Fluke Options

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Disappointing to say the least. Not sure what happened here but seems like Public Opinion was ignored. Going to be interesting to see what the council and has to say about this...

One thing is for sure, the council is stacked with Southern NJ people who tend to favor an earlier season.. I have no issue with that since it works best for them..

What I do have an issue with is the obvious lack of representation on the council from Northern NJ. Based on our states population distribution, the northern counties of our state represents 75% of our population so shouldn't the council reflect that in it's members?

Total NJ Population 8.8 million
- Southern Counties Population 2.2 = 25%
- Northern Counties Population 6.6 = 75%

.

There def are more northern fisherman , but all our back bay stuff here is VERY good in May.
We aren’t losing productive days here .
Fishery CURRENTLY is based on whole state .
As you know our Oceanside bite isn’t good in may , but the back bay bite us just as bad in July when the Oceanside bite is off the charts .


All meetings so far south show the council make up .

I’m being told FG is really trying to get stuff adjusted that meets the majority .
But their hands are partially tied .

[dales529]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Because option one makes more sense STATE WIDE .
Lots of fluke back bay and in the rivers mid may , and lots of those fish leave as soon as waters warm .

Since Sandy almost every year the fluke push out the first bad storm , which Has usually been the first week of September .
Giving up days early when fish can be caught , to have a few day longer season that probably has over 2 weeks of unproductive time makes ZERO. Sense .

Southern input more than likely would like to see an even earlier start ..



.

Hi Dan
The main point here is that if the council thought Option 1 made the best sense state wide than they should have come out with that opinion last month and stated they will still take public opinion anyway. Instead they went through the procedural process and made recreational anglers think that public opinion matters. State wide public opinion favored Option 2 by 73% albeit a small sampling (under 1000 responses) but it covered: Shore based, For Hire, Private boaters and all Counties in the state. They even provided graphs in a slide show which showed overwhelming support for Option 2 and then flat out ignored all of it.

I get the back bay fishery and its need for an earlier start but we were only given Options 1 week on average less or more. Within these options the few more days in option 2 in my opinion was best. If the south was asking for an April start then we have a whole different conversation and a "split the state" talk.

Yes I book trips 2nd and 3rd week in September and YES they are with one of the best bottom capts in the area but still we always find enough fluke to make the trip worthwhile and for 3 years running got a 10 man boat limit so there are fish around then.

Also YES F&G amongst all the other groups that support recreational fishermen / women are engaged in Slot Fish among other possibilities to make our fishery better and YES all of our hands are / were tied this year but at least there is some traction. It will not happen with just one Agency / group, its going to have to be collective including public support

On a side note I think If I supported Option 1 you would support Option 2 LOL: but thats a different story!

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

Hi Dan
The main point here is that if the council thought Option 1 made the best sense state wide than they should have come out with that opinion last month and stated they will still take public opinion anyway. Instead they went through the procedural process and made recreational anglers think that public opinion matters. State wide public opinion favored Option 2 by 73% albeit a small sampling (under 1000 responses) but it covered: Shore based, For Hire, Private boaters and all Counties in the state. They even provided graphs in a slide show which showed overwhelming support for Option 2 and then flat out ignored all of it.

I get the back bay fishery and its need for an earlier start but we were only given Options 1 week on average less or more. Within these options the few more days in option 2 in my opinion was best. If the south was asking for an April start then we have a whole different conversation and a "split the state" talk.

Yes I book trips 2nd and 3rd week in September and YES they are with one of the best bottom capts in the area but still we always find enough fluke to make the trip worthwhile and for 3 years running got a 10 man boat limit so there are fish around then.

Also YES F&G amongst all the other groups that support recreational fishermen / women are engaged in Slot Fish among other possibilities to make our fishery better and YES all of our hands are / were tied this year but at least there is some traction. It will not happen with just one Agency / group, its going to have to be collective including public support

On a side note I think If I supported Option 1 you would support Option 2 LOL: but thats a different story!

THOUSAND out of a few million isn’t really doesnt quantify does it .
Many people talk volumes outside if this comment period because they know current management will continue to destroy the fishery .

Many groups RFA SSFF tried hard but did not have the right ear to make change .
Different people within FG have that ear as well as more influence to promote change .
The THINKING that a slot will shorten the season isn’t playing out in that circle .
Their numbers and base so far is showing a longer season than we have had .
As. Far as fluke numbers in September we fish for them until the close and hammer the big fish on the move . The MAJORITY of fisherman are wasting their time looking for fish that have pushed out .
Go back and look at reports from those time frames you will see the dramatic change .

[frugalfisherman]

It's good to see party boats only make up 1/5 of the fishery as compared to about 1/2 in the 40,s and 50,s. Maybe if we put a few more like the Angler and Doris Mae out of business we can get it down to 1/6, 1/7 or even 0/0! I don't keep a log. Every time I hook one the mate won't net it.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

THOUSAND out of a few million isn’t really doesnt quantify does it .
Many people talk volumes outside if this comment period because they know current management will continue to destroy the fishery .

Many groups RFA SSFF tried hard but did not have the right ear to make change .
Different people within FG have that ear as well as more influence to promote change .
The THINKING that a slot will shorten the season isn’t playing out in that circle .
Their numbers and base so far is showing a longer season than we have had .
As. Far as fluke numbers in September we fish for them until the close and hammer the big fish on the move . The MAJORITY of fisherman are wasting their time looking for fish that have pushed out .
Go back and look at reports from those time frames you will see the dramatic change .

i think we agree on more than less.
My statement that it was a small sampling on public comment was intended!
RFA-NJ and SSFFF have that same ear within F&G but also realize that the options come from federal (where RFA National has more ears). The lobbyist we at RFA-NJ Hired is from within that system both F&G and DEP on NJ State level so we get it and keep trying.

I always profess that anyone or any group through any means possible keep at it and don't really care where the change comes from or who gets the "credit" as long as it happens so please keep up the good work. Just trying to do the same within the means that I believe can help. Thats also why I work with Tom Dakota on his analysis, and anyone anywhere who would like to make a difference. Unfortunately it also needs fundraising to specifically target the politics when needed.

Why do you suspect F&G hands were tied this year? States only have so much power and while a slot fish vs shorten season may not be playing out within F&G there is nothing at the federal level that YET allows for it until it does. MRIP is the culprit there.

I hope the numbers and base you refer to have a platform as there have been many spin off social media groups to support your statement. It just hasn't translated into actual change just like the rest of the groups. I suspect they are finding out that its not so easy!

You are welcome if you want to fish with us Sept 14

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

i think we agree on more than less.
My statement that it was a small sampling on public comment was intended!
RFA-NJ and SSFFF have that same ear within F&G but also realize that the options come from federal (where RFA National has more ears). The lobbyist we at RFA-NJ Hired is from within that system both F&G and DEP on NJ State level so we get it and keep trying.

I always profess that anyone or any group through any means possible keep at it and don't really care where the change comes from or who gets the "credit" as long as it happens so please keep up the good work. Just trying to do the same within the means that I believe can help. Thats also why I work with Tom Dakota on his analysis, and anyone anywhere who would like to make a difference. Unfortunately it also needs fundraising to specifically target the politics when needed.

Why do you suspect F&G hands were tied this year? States only have so much power and while a slot fish vs shorten season may not be playing out within F&G there is nothing at the federal level that YET allows for it until it does. MRIP is the culprit there.

I hope the numbers and base you refer to have a platform as there have been many spin off social media groups to support your statement. It just hasn't translated into actual change just like the rest of the groups. I suspect they are finding out that its not so easy!

You are welcome if you want to fish with us Sept 14

The fishery management from NMFS is a given guideline it is not absolute .
Each state can offer its own management plan as long as it fits the overall guidelines and NMFS signs off that it meets their quota .
.
That’s why each surrounding state has different bag limits and seasons .

.
I was told that info needed to give the state a different option took longer due to them wanting to prepare a solid basis for change .
I know they also now have Dakotas info on hand that hopefully bolsters their case .

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by frugalfisherman

It's good to see party boats only make up 1/5 of the fishery as compared to about 1/2 in the 40,s and 50,s. Maybe if we put a few more like the Angler and Doris Mae out of business we can get it down to 1/6, 1/7 or even 0/0! I don't keep a log. Every time I hook one the mate won't net it.

Party boat business is different more due to many anglers owning their own boats .
Same if not more recreational pressure , just on a different float .
.
Imo technology created that change , many who cut their teeth on a party boat would never have tried fishing on their own using old school navigation .
With today’s charting and GPS units , finding fish holding structure isn’t a mystery .
My point wasn’t to see what business are left fade away , it’s that they are only a small portion of who is out there fishing

Public input and fisheries management are two terms which shouldn't be used in the same breath. While the option chosen was unexpected, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone following past practices. Unfortunately or not, demographics don't factor into voting in NJ or at the Council, Commission or NMFS levels. Each vote carries the same weight regardless of quotas or demographics and politics tends to prevail. There's states in the Mid-Atlantic that have minimal percentages of the quota who have equal say in policy decisions as states who have majority share.

Earlier start, later start, 3 more days to the season aren't what we or management need to focus on. Look at the attached graph.

1989 to 2003 was the only period in the last half century the fishery experienced substantial growth. The subsequent use of size minimums to manage recreational catch has caused substantial adverse effects to this fishery since. Even at catch levels 50% - 70% lower, recruitment is barely covering natural mortality levels before factoring in landings and discard mortality. Between 2011 and 2017, the fisheries population declined by over 50 million fish (over 40% of last reported stock population) and without a renewed management focus this fishery not only won't recover, it can't. The data is telling us that.

If remedial changes were adopted next year, it'll take a decade for the impacts to be felt. The biomass is made up of age classes 0 - 6 and 7+. 7+ ages makes up less than 4% of the population, 0 - 6 over 96%. If you refer to the below chart, we've had 7 years of well below average recruitment with no reason to believe anything has changed for years 2018 through current. So the entire biomass today consists of impaired recruitment classes in every age class as well as strongly decreased gender composition favoring males of every age class. Refer to page 60 and 61 of the 66th stock assessment under Sex Ratio tables. Someone explain why any rationale person would believe the fishery would not continue it's decline, much less recover, based on the merits of this past decades performance. Between 1990 and 1999, recruitment outpaced natural mortality (predation / sickness) by almost 300 million fish. This past decade, based on 2011 through 2017 statistics, recruitment is estimated to outpace natural mortality by a mere 33 million fish. That's before landings and discard removals from the biomass are factored in. Either the data is wrong, and decisions based on it wrong as well, or the fishery is in imminent danger of another 1988 scenario.

This should be the focus of management and the focus of anyone trying to help this fishery. That's not to say allocations, season lengths and the like aren't important. I simply mean without focus on the causes leading to the decline in this fishery, there won't be a fishery and if and when that happens season lengths won't really matter. This fishery grew beyond anyone's expectation 25 years ago to the point it was declared rebuilt. The only thing standing in the way of history repeating itself is working our way back to the same regulations which promoted that growth. Not difficult to understand, just need to put egos and politics aside and do what's best for the fishery. Everything else will fall into place.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

The fishery management from NMFS is a given guideline it is not absolute .
Each state can offer its own management plan as long as it fits the overall guidelines and NMFS signs off that it meets their quota .
.
That’s why each surrounding state has different bag limits and seasons .

.
I was told that info needed to give the state a different option took longer due to them wanting to prepare a solid basis for change .
I know they also now have Dakotas info on hand that hopefully bolsters their case .

Yup. Nothing new to me there. Thx