-thin evidence and bro-science talk of sex ratio for a species that by all accounts is extremely fecund and resistant to sex ratio imbalance. I'll stand corrected if/when the sex study passes peer review, but even then...the net impact of rec fishing sex selection cannot explain the past decade of low recruitment.

The larger story is climate change, the thing that is turning global ecosystems upside down for every species (including us). To ignore that awesome phenomenon and point your entire finger at NOAA regulations...is insanity.

Glad you've solved that mystery and have concrete evidence.

[laketrout]

Not global warming. Fluke catches are great in other areas of the Northeast. Montauk etc..

[Rocky]

This years slow fluke catch has more to do with water temp and the lack of feed source (bait) in the usual areas from years past. The sky is not falling, but management needs to be corrected for future growth.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by gnuisance

I think climate change is a factor as well. I hesitate to bring that up here because this crowd doesn't want to hear about it and the entire thing devolves into a climate change debate.

What I really want to talk about is why aren't the fluke here this year and what is the solution for sustainable summer flounder fishing moving forward? Everyone blames the commercial by catch situation but nothing ever changes. Do these guys have any accountability? How can we start the process of making sure they have some?

Yeah the crowd doesn't want to hear it, but climate change is upending migratory patterns/populations around the world, there is no way its impact on a migratory species like fluke is nominal.

I read that NOAA is taking climate change into account for future modeling, if so that is the only way forward. Yes, better science re sex ratio/slot limits are good and necessary things, but they are baby steps in the context of even a 1 degree F rise in average water temperatures, and we're looking down the barrel of a much larger increase.

Originally Posted by reason162

I think blaming past regulations for our current situation is tomfoolery, based on eggshell-thin evidence and bro-science talk of sex ratio for a species that by all accounts is extremely fecund and resistant to sex ratio imbalance. I'll stand corrected if/when the sex study passes peer review, but even then...the net impact of rec fishing sex selection cannot explain the past decade of low recruitment.

The larger story is climate change, the thing that is turning global ecosystems upside down for every species (including us). To ignore that awesome phenomenon and point your entire finger at NOAA regulations...is insanity.

Reason I respect your posts and you seem like an intelligent person which makes your comments more confusing. Recruitment numbers (BASED ON NMFS"S OWN DATA) show a steady and sharp decline over the last 25 years to the magnitude of an 80% decrease in strength. These are the facts presented by NMFS, not mine or third party. What accounts are you referring to that would lead anyone to believe the stock is fecund and resistant to sex ratio imbalances because the raw data we're all being regulated by says the complete opposite. If you take the time to trend recruitment statistics against size limit increases it shows a clear and continuous inverse relationship throughout the last 25 years. EVERY year size limit increases are legislated higher, recruitment in the absolute and in a relative sense to SSB has declined.....EVERY YEAR. We're all expected to believe this is a result of gradual climate change over 25 years. There's no basis or logic for believing that.

Look at it from a different perspective, between 1989 and 2002 as I've posted numerous times, SSB increased by 600%. Is that possible if climate change was at play and the biomass was migrating further north and or east. I'm sure some of that is going on but trawl studies in areas revealing a 600% increase in spawning stock biomass also reported a continuous and significant decline in reproduction. So based on your theory, you'd have us believe the stock was expanding exponentially, a six-fold increase, but climate change was causing reproduction numbers to tank. I fail to see the logic in that argument.

You ever been down to the Point Pleasant Coop off Channel Drive when the commercials return from these off shore trips. I'd invite everyone to check it out, in particular the size of the fluke off loaded. Would bet 95% or more of their catch are females. The fluke brought in from those offshore trips are some of the biggest fluke you'll ever see. You think their nets catch only large fluke. How many smaller fish and even larger fish were caught and killed in the process and what percentage are we to believe was reported on the FVTR's (Fishing Vessel Trip Reports). I think the reported average for commercial operators is somewhere in the 7 - 10% range, wouldn't surprise me if dead discard on these off shore trips is over 100% of allowed harvest. Would be surprised actually if it was that low.

NMFS knows too many female fluke are being harvested which is why they're considering the sex study in peer review. It's there only way out of this without admitting they've mismanaged the fishery for the last fifteen to twenty years. In my opinion, they'll come out in a few years and say the results of their scientific findings based on models incorporating size and sex consideration have shown the need to introduce a slot limit and my guess is it will happen for the '19 season, not next year. By then the fishery will be irreparably damaged if it's not already. Then we'll see just how "steep" or "fecund" the stock really is when it becomes the next whiting and ling fishery. As I've said, the facts are there for anyone taking the time to interpret what it's telling us. Doesn't take a genius, just someone with an objective perspective as opposed to a politically motivated agenda.

Originally Posted by reason162

Yeah the crowd doesn't want to hear it, but climate change is upending migratory patterns/populations around the world, there is no way its impact on a migratory species like fluke is nominal.

I read that NOAA is taking climate change into account for future modeling, if so that is the only way forward. Yes, better science re sex ratio/slot limits are good and necessary things, but they are baby steps in the context of even a 1 degree F rise in average water temperatures, and we're looking down the barrel of a much larger increase.

What the crowd wants to hear are proposed changes based on facts and not summise, conjecture or theories which is precisely what climate change and steepness are....theories. NMFS scientists themselves are divided on it's relevance. The facts overwhelmingly show a much more definitive and prolonged trend killing this fishery caused by the same failing management philosophies of NMFS. As I said the facts are there for anyone interested in reviewing them.

[bulletbob]

if by "climate change" you gentlemen are saying that this years COLD water has slowed the fluke bite, I might agree.. Its fast approaching mid July, and there are still bycatches of Ling inshore with the Fluke every day... Otherwise I call horse shit.. We have all been around long enough to remember DEAD fluke fishing on certain years, even back in the good old days before the terms "global warming" or the more politically correct term "climate change" were ever uttered.

Just because the NY Bight has been slow doesn't mean the fish have died off or changed their migration patterns because of ""climate change"".. Fluke range from Newfoundland to Florida and are caught by recs along the entire Altantic Coast of the US... Fluke fishing is doing well this year actually, along much of the coast..... bob