Fluke and Sea Bass Returns

[bunker dunker]

we hear everyday now the phase"follow the science",why don't we?????so if
"science" says that 78%{+ or -} of all fluke over 18 inches are female then why would we have a keeper size of 18"??? i have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but i can tell you that if if there are no hens there will be no eggs.maybe its just me but if the feds really wanted a solution wouldn't they at
least try something new rather than travel a road that keeps getting worse.

Originally Posted by bunker dunker

We hear everyday the phase "follow the science", why don't we????? So if
"science" says that 78%{+ or -} of all fluke over 18 inches are female then why would we have a keeper size of 18"??? i have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but i can tell you that if if there are no hens there will be no eggs. maybe its just me but if the feds really wanted a solution wouldn't they at
least try something new rather than travel a road that keeps getting worse.

Bunker / Billfish,
There's no logic in how this fishery is being managed. Pick your poison of why basic concepts are ignored. MSA, incompetence, alternate agenda, credibility (failure to admit mismanagement of fishery), power, money, greed, arrogance, politics etc. My opinion, a combination of all the above.

Basic problems, other than MSA, of why this fishery continues to fail. Assumption in models, right or wrong, has 25% mortality every year from natural causes. Natural meaning predation (cormorants, dog fish, stripers, sea bass etc.) and sickness. In addition, discard mortality rates are assumed at approximately 2% annually of the total biomass or slightly over 30% of landings. Combined, natural and discard mortality run at about 28% of the biomass per year. A key reason in my opinion why this methodology for managing the fishery will never work. Almost 90% of landings in today's fishery consists of age classes 3-yrs. and above. For comparison sake, in the 80’s and 90’s those age groups made up less than 15% of yearly landings. We're harvesting the wrong age classes today, all sexually mature fish and a proportionately higher percentage female. Recreational size minimums are at the center of that change in the fishery both recreationally and commercially. It's interesting to note that the increased size fish harvested commercially bears a direct relationship to the increase in size minimums over the years to the recreational angling community. In other words the fish that the recreational community are being forced to release are subsequently being harvested by commercial operators for their higher market value. Increased size minimums to the recreational sector has been a very ingenious means of fisheries management removing access to a significant portion of the biomass from the recreational sector for the benefit of the commercial sector resulting in exclusive access for that sector to all fish in the biomass ranging between 14" to 18" - 19". Recruitment has declined over the last 15 years to historical and unprecedented lows and scientists scratch their heads and wonder why.

Do the math. Assume this year’s recruitment class is 100 fish. First year we lose 28% to mortality or 28 fish. Second year starts with 72 fish, lose another 28% or 20 fish bringing that age class to 52 fish remaining after 2 years. Third year we lose another 28% or 15 fish bringing the population to 37 fish after 3 years. We essentially lose around 63% of every recruitment class by age 3 before those fish begin to be harvested. What other fishery is managed this way AND allows commercial harvest during the spawn when recruitment has literally imploded over the last two decades with no pre-emptive efforts to address that decline. Not only are there trillions of eggs destroyed in that process every year but Marine fisheries has absolutely no sense on what impact commercial harvest is having on the overall efficacy of the spawn. It's unconscionable management at both the Federal and State level hang their hats on MSA legislation and compliance yet insist on regulations that have absolutely destroyed the spawning biomass, devastated recruitment levels, shifted substantial access rights between sectors and allow unabated netting in September and October providing no protection whatsoever to the spawn. That's the leadership mentality we've been governed by far too long.

We went from harvest the young and protect the breeders to let the younger age classes succumb to natural and discard mortality while harvesting almost exclusively the mega breeders. Doesn’t paint a pretty picture. I’m concerned about the future of this fishery. Almost every year this past decade, annual recruitment fell short of natural and fishing mortality meaning there were more fish removed from the biomass than additions. Under those circumstances, it's a statistical impossibility for the fishery to recover and we can thank current regulations for that after 25 years of sacrifice. Haven't read where MSA or the subsequent reauthorization mentions anything about continuing with failed management practices to the detriment of the fishery. I wouldn't get too up in arms or excited about Option 1 or 2, in the big picture they don't really matter. We're squabbling over crumbs.

Fisheries management would rather ignore the facts and keep their heads in the sand as opposed to acknowledging and rectifying their poor decisions. Nothing will change and we'll be having these same discussions every year until a completely different methodology is employed managing this stock.

[bunker dunker]

look i have total respect for those on this site that are doing all the work trying to change this on going disaster but lets call a rock a rock. if the feds really
wanted to help us they would.the numbers will never get better until they start to try different things.common sense would say lets lower the size limit 15 inches so maybe we are not killing as many females which would mean a better
spawning number.this has been going on way to long.think about all the has
happened in the last 20 years as far as technology and we can't manage fish
limits.look i am not telling anyone to give up or stop but at 60 years old i for one
am not wasting another minute on it.

BD I completely agree. If Marine fisheries, the Commission and Council haven't changed their approach to this fishery in 25 years, it's foolhearted to think they will going forward. The winter flounder stock was destroyed years ago by commercial dragging, what's left for all practical purposes is exclusively a commercial fishery. That's where Summer Flounder is headed. Commercial practices of selectively harvesting larger age classes, predominantly females, killing smaller fish in the process and wreaking havoc on the spawn has caught up with this fishery. And the regulations not only support that behavior, they promote it.

To give an idea of how significant discard mortality is in the commercial trawling practice, there's years on observed trawls dead discard mortalty was reported in excess of 100% of landings with a high of 140% one year. Translated they're killing more tonnage then what's being brought back to the docks and to make matters worse the fish they're killing are the fish the recreational sector are being forced to release. Every year the discard amounts reported on vessel trip reports have been significantly lower than amounts reported by the observers on board which are unconscionably the numbers used by Fisheries Management quantifying commercial catch. Someone can help me understand what the point is of having observers on board if the data they collect is ignored.

Honor system which obviously is under reporting the carnage taking place offshore. The graph illustrating this in the 57th stock assessment was so atrocious, the federal government conveniently removed the chart in the 66th stock assessment for obvious reasons.

Secretary of Commerce, Marine Fisheries, and leadership or lack of on the Commission and Council have failed this fishery and failed the recreational sector and the businesses, party boat / for hire operators and anglers dependent on it who have shouldered the brunt of the sacrifices made over the last 25 years. So in turn, we can lose 6 days in May but have September 26th 27th and 28th to fish when the majority of the biomass will be offshore being pounded by draggers during their annual spawn.

[bunker dunker]

dakota best of luck and i hope and pray that someday the feds will call you and ask you to help with this disaster.give & take works in all other states,why not where?.
take & take has always and will always destroy no matter what situation.they never did any studies they just kept taking.started with 13 or 14 inches and kept going up and as long as we put up with it they kept raising it.they don't care about science,quota,studies or us,they just care about the bottom line that takes up space in their pockets.

Originally Posted by bunker dunker

dakota best of luck and i hope and pray that someday the feds will call you and ask you to help with this disaster.give & take works in all other states,why not where?.
take & take has always and will always destroy no matter what situation.they never did any studies they just kept taking.started with 13 or 14 inches and kept going up and as long as we put up with it they kept raising it.they don't care about science,quota,studies or us,they just care about the bottom line that takes up space in their pockets.

Didn't wait for the feds to call me, I called them. They have my material and quite frankly could care less. In '19 and '20, I had probably a dozen calls with high level people and arguably 40 - 50 email exchanges with the Commission, Council, North East Science Center "NESC" Woods Hole, Technical Committee and Advisory Panel Members including the lead scientist overseeing this fishery. Names aren't important but state representatives were included from every state in the Mid-Atlantic and the highest ranking Members of Marine Fisheries, the Commission and Council were included in all correspondence. End result is it all falls on deaf ears.

Our problem as a sector is we have limited voice. It takes money and resources for change to happen. Many don't know the commercial sector over the years has successfully sued the federal government regarding increased quotas. If your interested in a good read, search for "The Summer Flounder Chronicles: Science, Politics and Litigation 1975 - 2000 written by Mark Terceiro, lead scientist at NMFS, NESC.

If we're hanging our hats on MSA and MRIP reform, I think we're going to be disappointed in what the future holds. If MSA and subsequent reauthorizations haven't helped in almost 50 years, I'm not holding out hope they will in the near future. Also don't believe Washington will allow their multi-million investment in MRIP go by the wayside. I do however believe there's potential room arguing NMFS and the Commerce Department are in violation of MSA National Standards 4 – “Allocations” as well as FMP 9.2.1.4 (A), (B) and (C) “regarding non-discriminatory measures between fisherman of all states”, “fair and equitable allocation of the resources” “carried out in such a manner not to prejudice any individual, corporation or other entity acquiring excessive shares of such privileges”.

Problem we have starting that fight, funding. My opinion, parties benefiting from recreational spend should fund such a campaign. If the recreational sector can't figure out a way to organize as commercial has and litigate current legislation on the books to get our fair share of the resource, I'm afraid we're destined to the same fate of getting the proverbial short end of the stick going forward. Don't mean to be the wet blanket in all this or throw in the towel but we're David fighting Goliath without the benefit of a sling shot this time around.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Didn't wait for the feds to call me, I called them. They have my material and quite frankly could care less. In '19 and '20, I had probably a dozen calls with high level people and arguably 40 - 50 email exchanges with the Commission, Council, North East Science Center "NESC" Woods Hole, Technical Committee and Advisory Panel Members including the lead scientist overseeing this fishery. Names aren't important but state representatives were included from every state in the Mid-Atlantic and the highest ranking Members of Marine Fisheries, the Commission and Council were included in all correspondence. End result is it all falls on deaf ears.

Our problem as a sector is we have no voice. Recreational is fragmented, not organized, and no funding or true lobbying effort. It takes money, commitment, resources for change to happen. Many don't know the commercial sector over the years has successfully sued the federal government regarding increased quotas. If your interested in a good read, search for "The Summer Flounder Chronicles: Science, Politics and Litigation 1975 - 2000 written by Mark Terceiro, lead scientist at NMFS, NESC.

If we're hanging our hats on MSA and MRIP reform, I think we're going to be disappointed in what the future holds. If MSA and subsequent reauthorizations haven't helped in almost 50 years, I'm not holding out hope they will in the near future. Also don't believe Washington will allow their multi-million investment in MRIP go by the wayside. I do however believe there's potential room arguing NMFS and the Commerce Department are in violation of MSA National Standards 4 – “Allocations” as well as FMP 9.2.1.4 (A), (B) and (C) “regarding non-discriminatory measures between fisherman of all states”, “fair and equitable allocation of the resources” “carried out in such a manner not to prejudice any individual, corporation or other entity acquiring excessive shares of such privileges”.

Problem we have starting that fight, funding. My opinion, the parties benefiting from recreational spend should be approached to fund such a campaign. Bait and tackle industry, rod and reel manufacturers, boat dealers or manufacturers etc. Sycamore Partners who owns Pure Fishing who owns Berkley should fund the initiative alone based on the profits they make in one year from Gulp. If they refuse, don't use their product and I'm sure we'd have their attention. If the recreational sector can't figure out a way to organize as commercial has and litigate current legislation on the books to get our fair share of the resource, than I'm afraid we're destined to the same fate of getting the proverbial short end of the stick from here on out. Don't mean to be the wet blanket in all this or throw in the towel but we're David fighting Goliath and we don't even have the benefit of a sling shot this time around.

Every manufacture gives a ton of money to the ASA to fight for fisherman’s rights .
I believe it’s actually a decent percentage of all net sales .
It’s up to groups to approach the ASA for funding for lawsuits .


.

[Capt Sal]

Originally Posted by bunker dunker

we hear everyday now the phase"follow the science",why don't we?????so if
"science" says that 78%{+ or -} of all fluke over 18 inches are female then why would we have a keeper size of 18"??? i have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but i can tell you that if if there are no hens there will be no eggs.maybe its just me but if the feds really wanted a solution wouldn't they at
least try something new rather than travel a road that keeps getting worse.

BECAUSE IT AIN'T "WE" IT IS "THEM". We did our part with proving the science. We are controlled by the Federal Government in more ways than just Fishing and fish stocks.

Originally Posted by Capt Sal

BECAUSE IT AIN'T "WE" IT IS "THEM". We did our part with proving the science. We are controlled by the Federal Government in more ways than just Fishing and fish stocks.

Capt. Sal....that pretty much sums it up. Marine fisheries controls the data, controls the models they use, controls the states, has all the leverage and has legislation written in such a manner that the scales of justice weigh heavily in their favor. If this were a fresh water fishery regulated by states with no commercial value, this resource would be managed for the benefit of the fishery and general public. Introduce industry, Secretary of Commerce, hundreds of millions of dollars economic impact in a year round fishery for the commercial sector and everything changes.

This fishery has been ripped away from the general public and recreational angler and handed to the commercial sector. Can only imagine what degree of horse trading goes on behind closed doors. Lot of money changing hands funded from the public's sacrifices. Wouldn't surprise me if size minimums in five years were 22" so commercial essentially has the entire biomass to harvest themselves. Remember when NY went to 2 fish @21" in 2010 and what we all felt. Well we're not far behind.

Don't get me wrong, the commercial sector should have access rights just as well as the recreational sector to the resource but the allocation of this resource, and I'm not talking about the 60 / 40 split, couldn't be any more inequitable than it is with the regulations in place. 3 more days in a season.....please. What ever happened to "Enough is Enough"? Year round fishery for commercial, 150 odd days recreational. 14" fish size minimum to commercial, 18" for NJ and 19" for NY and Ct. Those size minimums based on the stock assessments mean length by sex and age classes means recreational at 18" don't start harvesting females until age 4 and males since they have a slower and shorter growth rate won't be harvested until age 6. Age 6 with a 25% yearly natural mortality factor! 83% of the male age class will succumb to natural predation by the time our 18" size minimum allows those fish to be harvested recreationally. And that's before factoring in the impacts of discard mortality and commercial harvest of those age classes! And marine fisheries disputes recreational is harvesting 90% - 95% females. Commercial as a result of the size minimum differential has based on my calculations between 40 - 50 million more fish available for harvest than recreational, a staggering discrepancy between sectors. Someone please refer me to the provision in MSA that allows for that type of inconsistency in the allocation of this stock to exist.