Fluke Regs this year

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

One out-of-the-box idea is to include the party and charter boats in the commercial category. They could share in the same seasons, size limits and quotas as the draggers. Pay-to-fish is a kind of commercial enterprise. That would leave only the catch by private fishermen to be tallied. It's only a thought, but think about the possibilities for the party and charter captains. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

This will never work... Although the commercials have dates when they can start fishing, their season ends not on a date, it's when what they've weighed in meets their quota. So say an example they meet their quota on 8/1... Now the the party and charter boat guys have to stop fishing on 8/1 because the commercial quota is filled??

That and what are you going to do to figure out what the party and charter boats catch to add to what the commercials catch? Are you going to force them to weigh their catch when they come back in each day like the commercials have to??

Unless I'm missing something here, your suggestion makes no sense at all!!

[AndyS]

I love all the science and number crunching, then the commercial dragger comes along and wipes them out, wake up people.

[Billfish715]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

This will never work... Although the commercials have dates when they can start fishing, their season ends not on a date, it's when what they've weighed in meets their quota. So say an example they meet their quota on 8/1... Now the the party and charter boat guys have to stop fishing on 8/1 because the commercial quota is filled??

That and what are you going to do to figure out what the party and charter boats catch to add to what the commercials catch? Are you going to force them to weigh their catch when they come back in each day like the commercials have to??

Unless I'm missing something here, your suggestion makes no sense at all!!

Don't be too quick to dismiss the idea. There are six commercial "seasons" of approximately two month each. Seldom has a season been closed so prematurely as to severely affect the number of days on the water. Once the season is closed, there is always the provision for by-catch and then the anticipated opening for the next season which is usually a short time afterwards.

Ask the "for hire" captains if they would like to fish throughout the year for fluke. Ask if they would mind reporting their catches online or if their customers would like to take home some smaller fluke. Other states have regulations that require their commercial fishermen to report their catches. The striiped bass fishery in the states south of us is regulated to include hook and line fishermen who are considered commercial fishermen.

It seems to me that the people who are being hurt the most in all of the recreational regulatory management plans are the party and charter boat captains. They have more skin in the game than those of us who fish only a few days or less per week on our own boats. Their needs should be considered more urgently than the rest of us. They should be in a different category. Maybe they should be able to share the seasonal allotments differently than they do now. Their total catch affects our total catch quotas and none of our combined quotas affects the commercial draggers limits.

Give the small charter businessmen a better shot at making a living. Think outside the box. Don't be too quick to say that it doesn't make sense. True, it does have to be "fleshed out" but they stand the most to lose by maintaining the status quo. In fact, they are already losing. When you think about it, the fact that the party boats and small charters are lumped in with the rest of the recreational fishermen means that the "recs" are actually helping to over fish our seasonal quotas and visa versa. Perhaps it's time for the party and charter boats to have their own seasons and limits.

Consider it. A captain whose livelihood depends on fishing and catching should be given a voice and it should be heard. My idea might be a bit radical to some but I haven't heard it discussed before. I think it's an option that has some merit.

[Capt Sal]

Shorter seasons and lower limits make it hard to make a living with any for hire boat.Lot of pressure on fluke and stripers with the ridiculous limits on winter flounder and weakfish.This battle has been going on for years and millions of dollars spent.Some good news would be welcome.

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Yes commercials are allowed to keep 14 inch fish.... I'm fine with that since those fish count towards their quota which is in pounds not number of fish... If they had to discard those 14 inch fish that happened to get caught in their net, those fish would not count towards their quota, end up discarded/dead and would be wasted...

Further, people above are doing the math that commercials keep X amount of fish each time they go out and how that is way more then any party boat could possibly catch... The one thing missing in this logic is commercial landings are monitored and counted by weight and once their quota is attained, no matter what the date is, they get shut down... On the recreational side we are given seasons from X date to Y date and can fish all of those days.

As far as quotas, it varies from year to year but right or wrong, commercials usually get a little more then the recreationals do... Last year they got 54% of the quota and we got 46%.

Some of you maybe reading this and think, hmm Gerry's pro commercial fishing.... The reality is there will always be commercial fishing as long as there is demand for fish. Knowing that you just need to be sure the quotas are split fairly, the commercials are monitored closely so they don't exceed their quota and given sensible rules that don't force them to waste the resources with discards, which is why I support allowing them to keep 14 inch fish..

Gerry couple comments. In theory I'm also as previously mentioned in agreement with commercials having a 14" minimum size limit if it's being followed. Concerned about Dan's comments that mesh sizes are increased on a spot basis or in general since it would completely defeat that benefit and why the legislation was adopted initially. Over the years I've witnessed winter offloads at the docks and believe me there's aren't many if any 14" fish in their catches simply because that's not where the value is. Also don't believe higher mesh sizes help 14" fish escape. Most articles I've read say a majority of the catch due to weight of the catch combined with water pressure created during the trawl come up already dead or in a condition they won't survive if released. So while I agree the size was allowed to benefit the fishery, don't believe it's accomplishing it's intended purpose because of this wholesale price differential issue between smaller and larger fish.

Minor point but point nonetheless. Watch the video I posted earlier which I posted again below. Notice the huge strip at the 38 second mark.

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

Video was made in 2010. Here's an excerpt from the 2010 Summer Flounder regulations:

Unloading of summer flounder can only occur between 6:00AM and 6:00PM from November 1 through April 30 and between 6:00AM and
8:00PM from May 1 through October 31. When a vessel contacts the Division regarding the time and place of unloading, the vessel must also report
how many landings will have been made that week, including the proposed landing being called in. Once the season has been closed in the directed
commercial summer flounder fishery, no vessel can land and no dealer can accept any summer flounder landed in New Jersey in excess of the bycatch allowances specified above, provided the amount of summer flounder landed from any vessel cannot exceed 10%, by weight, of the total weight of all species landed and sold. A portion of the annual quota is dedicated to a by-catch fishery. Once the directed and by-catch quotas for a season have been landed, no vessel can land any summer flounder and no dealer can accept any summer flounder landed in New Jersey. Only whole fresh summer flounder can be landed, except that individually frozen summer flounder can be landed in amounts not exceeding by-catch allowances specified above provided they can be measured for total length. No vessel can land and no dealer can accept any summer flounder which have been filleted or processed in any way.

Why would there be a fluke strip on board when filleting wasn't allowed at sea and then take a guess where those fillets ended up. I'm sure it wasn't filleted and discarded. Sure it wasn't reported on the FVTR since only whole fish are allowed to be weighed in. Based on the size of the strip the fish was a very big female like the others dumped only probably larger. Wouldn't be difficult to hide a bunch of fillets on board and sell them in the black market once back in port by transferring to another boat before pulling in to offload their catch. It's only one strip in the video but the larger point is it questions behavior at sea. As I've said, if those were the size fish tossed back dead, imagine the size of the 200 lbs. retained and how many other fish might have been filleted and either offloaded before docking or hidden from F&G back at the docks. Lot of compartments on commercial boats, wouldn't be difficult. There has to be ~50 fish in those three totes. Average size appears easily over 5 lbs. per fish for a combined weight of at least 250 lbs and if those constitute the smaller fish compared to what was retained, safe to say over 500 lbs. of female fluke were killed as by catch alone by one boat on one trip. Multiply that by the number of boats fishing and the numbers are staggering. If we're suppose to believe most fish come up alive in nets, you have to ask why all those fish were thrown back dead and not released alive when they hit the deck especially if the purpose of the video was simply to make a point to NMFS. Why would you have to kill those fluke to make that point. More likely scenario is fish were stock piled on deck throughout multiple hauls, culled after the last, largest fish were retained and overage either filleted or tossed back dead. When the boat returns to the dock, they appear to be compliant with 200 lbs. of fluke but the damage at sea has already been done. 300 lbs. isn't reported anywhere against the commercial quota and I'd venture to say minimal dead discard reported on the FVTR. Why would they, it would only be used against them in future quotas and is completely unquantifiable. It's the honor system and it doesn't work with the amount of dollars wrapped up in these fisheries.

I'm not concerned with quota allocations in general since they aren't terribly disproportionate and commercial and recreational have both been impacted. Regarding your comment " the commercials are monitored closely so they don't exceed their quota and given sensible rules that don't force them to waste the resources with discards". I agree efforts have been stepped up to monitor compliance at the docks but what occurs at sea is completely not monitored other than the location of the boat which does nothing to monitor catch. With the wholesale price differential, I believe hygrading is a major problem in this fishery and causing extensive damage. I know the "Codfather" story I mentioned is maybe an extreme case in terms of magnitude, BUT the fact it went on for 20 - 30 years undetected and was only brought to surface as a result of the IRS money laundering investigation speaks volumes about the ineffectiveness of enforcement efforts. While enforcement efforts have been improved, I don't agree the process and limited resources insure overall quota and catch compliance. NO ONE from enforcement has any idea what's going on at sea. It's simple to offload any amount of their catch before docking and run it up to NY to sell in the black market we all know exists and no one from F&G would even know. Hygrading is a problem, 60 - 70% differential in wholesale prices guarantees it. I believe the majority of operators play by the rules but a lesser percentage who don't reap havoc on this fishery. That problem is not an NMFS regulatory issue, it's a combination of the disparity with wholesale market prices between size fish coupled with the lack of sufficient enforcement resources fueled by a multi eight or nine figure black market for fresh fish that circumvents the regulatory supply chain.

As far as creating a separate category for charter and party boat catches, would have to give that more thought but my first reaction is along the lines of Gerry's reply and twofold. First it adds more divisiveness to the fishery and complicates certain matters (some of which Gerry already eluded to) more than they already are. Second it focuses again on catch and not reproduction which again in my opinion is the wrong focus. We're not addressing the primary problem hurting the fishery if we're to believe the data we have to work with is remotely and directionally correct. While I agree we should be open-minded to all suggestions, just my quick thoughts on the suggestion Gerry already replied to.

[Billfish715]

[QUOTE=dakota560;524827

We're not addressing the primary problem hurting the fishery if we're to believe the data we have to work with is directionally correct. .[/QUOTE]

I think the comments and discussion on this thread are really healthy and civil and thanks to Gerry for moderating and keeping things on track. It is exposing some sore spots and frustrations as well as emphasizing some of the problems and stumbling blocks that face us. Most of us would like to see more liberal size and bag limits. Most of us question the data that is being used to determine the quotas and seasons. This is all causing divisiveness between various interests with the federal interventionists at the root of the debate. There will have to be a compromise somewhere and not just one that maintains the status quo. A status quo to the current regulations might be considered a win by some because we didn't give anything back. But, what did we get? How has all of this negotiating been a compromise when both sides didn't give or get something. As long as the Feds keep threatening to increase the quotas and we keep begging them to not do it, we've not made any progress. The threat of increased size limits and shortened seasons will always be held over our heads.

Do we want more female fluke to spawn? Do we want to catch bigger fluke or more fluke? Do we want to be able to keep more fluke for our coolers? Just what do we want? If we want all of the things I mentioned, what are you willing to sacrifice? It can't just happen with a wave of the hand. It will take time to rebuild the stocks. That will happen when the commercial seasons are adjusted to prevent egg-bearing females from being targeted while they are on the spawning grounds. That will mean concessions from the commercial draggers and legislation by the NMFS. Something like that would be a start, but we will have to give something in return. What might that be? Who will give in first and what will it be?

Do we trust the data that NMFS is using? I hate to use hypothetical situations but if it makes someone think, then it is useful. So, hypothetically, what would happen to the fluke regulations if the data about the fluke reproduction numbers came back at a ten-year high? Would our quotas be adjusted? I don't know. What I do know, is that despite observable increases in fluke populations, the sizes limits have increased as well. What would it take for the NMFS to decrease the size limits and liberalize the bag limits? It is all hypothetical of course but to think the size limits might be lowered is highly unlikely.

So what is the problem? Waiting for more fluke to be spawned; wanting more fish to be harvested now; or expecting the NMFS to concede and lower their optimum harvest levels? As I've mentioned, something has to give. Someone has to make a concession. I just feel that we've been more than patient while waiting for the government agencies to try to restore the fluke fishery to some mythically and mystically historic level or to whatever they indicate is their optimum number.

[Capt John]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

Don't be too quick to dismiss the idea. There are six commercial "seasons" of approximately two month each. Seldom has a season been closed so prematurely as to severely affect the number of days on the water. Once the season is closed, there is always the provision for by-catch and then the anticipated opening for the next season which is usually a short time afterwards.

Ask the "for hire" captains if they would like to fish throughout the year for fluke. Ask if they would mind reporting their catches online or if their customers would like to take home some smaller fluke. Other states have regulations that require their commercial fishermen to report their catches. The striiped bass fishery in the states south of us is regulated to include hook and line fishermen who are considered commercial fishermen.

It seems to me that the people who are being hurt the most in all of the recreational regulatory management plans are the party and charter boat captains. They have more skin in the game than those of us who fish only a few days or less per week on our own boats. Their needs should be considered more urgently than the rest of us. They should be in a different category. Maybe they should be able to share the seasonal allotments differently than they do now. Their total catch affects our total catch quotas and none of our combined quotas affects the commercial draggers limits.

Give the small charter businessmen a better shot at making a living. Think outside the box. Don't be too quick to say that it doesn't make sense. True, it does have to be "fleshed out" but they stand the most to lose by maintaining the status quo. In fact, they are already losing. When you think about it, the fact that the party boats and small charters are lumped in with the rest of the recreational fishermen means that the "recs" are actually helping to over fish our seasonal quotas and visa versa. Perhaps it's time for the party and charter boats to have their own seasons and limits.

Consider it. A captain whose livelihood depends on fishing and catching should be given a voice and it should be heard. My idea might be a bit radical to some but I haven't heard it discussed before. I think it's an option that has some merit.

Bravo Billie....someone thinking outside the box to "rescue" the poor and struggling for-hire captain's. How many more captain's have to go out of business to prove the system is broken? It's about time someone thought about "leveling" the playing field. It's an idea I talked about for a long time, only to fall on deaf ears.....sad. Thanks for bringing up the topic and putting forth a viable solution to a long standing problem.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the commercial's....they work very, very hard for what they do, BUT so does the for-hire fleet. Shouldn't they be afforded the same rights? The for-hire guys catch fish for a living...don't they?

You want to save the Jersey shore especially after Sandy.....save the party and charter fleet and ALL the businesses associated with fishing in New Jersey..$$$$$$$$. Thanks again Bill...spot on.

[Billfish715]

Originally Posted by dakota560

As far as creating a separate category for charter and party boat catches, would have to give that more thought but my first reaction is along the lines of Gerry's reply and twofold. First it adds more divisiveness to the fishery and complicates certain matters (some of which Gerry already eluded to) more than they already are. Second it focuses again on catch and not reproduction which again in my opinion is the wrong focus. We're not addressing the primary problem hurting the fishery if we're to believe the data we have to work with is remotely and directionally correct. While I agree we should be open-minded to all suggestions, just my quick thoughts on the suggestion Gerry already replied to.

Hi Dakota, I'm humbled by your intimate knowledge and interest in what has been an " Oh-Too-Long" controversy. Your perseverance in all of this is enviable.
I totally agree with your observations about targeting spawning female fluke and it makes total sense, even to me, a mere fisherman. In order for that to happen, the NMFS will have to make a deal with the commercial lobby. I doubt if they are up for a battle nor do I think they will budge from their position toward achieving total restoration of the stocks. While I agree with their mission, I think their strategies have been flawed if not failed given the amount of time their plans have been in effect. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is INSANITY! That is where we are now.

The scientists depend on data for their decisions. Evidently, there are two sets of books containing that data. If decisions are based on data and the data is wrong, we are left in a lurch. I just think the NMFS will not take the time to reexamine their data or be open-minded enough to entertain other points of view or other data.

As for the idea of a different set of regulations for the party and charter boat fleets, well, I still think it has to be considered. There would have to be some accounting for their catch, that's true, but the good captains all keep logs of their catches, only, they are not reported to the state as the commercial guys do. There are only estimated catch totals of the fluke that are harvested by the recreational anglers and a theoretical formula to determine mortality from released fish. How is that scientific? How does the NMFS come up with their recreational harvest numbers, by an estimate? How accurate are those estimates?

If the party and charter boat captains agree to log in their landings in order to extend their seasons and catches, it's worth a shot, in my opinion. I know that liberalizing the quotas and sizes limits and seasons for the "for hire" captains will take some work and some give and take. The harvesting of more fluke many not fit into your plan to take pressure off the spawning females but it does satisfy the needs of the party boat industry at least until your plan can be implemented.

The commercial fishermen don't lose anything except a few weeks of closed seasons but they retain the same quotas of pounds of fish landed per season.
The stocks get a chance to be rebuilt. The recreational fishermen don't lose any fishing time and the party boats are able to stay in business. But, it all has to be agreed on and egos will have to be put aside, and compromise will have to be agreed upon. It is a win-win if everyone just "chills out" and talks and realizes that we are not adversaries but allies. Change is always hard to accept but life is always changing. To ignore and resist change is like I mentioned before...........INSANITY!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

Don't be too quick to dismiss the idea. There are six commercial "seasons" of approximately two month each. Seldom has a season been closed so prematurely as to severely affect the number of days on the water. Once the season is closed, there is always the provision for by-catch and then the anticipated opening for the next season which is usually a short time afterwards.

Ask the "for hire" captains if they would like to fish throughout the year for fluke. Ask if they would mind reporting their catches online or if their customers would like to take home some smaller fluke. Other states have regulations that require their commercial fishermen to report their catches. The striiped bass fishery in the states south of us is regulated to include hook and line fishermen who are considered commercial fishermen.

It seems to me that the people who are being hurt the most in all of the recreational regulatory management plans are the party and charter boat captains. They have more skin in the game than those of us who fish only a few days or less per week on our own boats. Their needs should be considered more urgently than the rest of us. They should be in a different category. Maybe they should be able to share the seasonal allotments differently than they do now. Their total catch affects our total catch quotas and none of our combined quotas affects the commercial draggers limits.

Give the small charter businessmen a better shot at making a living. Think outside the box. Don't be too quick to say that it doesn't make sense. True, it does have to be "fleshed out" but they stand the most to lose by maintaining the status quo. In fact, they are already losing. When you think about it, the fact that the party boats and small charters are lumped in with the rest of the recreational fishermen means that the "recs" are actually helping to over fish our seasonal quotas and visa versa. Perhaps it's time for the party and charter boats to have their own seasons and limits.

Consider it. A captain whose livelihood depends on fishing and catching should be given a voice and it should be heard. My idea might be a bit radical to some but I haven't heard it discussed before. I think it's an option that has some merit.

Charter and Party Boat Captains, feel free to chime in here and keep me honest..

Bag and size limits aside, I think what Charter and Party boats are looking for is as many days on the water with something to fish for and a season that has specific dates so they can plan their schedules and or book charters... Further, those days on the water need to line up with the times of year their patrons want to fish.... The same is not true of commercials because they don't care about days on the water or what time of year they're allowed to fish. They'll fish any time of year and want to fill their quotas in as few days as possible..

If that's the case, by combing Party and Charter boat businesses with Commercials you have 2 parties with a totally different set of needs... Can you see that Fisheries Management meeting when they ask for public comment feedback about seasons, bag and size limits?

Party and Charter boat businesses need to be aligned with a group with similar needs as them so they have a better chance of having their needs met. IMO they line up better with Recreational then they do with Commercials.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Though many of these ideas are very well thought out I believe it’s highly inappropriate. The focus should be on the government on how regulate the fishery. Their science etc. only when we start properly collecting data and securing proper proven science will any of be able to make a proper assessment on what we think is a good idea. Though discussions are healthy I think it’s like pissing in to a fan.