Fluke Regs this year

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Lots of people concerned about the commercials being allowed to keep 14" Fluke when we're forced to take 18"...Why not let them fill their quota with 14 inch fish. If you make it 18 like us, what happens to all those 14 inch fish they catch in their nets? They'll wind up being dead discards and are wasted.

Gerry I'm actually not against commercials being allowed to keep 14" fish, I'm in favor of it for the reason you cited. What I said earlier is we should have a slot limit introduced where recreational anglers and Party and Charter boats have the same opportunity, both would take pressure off the harvest of the larger female breeders.

My issue with commercial is the retail price I've mentioned. If 14" fish aren't being hygraded with larger fluke which carry a significantly higher retail value, you're comment is correct. If they are, which I absolutely believe to be the case, then the smaller fluke become dead discard anyway. You know it's happening on these long range winter trips. No way commercial guys are coming back in from that far off shore if they can increase the value of their catch by 60% - 70% with larger fish. The issue is market price here, not size limit for commercials. As I said, make the price per pound for a 14" fish the same as a 23" fish and the entire issue of hygrading and dead discard goes away. This isn't a size / possession limit issue, this is an FMP / market price issue. Basically what I'm saying is regulate the retail market prices to commercial to take the incentive away from harvesting larger female fluke. The disparity in retail prices they're getting for larger fluke is causing the entire hygrading problem, correct it and problem solved.

Look at the attached video I posted two years ago. Look at the size fish being discarded, they have to be 5 lbs. minimum and up. Everyone of those fish thrown back plus every fish retained as part of their catch was more likely than not a female. If it was September, October or November, there's a good chance they were loaded with eggs. If that's what was discarded dead, imagine the size of the fish retained and how many smaller fish from 14" on up were killed in the process of catching their quota. One boat, multiply that by the number of commercial boats involved and extrapolate out how huge the dead discard number must be. You think on the FVTR (Fishing Vessel Trip Report) log the captain reported how many fish were thrown back dead, not a chance. It's an enormous problem being completely overlooked by fisheries management all because the commercial industry has lobbying clout recreational doesn't. It's tragic what's happening at sea and what's worse is it's all correctable. Gerry to my earlier point, if the price paid per lb. to commercials for 14" fish was the same as the price paid for those larger fish thrown overboard, those beautiful fluke tossed overboard dead would never have been harvested because there would have been no incremental economic value to what was probably already on board. Please check out the attached video, it'll make you sick. Absolute waste of the resource and in my opinion a major reason egg reproduction has all but collapsed over the last twenty years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inSN...ature=youtu.be

[Detour66]

@Dakota560... What I posted was 1 option not 3 separate options. This way people can bring home some fish. It's just my opinion. I can see you are much more educated on the subject than I am. I am just putting in my own 2 cents. I think smaller slot fish would help the industry without wiping out the fish. That is something I do not want to see.

Originally Posted by Detour66

@Dakota560... What I posted was 1 option not 3 separate options. This way people can bring home some fish. It's just my opinion. I can see you are much more educated on the subject than I am. I am just putting in my own 2 cents. I think smaller slot fish would help the industry without wiping out the fish. That is something I do not want to see.

Detour I thought it was two options but understand your point. NMFS has ONLY attempted to manage this fishery by focusing on catch through size increases, possession limit reductions, shortened seasons or reduced overall quotas. It was working to some degree until they broached the high 16" / 17" size limit, then everything went to hell. Prior to that as their data shows, the balance between reduced catch from the early to mid 80's coupled with relatively strong reproduction numbers the biomass responded very favorably through 2002. When they continued increasing size limits beyond that point with the intent again of reducing catch, they created the unintended consequence of changing the gender composition of the biomass destroying egg reproduction in the process. Add to that what's happening with commercials and that's why the fishery is suffering.

[Detour66]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Detour I thought it was two options but understand your point. NMFS has ONLY attempted to manage this fishery by focusing on catch through size increases, possession limit reductions, shortened seasons or reduced overall quotas. It was working to some degree until they broached the high 16" / 17" size limit, then everything went to hell. Prior to that as their data shows, the balance between reduced catch from the early to mid 80's coupled with relatively strong reproduction numbers the biomass responded very favorably through 2002. When they continued increasing size limits beyond that point with the intent again of reducing catch, they created the unintended consequence of changing the gender composition of the biomass destroying egg reproduction in the process. Add to that what's happening with commercials and that's why the fishery is suffering.

I have read what you are saying by many anglers and captains on almost every fishing site. And it makes sense to me. Now why doesn't it make sense to the NMFS with there size increase and possession limit policy? That is the real question and should be addressed! It seems to me if this bad policy isn't fixed the Fluke stocks will continue to decline and not at the fault of the hook and line fisherman!

Originally Posted by Detour66

I have read what you are saying by many anglers and captains on almost every fishing site. And it makes sense to me. Now why doesn't it make sense to the NMFS with there size increase and possession limit policy? That is the real question and should be addressed! It seems to me if this bad policy isn't fixed the Fluke stocks will continue to decline and not at the fault of the hook and line fisherman!

In my opinion two reasons. Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA" which has been revised a few times since being enacted initially in 1976 with focus almost exclusively on attaining an arbitrary SSB thresh hold level never before attained. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who can answer how that level was arrived at. So every year when SSB comes up short, immediately the mandate is reduce catch. That was the correct answer in the 80's when annual catch exceeded SSB. The biomass was being turned over every year, harvest was excessive and not sustainable. Once catch was brought under control, SSB started a significant climb until continued size limit increases caused a negative impact on reproduction causing SSB to reverse it ascent and provisions of MSA kicked in every year since starting in 2003 mandating again catch reductions year after year.

Second NMFS / ASMFC have to make this decision their way on their time frame and their terms otherwise by default they admit they've mismanaged the fishery for the last twenty or so years. No government agency is going to publicly acknowledge that, instead they hide behind the provisions enacted under MSA 42 years ago which is a convenient CYA excuse to fall back on. Basically we're stuck in a political black hole until the fishery is at the brink of collapse. At that time NMFS will have no choice but to step in, introduce a slot, maybe do what I suggested with the commercials which is absolutely needed but a long shot and say THEY saved the day. When that happens is anyone's guess.

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by dakota560

In my opinion two reasons. Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA" which has been revised a few times since being enacted initially in 1976 with focus almost exclusively on attaining an arbitrary SSB thresh hold level never before attained. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who can answer how that level was arrived at. So every year when SSB comes up short, immediately the mandate is reduce catch. That was the correct answer in the 80's when annual catch exceeded SSB. The biomass was being turned over every year, harvest was excessive and not sustainable. Once catch was brought under control, SSB started a significant climb until continued size limit increases caused a negative impact on reproduction causing SSB to reverse it ascent and provisions of MSA kicked in every year since starting in 2003 mandating again catch reductions year after year.

Second NMFS / ASMFC have to make this decision their way on their time frame and their terms otherwise by default they admit they've mismanaged the fishery for the last twenty or so years. No government agency is going to publicly acknowledge that, instead they hide behind the provisions enacted under MSA 42 years ago which is a convenient CYA excuse to fall back on. Basically we're stuck in a political black hole until the fishery is at the brink of collapse. At that time NMFS will have no choice but to step in, introduce a slot, maybe do what I suggested with the commercials which is absolutely needed but a long shot and say THEY saved the day. When that happens is anyone's guess.

Slot limit when the fishery collapses??.. Probably not.. they would just shut it down for recs most likely... bob

[hammer4reel]

Tom
They are hygrading , but not by throwing back smaller fish dead .
They use a net bigger than their minimum size so smaller fish swim through .
I asked about mortality of smaller fish when bigger ones cover the net .
They said most of the smaller fish get pushed up and swim through .
Much of what looks like smaller fluke being pulled is actually skates.
There are actually More skates pulled up in a haul than fluke .

While there are some guys out there who would break the law, for many of these guys the ocean is the only life they know.
They aren’t throwing back fish that someday would be money for them .

The guys making videos throwing back boxes of fluke are showing the waste nmfs is causing not allowing some bycatch while fishing for other species.
Makes them sick to do so.

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Tom
They are hygrading , but not by throwing back smaller fish dead .
They use a net bigger than their minimum size so smaller fish swim through .
I asked about mortality of smaller fish when bigger ones cover the net .
They said most of the smaller fish get pushed up and swim through .
Much of what looks like smaller fluke being pulled is actually skates.
There are actually More skates pulled up in a haul than fluke .

While there are some guys out there who would break the law, for many of these guys the ocean is the only life they know.
They aren’t throwing back fish that someday would be money for them .

The guys making videos throwing back boxes of fluke are showing the waste nmfs is causing not allowing some bycatch while fishing for other species.
Makes them sick to do so.

Dan when you say they, who exactly are you referring to? If as you say the mesh sizes being used are larger than 14" to allow 14" fish to swim through, why do the commercial regulations allow harvest of 14" fish? To Gerry's point earlier, I'd prefer the mesh size be 14" to have less breeders harvested. What your suggesting is larger fluke are being targeted because of the price differential which defeats the whole point of the 14" minimum. As far as the by-catch issue is concerned, regardless of what NMFS allows, the net result (no pun intended) is a significant amount of fluke are being killed, tossed back dead and not reported in FVTR's. Reason they're thrown back dead doesn't matter, fact that they are does.

While I agree the ocean is in many cases the only thing commercial operators know, you simply have more faith in commercial fishing ideologies than most. I do a lot of reading and a lot of research and have read too many articles about illicit netting and lived to see too many species wiped out in my lifetime by commercial operations. Ling, whiting, cod, mackerel, weakfish (which never rebounded), bass in the 70's, herring which caused the reduction boats to come down here and start mopping up all the bunker as well as the damage Omega Protein does, flounder, fluke, porgies, sharks, tuna etc. It took decades for the porgy fishery to rebound, let's see how long that lasts. Blackfish are next and it's already happening. Any fishery targeted by commercial interests will be exploited until it's no longer economically viable and any by-catch that gets in the way killed as well as ocean habitat destroyed. I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch but where do you draw the line. World demand for fish combined with technological advances in commercial fishing equipment will destroy every fishery until there's not a species left to fish for. That doesn't mean every commercial operator has no conscience, it means there's a history which can't be ignored of one species after another being destroyed by commercial over fishing.

Hopefully we agree (based on the NMFS data we have to work with) fluke reproduction has been decimated over the last 25 or more years. Do you agree commercial fishing should be closed during the Fall migration until we better understand the impact it's having on egg reproduction and the spawning process in general? Until the cause of the reproduction problem is understood and the trend reversed, no amount of changes to catch, possession limits, length of season will compensate enough to rebuild this fishery. Last 15 years prove that point and why every year the options we get to choose from amount to nothing more than scraps. NMFS and ASMFC reshuffle the same deck every year while the fishery is hamstrung today with the same problems it faced 15 years ago.

[Detour66]

The new administration recently signed the "Modern Fishing Act". Does this act have the potential of correcting the unfair and ignorant regulations that are now in place? Can anyone answer this or is it a "wait and see" situation?

Originally Posted by Detour66

The new administration recently signed the "Modern Fishing Act". Does this act have the potential of correcting the unfair and ignorant regulations that are now in place? Can anyone answer this or is it a "wait and see" situation?

Here's a link which explains a bit about the recently signed Modern Fishing Act. I believe it gives states and the recreational angling community more options or leverage but not sure it alters the provisions of MSA directly. There's others on the site much more versed in this who could chime in here.

http://www.trcp.org/2019/01/01/presi...dern-fish-act/

It's definitely a step in the right direction but with any legislation it needs to be time tested to understand what impact it's ultimately going to have. There's a lot of people fighting for recreational interests and giving their time, significant amounts at that. The biggest drawback as others have mentioned is recreational is not as well organized as commercial and we have a shadow of their funding and lobbying power. From my perspective, when fisheries management starts making the right decisions to rebuild stocks and when rebuilt gives both recreational anglers and commercial concerns equal access and equitable allocations unlike what's happening with the Sea Bass fishery, then the system is working.