Future of Fluke Fishery and SSFFF Update

[CCMPmonmouth]

Size limits have very little to do with science. It is just easier to pass to the recreational fishermen than creel limits. Why do think the commercial size is still 14 inches?

[snapperbluefish101]

I like the sound of a slot limit. 17"-23" or 24" 5 fish, etc. Anyone feels that would work?

[Cuz]

Gerry, Thank you for spending the time and energy writing to us all this information. Great read.
But I was told by JCAA and SSFFF members that all the data presented doesn't do a bit of good if those making the rules don't want to co-operate or listen. That's the REAL problem. The fishing community needs to know who, by name, are the problem members on each law making committee. Then we all should complain to our politicians to replace that person with a 'qualified' replacement.
I never knew how someone gets appointed to any of the fishing committees. Please fill me and our members in on that subject. How many comittees are making the rules? Please name them all. From the government to the state levels.
Like I said before, fishing is suppose to be a fun sport. It has turned into a frustrating sport with all bag limits, size limits, time limits. How did we get to this point? I can only guess. No one was watching or 'caring' not too many years ago when the fishing was really good. Now we're paying the penalty for not being on watch. I hope everyone who reads this takes it to heart and contributes in some way to show those who are making the rules we really do care.

[mike1010]

Thanks for the information. Donation made, but why is it not tax deductible? Does the state view SSFF as a trade group rather than a non-profit?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Mudcat and Cuz I wanted to take a crack at answering your questions:

Mud Slot Limit – While I think the slot fish could help on the recreational side, slot limits are not practical on the commercial side since their catches and what they can keep can’t be controlled to release fish of certain larger sizes…. As you might know, right now commercials are allowed to keep smaller they we recs are to fill their quota. I think that is the way we want it since we don’t want their quota to be filled by targeting larger fish because once again, the larger fish are females and the larger the female fish more eggs they produce.
-------------------------

Cuz Those Making the Rules Don’t want to Cooperate – Yes and that was in fact the case the last time the SSFFF presented the data from the study we funded and the information was presented by Dr. Mark Maunder at the Peer Review.

Presenting that study and data at the time was like you and I crashing a teenager’s party, stopping their music and putting on an oldies record. As a result, it was obviously was met with resistance because they were not prepared for it and we did not fit in. That has since changed and the committee and their Scientists are now exchanging information with our Scientists for the first time. So, the next Peer Review we will not have to crash, we will be an invited guest.

As far as the political powers, does it make sense to try to influence them? Well yes and no. The Magnuson Stevens act has some very clear laws where fisheries management is forced by law to take action when certain fish stocks are deemed to be in trouble. This results in stricter regulations by law and in some cases could result in the closure of a fishery. Look what happened to the Cod Fishery up in New England.

We've seen recently where some Political pressure was brought to bear and we now have Politicians leading the charge to try and modify Magnuson Stevens to allow for some Flexibility. That is great since it could temporarily help avert short term stricter regulations and or closures. However, at the end of the day everything comes back to stock assessments and the science behind those assessments. That is to say, if a certain stock is deemed to be in trouble, flexibility or not, it’s eventually going to mean lower quotas which lead to stricter regulations.

The SSFFF is not about bringing political pressure to bear, it’s about having the right science in place to do a better job accessing the stock for the long term sustainability of the fishery.

I think this is the high road for a variety of reasons.
- It’s a long term fix, not a short term political tactic for short term gain
- It has the best interest of the fishery in mind
- You can argue all day long about the flawed assessment methods but until they are changed nothing will change. (RIP Yogi)

Take a look at the Sea Bass Fishery…. This is a perfect example where the assessment science is flawed which drives the regulations. You or I would be hard pressed to drop a bait down on any rock or reef and not catch a Sea Bass… Yet here we are with restricted regulations that assume this fishery is in trouble.

Lastly, it’s important to note again that this is not an attempt to exploit a fishery for our short term economic or personal gain. It’s about the long term sustainability of the Fishery by using better science.

Having said that, will what the SSFFF is attempting to do with better science get us more favorable regs?? Maybe, maybe not. It will however allow us to make more intelligent assessments of the stock and therefore be given the right regulations to manage it.

This is my mind is the right thing to do and why I says it the "high road". If based on new and better science, the stock really is in trouble, we may have to suck it up with stricter regulations. Fact is we need better science to make those assessments and not go the way of the Sea Bass.

Hope this make sense.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by FISHGERE

Sounds all to crazy for me, fishing should not have to be so hard.

Fishing is hard, and so is science.

[Cuz]

Gerry, Most people know nothing about the fishing advisory boards that enforce our regulations. Can you explain to everyone who they are, what name they use. (Like the NMFS) And lastly what role they play. Start with the international, then national then lastly the state board.
Do you know how many voting members are on each board?
Believe me, when I try to speak to someone about how the system works I get blank looks. And I only know a little about them. Thanks. -Cuz-

[Dave A]

Originally Posted by mike1010

Thanks for the information. Donation made, but why is it not tax deductible? Does the state view SSFF as a trade group rather than a non-profit?

SSFFF is a non-profit 501C-4 organization. That means we have the ability to lobby in Washington if we need to. So far, we have never done that but we wanted to keep that option available to us. That is why donations are not tax deductible.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by mike1010

Thanks for the information. Donation made, but why is it not tax deductible? Does the state view SSFF as a trade group rather than a non-profit?

Thanks for the donation Mike and see Dave A's reply above about Non Profit status.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Gerry, Most people know nothing about the fishing advisory boards that enforce our regulations. Can you explain to everyone who they are, what name they use. (Like the NMFS) And lastly what role they play. Start with the international, then national then lastly the state board.
Do you know how many voting members are on each board?
Believe me, when I try to speak to someone about how the system works I get blank looks. And I only know a little about them. Thanks. -Cuz-

Here is a brief synopsis I found on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...heries_Service