Fluke and Sea Bass Returns

[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 .


.

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

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 .


.

One last post I'd like to leave the board with and it'll be my last regarding regulations. The use of increased size minimums to handicap the recreational sector is at the center of all that's wrong with this fishery. It creates a huge disparity in the harvest rights of the biomass which I'll illustrate. Its the cause of significantly more females being harvested proportionately both recreationally and commercially which is a contributing factor of why recruitment levels have tanked and discard mortality levels have gone through the roof. That's not to say I agree with all the data, but it is the data being used to make policy decisions and regulate this fishery.

The last reported biomass in 2018 was 121 million fish. Of that, ~70 million were age groups 0 (new recruits / eggs) or 1 year old fish and under the 14" threshold for the commercial sector as well. Age two exceeds the 14" threshold so commercial had ~51 million fish to harvest from the biomass. Conversely, an 18" fish (NJ size minimum) allows for 4 yr old females and 6 year old males to begin being harvested. Based on the biomass population by age that gives NJ recreational anglers ~13 million fish to harvest, an almost 40 million difference in the number of fish available between sectors. Use NY and Ct. at 19". the disparity is even greater.

So the question. If size minimums create a 40 - 45 million disparity in fish eligible to be harvested by sector and if the funding is there to support a law suit against marine fisheries, why haven't those funds been used to argue a 4" to 5" size minimum difference between commercial and recreational is a violation of MSA National Standards 4 addressing fair allocation of the resource. It seems to me from reading the legislation, that standard was enacted to prevent precisely the unfair allocation size minimums have created between sectors. There's no guarantee a lawsuit would be successful but based on the complete inequity size minimum differentials have caused in this fishery along with the negative impacts to the stock itself, why not at least try. Curious what others opinions are.

[reason162]

You are aware that the 14" min size limit was imposed on comms to curb high grading?

Originally Posted by reason162

You are aware that the 14" min size limit was imposed on comms to curb high grading?

As acutely aware as I am it didn't accomplish it's intended purpose. All you need to do is track the average commercial landings weights over the last 20 years and the age classes harvested over that same time frame. Sector went from harvesting predominantly age classes 1-3 to predominantly 3-5 age groups. Average landings weight doubled and discard rates soared due to selective harvest. How many younger age class fish do you think survive an hour and a half tow. Just about every fish coming up in a plugged net will go back belly up.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

As acutely aware as I am it didn't accomplish it's intended purpose. All you need to do is track the average commercial landings weights over the last 20 years and the age classes harvested over that same time frame. Sector went from harvesting predominantly age classes 1-3 to predominantly 3-5 age groups. Average landings weight doubled and discard rates soared due to selective harvest. How many younger age class fish do you think survive an hour and a half tow. Just about every fish coming up in a plugged net will go back belly up.

How does forcing comms to take 14" fluke lead to more selective harvesting?

They don't want to take 14" fluke. Smaller fish are worth less per lb. They are forced to take 14" fluke bc otherwise they discard and high grade to bigger fish which are worth more.

I assume you know that the comms fought tooth and nail over the 14" limit. It was imposed upon them by fishery managers.