Fluke Regs this year

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Joe I have a lot of respect for you, Gerry, Dave and a lot of people on this site and others I've been fortunate to meet trying to help our cause. I thank associations like RFA and SSFFF for their time and effort representing us in efforts to save this fishery for us and generations to come. I believe in the saying "Actions talk, bullshit walks". Not sure you meant to say the ideas on this thread are highly inappropriate, at least I hope that's not what you intended. They may prove fruitless and ultimately action is required for change, but inappropriate means something completely different. Great part of the site is exchange of information, if that's not appropriate I've wasted a lot of my personal time with countless research and posts the last three years.

You're correct focus should and has to be on government, NMFS, ASMFC, MAFMC and any other regulatory body ultimately making policy decisions. "When we start collecting proper data and using proven science", in my opinion waiting for that to happen is the equivalent of waiting for the Mets to win another World Series, it's never going to happen and if the collection methods changed someone whose position it doesn't support would end up questioning it anyway. Precise reason I used their data from their science for my analysis and the articles published in Fisherman Magazine and RFA Making Waves, it's takes away NMFS's and ASMFC's ability to question or dispute it.

There is NO DOUBT in my personal opinion what happened here. As complex as fisheries management can be, in the case of summer flounder it's obvious what's caused a decline in SSB. And since SSB and MSA thresh holds and provisions drive all decisions, question is how do we get commercial operators, recreational anglers, party and charter captains, the individual states that make up the Mid-Atlantic Fishery and fisheries management in general on the same page. Personally I don't think we need to do anything with data collection. The data whether you believe in it or not is not going to change yet the trends it portraits in my opinion make perfect sense. I know that's a bit of a contradiction but we're stuck with the data so bear with me while I connect the dots.

Some more research. Check the first graph which is from the 41st SAW (Stock Assessment Workshop). Recruitment (egg production) is in (000's) and SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) is in metric tons. Look at the relationship of recruitment to the biomass in '83 (almost 5:1), the trend from '83 to '04 and the relationship in years '03 and '04 when it drops below 1:1 for the first time ever. That trend continued it's decline over the ensuing years, drastically dropping between 2010 thru 2015 (last years data provided for in Addendum XXVlll) right after size limits spiked in 2008. Since fluke become sexually mature at the age of three, that's exactly the relationship I'd expect between recruitment and size limit increases between '08 and '10. In '15, the ratio dropped to a low of .5:1 from 5:1 in '83, so in 32-years that's a relative decline of ~90%! Compare that to the next two attachments and pay close attention to the illustration of changes in size and possession limits. The relationship of egg production to SSB started it's tumultuous decline in 2002 when limits were increased from 15.5" for recreational anglers while commercial operators maintained a 14" size limit even with substantially lower possession limits and catch quotas in place today compared to years past. Why, gender composition of the biomass with more and larger breeders being harvested was altered and egg production has been decimated ever since.

Why is that, look at charts four and five regarding overall and commercial catch by age of fish. Source of these charts is from the 57th SAW. In the 80's and 90's, younger fish were being harvested because of the size regulations, look at the shift in size starting around '02 when size limits increased exponentially. In '02, SSB hit it's high water mark of ~50,000 metric tons and has since been on a steady and continuous decline because older, larger female fluke are being harvested. The data is right there for anyone to see but it's being ignored because of MSA. Rutgers "Length and Sex" couldn't support these facts more which makes it more disturbing it failed being incorporated into this latest Peer Review. That alone seals the fate of this fishery for conceivably the next 5-years unless something changes. We're too far down the rabbit hole. I found an article which I have to relocate stating in the mid 80's, ~75% of the annual harvest was made up of fish measuring in the 14" range. Today, conservatively 90% of the entire harvest is made up of fish over 18", almost entirely consisting of female breeders with significantly greater egg production capacity. That's all anyone needs to know about the "State of the Union" regarding this fishery.

The last chart attached I was only able to find for the years '79 thru '85 but I'll find more current information eventually or maybe we can get some input from someone on the site with commercial experience. Look at the last column which has inflation adjusted wholesale prices for small, medium, large and jumbo fluke in '85. I assume these are wholesale prices and bear in mind they're from 33 years ago. Demand for fluke and increase in sushi demand in particular I can only assume has increased the disparity in these prices. Jumbo - $1.27 lb, large - $1.14, medium - $.93 and small - $.61. There's a 100% difference between small and jumbo which is precisely the reason I believe significant amounts of hygrading occurs at sea when you can increase your overall catch value by 100% retaining larger females and discarding smaller fish regardless of mesh sizes. In today's market with today's demand, who knows what that price differential might be.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. We already experienced a period, 1989 thru 2002, when SSB the driving force behind basically every regulatory decision, increased from ~7,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons. Possession limits were 8 for the most part with size limits ranging between 14" to 15.5". Average catch quotas were much higher than today, recruitment was much higher than it is today and SSB hit record levels. Why NMFS and ASMFC wouldn't consider re-instating those tried and tested regulations is absolutely beyond logic and comprehension. If we kept them in place and recruitment stayed healthy, commercials would be happier, recreational anglers would be happier, party and charter captains would be happier, catch quotas could be much greater and SSB would probably be at 200,000 metric tons if the trend trajectory it was on continued. MSA thresh-hold SSB for the fishery to be considered rebuilt is ~62,000 metric tons so MSA would no longer present an obstacle.

I'll work with any council, commercial leadership, recreational leadership, scientists or government affiliation in a unified manner to help save this fishery but government has to be willing to listen otherwise Joe as you so eloquently put it, "We're just pissing in a fan".