Fluke and Sea Bass Returns

[aruvio]

Take what you want, its there for the taking.

[dales529]

Do we really need to go through this every year? Until MRIP and the general basis of "landings" or "catch" formulas are changed its a FEDERAL thing NOT a NJ State thing. Under the current FEDERAL options to our state of NJ a Slot fish would most likely reduce our season to 31 days. If I am not mistaken MRIP stated 1 million fluke were caught shore based last year. What? Now you want to add more shore based or back bay or 16" limits to this crazy catch method.

RFA and many others are still working towards an end goal but its US the public that gave up due to fear and perceived notions so we don't have the funds to compete.

RFA-NJ hired a lobbyist, you asked you got!

Tom dakota spent hours / days / weeks posting here on the formulas and no one cared here

We had a fishing regulation forum but it got so frustrating it got shut down and the Tony Bogans and others of the world stopped contributing because of the same questions years in and years out.

Most of all the information you need is on the internet. Read, research, absorb and understand

[dales529]

bump

[bunker dunker]

go north young fluke fishermen,go north.the hell with jersey,give your money
to state that respects the fishing community.

[Billfish715]

[QUOTE=dales529;556767]

RFA and many others are still working towards an end goal but its US the public that gave up due to fear and perceived notions so we don't have the funds to compete.

RFA-NJ hired a lobbyist, you asked you got!

Tom dakota spent hours / days / weeks posting here on the formulas and no one cared here

It’s not fishermen don’t care, we do. There is a level of frustration that has set in because everyone is worn down after trying to convince a small committee of government representatives to make any concessions. There is no referendum on the ballot to change things. It’s our government at its worst.

We do care but we can only go through the system that is in place. The agencies are so focused on the future that they somehow are blind to the present. It seems to be a fundamental element of governance. This concern for the future has been going on for years, and yet, the future never gets any closer. Without a date for when the stocks will be fully restored, this carnival ride will never end. Limits will still be restrictive and our grandchildren’s fishing experiences will still be handcuffed.

It seems to me that the regulations that have been in place for DECADES are not working. Is there no better reason why fishermen are getting frustrated? The system is in drastic need for repair or replacement. Unfortunately, it is supported by bureaucrats who have their own agendas.

I’ve said it before, “The future is now.” If the price of fluke is almost $20 per pound in today, what will it cost in the bureaucratic future?

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

I think it would be great if people were allowed to keep 1 slot Fluke say between 16 and 18. Problem is the way that would get figured into our regs. I would think plugging a slot fish into their calculations would increase assumed landings against our quota which would likely lead to a shorter season.

As for me and I think most, we want the longest season possible so we have the ability to fish as many days as possible.

Problem is with the current regulations and options on the table, the recreational sector is boxed in. Introduction of a slot, the recreational sector is penalized for additional landings with no consideration given to the benefits associated with harvesting proportionately more males than females, positive impact of lower discard mortality rates a slot would insure and most importantly the positive impact it will have on annual recruitment levels. Additionally, the Committee and Counsel has to come to grips with the commercial sector harvesting during the spawn. If you extend the season, even by only three days, the sector will be penalized for increased fishing effort. Don't think for a second that won't be factored into the 2022 regulations.

I also believe that 10% to 20% of anglers fill a vast majority of the recreational harvest quota. A large majority of recreational anglers, especially party boat patrons and shore based anglers, I'd venture to bet would prefer a slot and be able to take home a meal after spending $200 to $300 for a day of fishing only to go home with an empty cooler as opposed to an extended season.

Until fisheries management starts taking into consideration gender composition of the annual harvest (precisely what SSFFF was trying to accomplish), this fishery will continue it's decline. There's no reason whatsoever to think otherwise. Managing a fishery simply by cutting catch and not addressing the devastating 20 year decline in recruitment levels is no different than trying to manage a business with a revenue problem by cutting costs every year. It's not a long-term strategy to remediate this fishery.

If they introduced a slot for the striper fishery, there's absolutely no reason why they can't introduce a slot for the fluke fishery for exactly the same reasons. Protect young of the year, harvest select age groups with a more proportionate gender composition while providing protection for the breeders. Not a difficult concept to understand, one common sense should tell you without the need for science. It's politics and a separate agenda that's driving this fishery, not the data.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

Do we really need to go through this every year? Until MRIP and the general basis of "landings" or "catch" formulas are changed its a FEDERAL thing NOT a NJ State thing. Under the current FEDERAL options to our state of NJ a Slot fish would most likely reduce our season to 31 days. If I am not mistaken MRIP stated 1 million fluke were caught shore based last year. What? Now you want to add more shore based or back bay or 16" limits to this crazy catch method.

RFA and many others are still working towards an end goal but its US the public that gave up due to fear and perceived notions so we don't have the funds to compete.

RFA-NJ hired a lobbyist, you asked you got!

Tom dakota spent hours / days / weeks posting here on the formulas and no one cared here

We had a fishing regulation forum but it got so frustrating it got shut down and the Tony Bogans and others of the world stopped contributing because of the same questions years in and years out.

Most of all the information you need is on the internet. Read, research, absorb and understand

Based on poundage your already being charged for a High mortality of shorts .
Keeping a slot fish would reduce those fish returned and lower that portion of the quota.
Talking to FG people involved with setting seasons etc , they said they had never been approached for a statewide slot .
And crunching the numbers of releases not having a slot really hurts our season in two ways .
.
Reason nothing is changing each year is their really haven’t been different approaches given , and those changes need to reach decision makers long before the public meetings are held .
Waiting until the day of doesn’t allow ideas and information to sink in. , and they are running under time constraints .

INSANITY. Is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results .
While the parties you mentioned have tried hard they are just as stuck on it’s only their way or no way .
So you wonder why it’s a yearly argument that never changes ?????????

Originally Posted by dales529

Do we really need to go through this every year? Until MRIP and the general basis of "landings" or "catch" formulas are changed its a FEDERAL thing NOT a NJ State thing. Under the current FEDERAL options to our state of NJ a Slot fish would most likely reduce our season to 31 days. If I am not mistaken MRIP stated 1 million fluke were caught shore based last year. What? Now you want to add more shore based or back bay or 16" limits to this crazy catch method.

Dave every call I had with Dustin Learning and Kiley Dancy involving introducing a slot and the associated benefits immediately turned into how much of the season would the recreational sector be willing to give up for that accommodation. The problem with the system is no one is factoring the benefits of harvesting younger age classes with a more balanced gender mix into the equation and completely ignoring the impacts on improved recruitment of that change in this fishery.

What I find to be a complete inequity between the sectors is as most know commercial can retain any fish 14" or larger. So commercial can harvest 14", 15" or 16" fish year round with no impact whatsoever to their quota or fishing access but that's not the case with the recreational sector. If the recreational sector wants to harvest those age classes, we're expected to sacrifice more than we have already in spite of the obvious benefits to the fishery.

If the recreational quota allows 3 fish per day per angler to be harvested, why would the harvest of 3 fish at 18" be acceptable yet the harvest of 3 fish at 16" not be if quotas are all weight driven. Someone help me understand the point of a daily possession limit if the above were not true.

The answer is those daily possession limits are theoretical and essentially meaningless. If recreational anglers on average came close to harvesting those levels daily, the recreational sector would overfish their quota by probably 100% to 200%. The regulations the following year would be slashed. In 2018, 92% of trips resulted in slightly over one fish caught per angler. And that number excludes trips resulting in no fish landed. Think about how far we've fallen with this fishery. With the current size and daily position limits in place, in 2018 the average fluke retained per angler trip was less than one fish! And since the regulations in place today are essentially the same, I would expect the same to hold true today.

What all this should mean to each of you is that the federal and state governments have essentially manipulated the regulations to have the recreational angler on average harvest less than one fish per trip. That's the reality of where this fishery is at whether you realize it or not. Size minimums are being used to regulate harvest, daily possession limits are essentially irrelevant. Case in point, how many fish do you think you'd retain each trip if you had a 10 fish daily possession limit but the size minimum was increased to 30".

Until fisheries management realizes this fishery needs to be managed based on size and gender of fish harvested and not weight, the fishery will continue its struggles. No different than the conditions that caused the recent change in regulations with the striped bass fishery. Introduce a slot, protect the very young age classes, promote harvest of the middle age classes, protect the breeders and larger females while improving recruitment. In the process, reduce discard mortality which is a huge issue recreationally due to the regulations and commercially due to selective harvest. Not all that hard to understand and completely supportable based on fishery management's own data. The hard part is finding someone to listen to basic common sense and stop playing politics with an incredibly vital public resource.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Based on poundage your already being charged for a High mortality of shorts .
Keeping a slot fish would reduce those fish returned and lower that portion of the quota.
Talking to FG people involved with setting seasons etc , they said they had never been approached for a statewide slot .
And crunching the numbers of releases not having a slot really hurts our season in two ways .
.
Reason nothing is changing each year is their really haven’t been different approaches given , and those changes need to reach decision makers long before the public meetings are held .
Waiting until the day of doesn’t allow ideas and information to sink in. , and they are running under time constraints .

INSANITY. Is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results .
While the parties you mentioned have tried hard they are just as stuck on it’s only their way or no way .
So you wonder why it’s a yearly argument that never changes ?????????

Dan
Let me be clear: I am in full support of a slot fish for many reasons and the ones you mention. Having said that the discussions, meetings, briefs, presentations presented are ongoing ALL year long and for as long as i have been involved which is 13 years but probably 8 years since we have been presenting data on the benefits of a Slot Fish. ALL fisheries clubs, management groups and private public people like Tom Smith have presented different options, data, briefs etc to little or no attention when it matters. I will leave it at that.
Talk about banging your head against the wall!.

The Feds give NJ an option package, the NJ DEP has a little wiggle room to adjust those options but typically its season start / end date (length) to meet what the feds consider our quota allocation.

TO DATE: A slot fish would reduce our season dramatically based on MRIP.
Once we go there the current season would get shut down and the next year reduced.

Again the NJ DEP sets the regs based on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council advisements which are limited by the MAMFC and ASMFC options Federally.

Why anyone at FG would need to be approached about a slot fish is either its not achievable, or another way to pass blame with little accountability. Every faction of our marine fisheries councils have been and should be well informed on any / all of this every year.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Dave every call I had with Dustin Learning and Kiley Dancy involving introducing a slot and the associated benefits immediately turned into how much of the season would the recreational sector be willing to give up for that accommodation. The problem with the system is no one is factoring the benefits of harvesting younger age classes with a more balanced gender mix into the equation and completely ignoring the impacts on improved recruitment of that change in this fishery.

What I find to be a complete inequity between the sectors is as most know commercial can retain any fish 14" or larger. So commercial can harvest 14", 15" or 16" fish year round with no impact whatsoever to their quota or fishing access but that's not the case with the recreational sector. If the recreational sector wants to harvest those age classes, we're expected to sacrifice more than we have already in spite of the obvious benefits to the fishery.

If the recreational quota allows 3 fish per day per angler to be harvested, why would the harvest of 3 fish at 18" be acceptable yet the harvest of 3 fish at 16" not be if quotas are all weight driven. Someone help me understand the point of a daily possession limit if the above were not true.

The answer is those daily possession limits are theoretical and essentially meaningless. If recreational anglers on average came close to harvesting those levels daily, the recreational sector would overfish their quota by probably 100% to 200%. The regulations the following year would be slashed. In 2018, 92% of trips resulted in slightly over one fish caught per angler. And that number excludes trips resulting in no fish landed. Think about how far we've fallen with this fishery. With the current size and daily position limits in place, in 2018 the average fluke retained per angler trip was less than one fish! And since the regulations in place today are essentially the same, I would expect the same to hold true today.

What all this should mean to each of you is that the federal and state governments have essentially manipulated the regulations to have the recreational angler on average harvest less than one fish per trip. That's the reality of where this fishery is at whether you realize it or not. Size minimums are being used to regulate harvest, daily possession limits are essentially irrelevant. Case in point, how many fish do you think you'd retain each trip if you had a 10 fish daily possession limit but the size minimum was increased to 30".

Until fisheries management realizes this fishery needs to be managed based on size and gender of fish harvested and not weight, the fishery will continue its struggles. No different than the conditions that caused the recent change in regulations with the striped bass fishery. Introduce a slot, protect the very young age classes, promote harvest of the middle age classes, protect the breeders and larger females while improving recruitment. In the process, reduce discard mortality which is a huge issue recreationally due to the regulations and commercially due to selective harvest. Not all that hard to understand and completely supportable based on fishery management's own data. The hard part is finding someone to listen to basic common sense and stop playing politics with an incredibly vital public resource.

Tom
You know through many of our conversations where I stand on this. Magnason reform, MRIP reform etc all has to happen before anything along these lines move forward and you are well aware of the hold up.