ASMFC Schedules Conference Call today (9:30) to Declare NJ out-of-compliance 4 Fluke

[reason162]

NJ's lawless gamble might just pay off. If we get away with this (either with approval by Commerce Sec or a delayed decision to effectively grant us 3@18" for the majority of the season), the regional management system is in jeopardy. NY and CT will follow in our footsteps, everyone makes up their own regs in defiance of the best/only available science.

All this over 1" and a shorter season to boot. I'm still not clear who thought that 3@18 was a good compromise, I'm sure the charter/party boat captains are divided on whether this is a good idea. Losing days is guaranteed loss revenue vs. size limits.

If you're wrong, and the science is right (imo a reasonable assumption if you've actually looked at the data), then the fluke biomass is in serious trouble. In 10 years you can look back on this forum and read the mostly one-sided "debate" that precipitated the collapse of a fishery.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Originally Posted by reason162

NJ's lawless gamble might just pay off. If we get away with this (either with approval by Commerce Sec or a delayed decision to effectively grant us 3@18" for the majority of the season), the regional management system is in jeopardy. NY and CT will follow in our footsteps, everyone makes up their own regs in defiance of the best/only available science.

All this over 1" and a shorter season to boot. I'm still not clear who thought that 3@18 was a good compromise, I'm sure the charter/party boat captains are divided on whether this is a good idea. Losing days is guaranteed loss revenue vs. size limits.

If you're wrong, and the science is right (imo a reasonable assumption if you've actually looked at the data), then the fluke biomass is in serious trouble. In 10 years you can look back on this forum and read the mostly one-sided "debate" that precipitated the collapse of a fishery.

Well it seems that the Cape May guys were the ones In support of the 18" since they're the ones that stack the boards. Secondly fish at 19" have been proven to be 85% or higher females. In addition 95% of fish over 21" are female. So if you want to blame lowered stocks ( and that's not the case) blame it on the regs. Targeting females is no way to sustain or rebuild a stock. Add in their so called mortality rate and poof another reason the regs are wrong.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

Well it seems that the Cape May guys were the ones In support of the 18" since they're the ones that stack the boards. Secondly fish at 19" have been proven to be 85% or higher females. In addition 95% of fish over 21" are female. So if you want to blame lowered stocks ( and that's not the case) blame it on the regs. Targeting females is no way to sustain or rebuild a stock. Add in their so called mortality rate and poof another reason the regs are wrong.

Yep - If you believe their numbers on stock assessments and look at the regulations they've put in place over the years, we're being forced to harvest larger fish and that's obviously not working.... The current system is broke and needs to be fixed.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by reason162

NJ's lawless gamble might just pay off. If we get away with this (either with approval by Commerce Sec or a delayed decision to effectively grant us 3@18" for the majority of the season), the regional management system is in jeopardy. NY and CT will follow in our footsteps, everyone makes up their own regs in defiance of the best/only available science.

All this over 1" and a shorter season to boot. I'm still not clear who thought that 3@18 was a good compromise, I'm sure the charter/party boat captains are divided on whether this is a good idea. Losing days is guaranteed loss revenue vs. size limits.

If you're wrong, and the science is right (imo a reasonable assumption if you've actually looked at the data), then the fluke biomass is in serious trouble. In 10 years you can look back on this forum and read the mostly one-sided "debate" that precipitated the collapse of a fishery.

Hold on minute here.... We've followed their regs and science for 20 years now.... Pretty obvious to me it's got us no where. Time for a change here because forcing us to target larger fish each year is obviously not working...