"Fresh Fluke" at local chain grocery store

[Billfish715]

There has to be a market for this type of sales. Fulton usually sells seafood in wholesale amounts. If you wanted to buy tuna, you might have to buy the whole loin as opposed to just a few steak as an example. The prices mentioned on the website are for online shoppers of whom there must be many. With all of the at-home shoppers, especially those in the city, it would not surprise me that someone would pay big bucks for some freshly frozen fish rather than having to go to the store or market to buy it.

And the beat goes on..........if there is a buyer, then there is a willing seller. If someone wants to pay a lot for their fish, there will always be someone to oblige them. Fluke is a tasty and desirable table fare. It's why it can fetch such a high price at the market. Maybe someone should start asking for more skate wings for dinner so the commercial guys would catch them and take the pressure off the fluke.

[Detour66]

Originally Posted by bulletbob

this post stated fluke was being sold retail at $25 a pound... How much higher can it go???.. If people are really that stupid that they'll pay $30-35 a pound for fluke, then they get what they deserve, fluke is good, yes, but not that damn good.. No better than a haddock bergall, ling or any of a dozen other local species...,, bob

Bergall ???

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by Detour66

Bergall ???

I was just pointing out that even a virtually worthless "junk" species could have meat as good as a fluke... Personally, I prefer the meat of bergalls to fluke.
fluke are pretty good, but not even close to a winter flounder, and for me personally, there are several other species that I like better... bob

[dales529]

Originally Posted by june181901

As sport anglers we are unable to hire the very effective lobbyists that the commercial groups do. We are very unorganized by comparison.

Disagree with your first statement as we have "hired" very effective lobbyists such as RFA, we as sports anglers just choose NOT to fund them adequately.
We argue over species, conservation methods, mortality, which groups to support etc etc etc . So NOT unable just unwilling

Unorganized agreed but again all by choice

Commercial groups are all in with theirs as it encompasses all species / goals and they "get it" when it effects their business. We recs dont yet but hoping

[jigmup]

More expensive than Alaska King Crab leg

Look at the attached charts and it's all you need to realize that the draconian regulations forced on both recreational and commercial interests intended to improve the fluke fishery have in fact caused it's decline.
Charts are based on NMFS and ASMFC data.

Chart 1 "Catch as a % of SSB" (Spawning Stock Biomass). Data is from 1982 thru 2015. You can clearly see how much less recreational and commercial harvest makes up of the existing biomass. Between 1989 and 2002, annual catch as a percentage of the biomass averaged approximately 70% annually while the biomass exploded up[ward by 600%. Catch was 20% in 2015, and is presumed to be closer to 15% today based on further catch reductions over the last three years. Logic would tell you if we're harvesting that much less of the resource, the fishery should be thriving.......it's not according to stock assessments by NMFS.

Chart 2 "Average Recruitment (egg reproduction) for every Metric Ton of Spawning Stock Biomass". For years 1982 thru 1988, there were 2,680 eggs for every metric ton of SSB. For the years 2011 thru 2015, there were 644. That's a 76% decrease in the strength of egg reproduction on a significantly higher biomass. Decline in individual years within those two periods exceeded 80% of reproductive strength and that's through 2015. Since we've continued to harvest primarily female fluke the last three years '16 thru '18, it wouldn't surprise me if that decline in reproduction is closer to 85% - 90% today. That's a consistent trend that's been taking place over the last 35 years, not a recent anomaly as NMFS and ASMFC would want us to believe within the last 5 - 6 years and not a sole is questioning the cause.

Chart 3 "Average Recruitment to Size Limit Trend". Yellow line is size limit legislation by year trend, grey line is recruitment (egg reproduction) over the same period of time. You can plainly see where recruitment was before size limits were introduced and what happened around the year 2000 and beyond as size regulations were increased annually. Recruitment strength of the biomass was destroyed. Even at significantly reduced catch levels illustrated in Chart 1, an almost 85% - 90% drop in egg reproduction based on a significantly larger biomass can't sustain the fishery. Question fisheries management should be asking is why is a biomass today that's almost two and a half times greater than the average biomass back in the nineties producing almost 90% less egg reproduction. Find the answer to that question, implement regulations to resolve it and the fishery will correct itself.

Until regulations are put in place to address the above, absolutely nothing will change other than more of the same, continued size limit increases and daily possessions limit reduction which is the basis of the problem which landed us where we are today.

For anyone from NMFS and ASMFC who might read this post, two things NEED to happen. Stop the Fall commercial harvest of fluke during the primary spawn migration and re-introduce slot limits to take pressure off breeder fluke. If those two changes are adopted, the fishery will gradually improve over time.

As a final note if Charles Witek happens to read this post, the precise definition of your "Steepness Theory" is wrong if a fishery whose SSB actually increased by 600% between 1989 thru 2002 has simultaneously experienced a continuous reduction in egg reproduction for the last 35 years. It defeats the premise of your entire argument and the longer you insist on baseless rhetoric the longer this fishery will continue suffering.

[Detour66]

Bullet Bob... the reason I put ??? next to Bergall's is I didn't realize they are good eating fish. I might have to try them. Thanks!

The reason I made the above post is because this is what will correct this fishery. Didn't mean to sidetrack the thread of the original poster. Google wholesale prices for summer flounder and some of the prices you'll find will blow away 24.99 a lb. As someone already pointed out, the regulations are based on tonnage so if consumers want to pay $100 a lb for fresh fluke so be it. I can assure you the guys harvesting the fish aren't getting near that price so that tells me the entire supply chain is broken but as mentioned if consumer demand is willing to pay those prices all the power to them. It does give commercial concerns more reason to harvest a resource which has greater returns but this is where quotas can counter-balance that risk and as I mentioned total catch is so far down from 20 - 30 years ago catch isn't the issue the regulatory bodies should be focused on. Unfortunately it seems to be the only thing they have been for the last 20 or so years.

What I would like to see are the same prices paid to commercial concerns for fluke regardless of size, that would all but eliminate culling their catch at sea with larger more valuable females. And for anyone who disagrees that not only happens but happens with regularity let's just agree to disagree. That would address the smaller mesh issue, would address and all but eliminate dead discard of fluke and takes the target off the head of larger more valuable female breeders that exists today. Right now the disparity in wholesale fluke prices for commercial operators based on size incentivizes hygrading which in my opinion is a potentially huge problem effecting the fishery that's virtually impossible to monitor or quantify.

Originally Posted by Detour66

Bullet Bob... the reason I put ??? next to Bergall's is I didn't realize they are good eating fish. I might have to try them. Thanks!

Detour they're an excellent white meat fish. Issue is catching ones large enough to get a worth while fillet. On offshore trips for sea bass, cod, ling etc. if you see some jumbos caught give them a try, you won't be disappointed. How bad can something be that feeds on crabs, baby lobsters, clams just like sea bass and black fish.

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by Detour66

Bullet Bob... the reason I put ??? next to Bergall's is I didn't realize they are good eating fish. I might have to try them. Thanks!

They are really good.. Just need good sized ones. lots of guys on bottom fishing boats take them these days, but big fat ones are not easy to find any more.. I have caught huge ones in the shark river and manasqaun river of all places- right near the bridge pilings in September .. that was decades ago, not sure if they are still there these days, but I remember very well that they were big, fat, and full of fight on light "river size" tackle, and wonderful to eat...
I rate them above tog and fluke for eating , but not quite as good as winter flounder or sea bass.... bob