Where the heck are the Fluke?

Up

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

There is huge expansion in the population. Is that climate change or over regulation? Hmmmmmm

Could be any number of factors. Va and NC make up ~50% of the commercial quota, is it commercial over fishing by southern states in their local waters that depleted the more southern portion of the biomass and not migratory movement at all. You could make the same argument with whiting, cod and mackerel in our local waters, they were here years ago but now any sizable concentration is north. Climate change, we all know it's not. Commercial carnage that caused irreparable damage to the local biomass, we all know it was. Maybe expansion up north is the result of less recreational and commercial fishing there relative to our area. Could be changes in the ocean's ecosystem over the years due to storms. Look at what Sandy did up here to hard bottom areas that were covered up. Is it due to beach replenishment removing sand from the ocean floor and changing bottom contours. Is it bait movement or worse the displacement of forage by commercial efforts. Could be natural expansion, could be temperature changes but personally I don't think anyone can say for sure.

Anecdotal. When I was growing up, many years our family would go to Maine on vacation. Saco Beach Inlet was one of our stops along the way. Fishing was incredible for stripers and just about everything else. One year in the 70's, bunker showed up in big numbers for the first time. At the same time, huge bluefish showed up with them. None of the locals knew what they were, tackle shops didn't even stock lures to fish for them. Was that climate change or expansion based on bait movement. If the later, what caused the bait to move north? The bait was there and the bluefish followed, in that case it had nothing to do with warming water temperatures since there was still a thriving fishery in our local waters.

Stock assessment states average length to age for both male and female summer flounder has been declining since the 90's. If fish aren't growing faster I'd imagine lack of forage is a strong possibility. As Bob mentioned in his earlier post, is the location of the biomass being influenced by that as opposed to water temperatures. Years ago, sand eels were all over until commercial netting destroyed that forage base as well. Take away the bait, predators will seek food elsewhere. The amount of sand eels today, like everything else, pales in comparison to the numbers in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Change the food chain at any level and everything above that link changes with it. Go to Massachusetts and see how may sand eels are around compared to our local waters and it's hard to argue bait availability doesn't have some impact on geographical movements of fish stocks. If we didn't have the bunker in our area we've been seeing over the years would we have the amount of bass we've been experiencing during their migration. Not a chance. Bunker move off shore, predators follow. Reduction boats with their spotter planes mop them up and the bass are gone. Maybe the same can be said with fluke and sand eels. Remember years past seeing baby whiting, baby ling, baby weakfish, small porgies in fluke's stomachs. All those fisheries have either disappeared or declined significantly over the years. You can't deny there's climate change occurring, what impact it's having on stock movement is anyone's guess. It's easy to use climate change as a catch all reason for everything if all other possibilities are immediately discounted or ruled out.

[Billfish715]

If the "scientific" estimate of the fluke population is actually an "underestimate"
of the total, almost any recreational harvest number will be skewed. The quota projection for the following year will either remain constant or be reduced. Since the governmental agencies do not have an accurate tally of the number of fluke that are harvested or the overall population of fluke in the ocean, we will be in an unending loop of restrictive limits and quotas.

It's like being told that your bank account has less money in it than it actually does. You'll be very cautious about your spending habits and will probably deny yourself some of the things you may want or need just to stay fiscally solvent. That's when you get a notice from the bank with a " My bad " in bold letters informing you that they had made a mistake and are crediting your account with the money you deserved. NMFS needs to audit their numbers and credit the recreational fishermen with the fluke we deserve. Because of their inaccurate accounting, we have been short changed for way too many years.

Dakota, is that explanation anywhere close to one of the problems or solutions? I'm still trying to get my head around the system that is being used and the historical data that is mentioned.

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Could be any number of factors. Va and NC make up ~50% of the commercial quota, is it commercial over fishing by southern states in their local waters that depleted the more southern portion of the biomass and not migratory movement at all. You could make the same argument with whiting, cod and mackerel, they were here years ago but now any sizable concentration is north. Climate change, we all know it's not. Commercial carnage that caused irreparable damage to the local biomass, we all know it was. Maybe expansion up north is the result of less recreational and commercial fishing up north relative to our local waters. Could be changes in the ocean's ecosystem over the years due to storms. Look what Sandy did up here to hard bottom areas that were covered up post Sandy. Is it due to beach replenishment removing sand from the ocean floor and changing bottom contours. Is it bait movement? Could be natural expansion, could be temperature changes but personally I don't think anyone can say for sure.



Anecdotal. In the 70's, every year we'd go to Maine on vacation. Saco Beach Inlet was one of our stops along the way. Fishing was incredible for stripers and just about everything else. One year, bunker showed up in big numbers for the first time. At the same time, huge bluefish showed up with them. None of the locals knew what they were, tackle shops didn't even have plugs to fish for them. Was that climate change or expansion based on bait movement. If the later, what caused the bait to move north? The bait was there and the fish followed, in that case it had nothing to do with warming water temperatures.

Stock assessment states average length to age for both male and female summer flounder has been declining since the 90's. If fish aren't growing faster I'd imagine lack of forage is a strong possibility. As Bob mentioned in his earlier post, is the location of the biomass being influenced by that as opposed to water temperatures. Years ago, sand eels were all over until commercial netting destroyed that fishery as well. Take away the bait, predators will seek food elsewhere. The amount of sand eels today, like everything else, pales in comparison to the numbers in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Change the food chain at any level and everything above that link changes with it. Go to Massachusetts and see how may sand eels are around compared to our local waters and it's hard to argue bait availability doesn't have some impact on geographical movements of fish stocks. If we didn't have the bunker in our area we've had of late do you think we'd have the amount of bass we have during the migration. Not a chance. Bunker move off shore, predators follow. Maybe the same can be said with fluke and sand eels. Remember years past seeing baby whiting, baby ling, baby weakfish, small porgies in fluke's stomachs. All those fisheries have either disappeared or declined over the years. You can't deny there's climate change occurring, what impact it's having on stock movement is anyone's guess. It's easy to call everything climate change related as a catch all reason if all other possibilities are discounted.

Well stated as always..

I won't get into the "climate change" debate, we all have our own opinions.. In the case of fluke and you can throw sea bass in there as well, they are overfished in the southern part of thier range... Probably could say that for the NY Bight as well, only because of the sheer number of people after them, although the numbers are still very good from what most of us have seen. That might be why the numbers are declining in the southern parts of the range of both species. I have been reading about the heavy commercial pressure down south, much worse than many of us realize.

One thing I am pretty sure of.. Both species have a pretty wide temperature tolerance. I personally doubt big populations will move north OR south over a degree or two.. They will concentrate where their optimum food sources are located for certain.. ANY fish in salt or fresh water will leave optimum temperature AND habitat, for prime feeding.. When the food moves, the fish that eat it move right along with it... As it pertains to this years Fluke, I still believe that come July/August the fishing will be good on the traditional rough bottom .. So many Ling still being caught in fairly shallow water every day.. I think the bottom is still colder than whats normal for late June... bob

[fish4fun]

If water temperature is to blame then how do you explain why Montauk is out producing the Sandy Hook/Raritan Bay area? Isn't the water colder there?

[Capt Sal]

Originally Posted by fish4fun

If water temperature is to blame then how do you explain why Montauk is out producing the Sandy Hook/Raritan Bay area? Isn't the water colder there?

So true!The water temp. is i would look at first.Raritan Bay is good in June if there are grass shrimp around.No bait no fish.Why do they bite in Montauk when water temp. are 60 .Never made sense to me.I do not buy the global warming theory at all.Every year is different.Maybe the fluke will bite in July and continue until the close.

Originally Posted by Billfish715

Dakota, is that explanation anywhere close to one of the problems or solutions? I'm still trying to get my head around the system that is being used and the historical data that is mentioned.

Interesting analogy, I agree with the point you're making and here's why from my understanding of the process. There's a tremendous amount of data and assumptions built into these models. I don't question the need, scientific effort or peer review for that matter in fishery management. What I challenge, and believe management should as well, are material unexplained changes in historical relationships not being discussed or addressed and the data and assumptions driving these models changing materially based on a different but still questionable means of collection resulting in radically different findings. The later I believe is the basis of your above comment.

Example. In the latest stock assessment (66th SAW) issued February of this year, based on changed reference points, spawning stock biomass “SSB” for the years 2002 through 2012 are shown exceeding what is referred to as “targeted biomass reference point proxy”. More important, in the prior assessment (57th SAW) released in 2013 and for the same period, those years reflect SSB being less than the target level in each of those years. The relevance of that is it’s my understanding if the target level is not attained, that triggers provisions of Magnuson-Stevens Act “MSA” resulting in catch levels being cut. So to your point, if both recreational and commercial have already been penalized so to speak in past years based on the data used in those years, why are only recreational anglers being penalized a second time by 40% if that’s already been factored into prior year catch limits visa vie reduced possession limits and increased size restrictions. For that matter, why aren’t those penalties reversed resulting in more liberal limits which is what the commercial sector received. Don’t fully understand how historical data can be changed which caused adverse regulatory impacts for those years involved but the impacts are not only not changed they’re doubled up on in 2019. That’s the credit owed in the bank account I believe you’re referring to and if so I agree.

In the 57th SAW, 2002 SSB was estimated around 49,000 metric tons. In the 66th SAW just released, the number for that year was changed to approximately 65,000 metric tons, 30% higher. A change of that magnitude within two consecutive stock assessments should be reason for concern regarding the accuracy / integrity of the data being used in models since it ultimately dictates access to the resource.

One last observation involving the process. There’s a statement in the 57th SAW which reads as follows “Commercial landings have accounted for 54% of total catch since 1982. With recreational landings accounting for 34%, commercial discards 8% and recreational discards about 5%”. That equates to commercial discards estimates being 15% of commercial landings.

There’s also a graph that shows a comparison of commercial discard rates on observed trawls versus unobserved trawls meaning numbers submitted on fishing vessel trip reports “FVTR” which is the honor system method used by commercial operators to report catch information. Completely unsubstantiated, they can report anything. The disparity is glaring. I’ll give you five years between 2000 and 2011, first number is discard percentage on observed trawls, second number is percentage on unobserved for those years. 2001 (98% vs 40%), 2006 (85% vs 40%), 2007 (144% vs 56%), 2008 (98% vs 38%) and 2009 (59% vs 22%). Average those five years for discard rates on observed trawls and it’s just shy of 100% and 2-3 times higher than figures reported on vessel trip reports yet a substantially lower commercial discard percentage is used in the models. Maybe that’s the answer to the mystery surrounding where all the 2-yr and younger age class fishing are mysteriously disappearing to. Recreational catch limits are penalized 40% based on a new approach to collecting data through MRIP which is completely speculative as far as quality of responses are concerned but a major disparity in commercial discard rates used in models versus what is physically observed is completely ignored. Seems once again recreational has one set of standards and commercial has a completely different more liberal set.

Billfish hope that addresses your question.

[Capt. JJ]

The never-ending topic....heres my 3 cents:

I have 2 observations, neither of which is scientific in nature, but both are based on just, years on the never ending pursuit of fluke.

1. Many years ago, when I mated on an infamous charter boat out of the Point, I had amazing opportunities to work deck for some of the best Captains in the biz. This topic invariably came up whenever we had slow days chasing Flatties, and every single Captain I asked about it all told me, basically, the same thing: from all of their connections with draggers, and divers, and daily trips themselves, the Summer Fluke action depended entirely on the prior Winter, and whether or not the Draggers "found" the main stocks on their Wintering grounds. Their belief was some years the commercial guys could really zero in on the biomass, and they could basically wipe out a large portion of the stock before it ever made its way inshore to us. When that happened, the Summer was ALWAYS slower. (In their humble opinion). Nothing scientific about that, but these guys are well known here on the board, and without naming names, if I did mention them you would all see my point about this being legit. They also told me that the very best places to target these fish, REGARDLESS of the season, was on wrecks.

2. Those same folks told me, and SHOWED me, that the very best time to fish for the same stock, was when the fluke were once again assembling in mass to move offshore to their Winter grounds (early Fall/late Fall.) Personally, Ive never had a bad Fall fishing for fluke, even if I had to play catch and release just for the hell of it. Never. Had. A. Bad. Fall. (My personal best fluke was caught the day after Thanksgiving, on a mid-depth wreck, out of BI, when every pass resulted in non stop action for VERY large, quality, fish.)

So....in summary, I guess I feel that the perception of Summer action is predicated by the commercial activities of the prior Winter, and the fact that the best fishing is sadly.....out of our concept of "Summer", and we aren't allowed to fish for them during the peak of the action.

Oh and.....fish dem wrecks!!!!

Cheers!

Originally Posted by Capt Sal

So true!The water temp. is i would look at first.Raritan Bay is good in June if there are grass shrimp around.No bait no fish.Why do they bite in Montauk when water temp. are 60 .Never made sense to me.I do not buy the global warming theory at all.Every year is different.Maybe the fluke will bite in July and continue until the close.

Always been told, right or wrong, fluke flood there first for two reasons. Montauk is ~120 miles east of us so first stop on their inshore migration and they follow the squid spawn every year. Makes sense no different than why bass and everything else concentrate their in the fall on their migration south, forage during a long migration.

Originally Posted by Capt. JJ

1. Many years ago, when I mated on an infamous charter boat out of the Point, I had amazing opportunities to work deck for some of the best Captains in the biz. This topic invariably came up whenever we had slow days chasing Flatties, and every single Captain I asked about it all told me, basically, the same thing: from all of their connections with draggers, and divers, and daily trips themselves, the Summer Fluke action depended entirely on the prior Winter, and whether or not the Draggers "found" the main stocks on their Wintering grounds. Their belief was some years the commercial guys could really zero in on the biomass, and they could basically wipe out a large portion of the stock before it ever made its way inshore to us. When that happened, the Summer was ALWAYS slower. (In their humble opinion). Nothing scientific about that, but these guys are well known here on the board, and without naming names, if I did mention them you would all see my point about this being legit. They also told me that the very best places to target these fish, REGARDLESS of the season, was on wrecks.

This is one reason why fishery management not closing the season to commercial harvest during the fall spawn makes no sense. It's entirely about commercial lobbying power, the health of the fishery is subordinate. If the health of the fishery wasn't in question and recruitment strength of the biomass wasn't down for almost 25 years I'd have a different opinion. But they are and not addressing it is just another reason the fishery is in the condition it's in and we have a three fish limit, higher size restrictions and shortened seasons. Recreational anglers lose days to weather, they can never be made up. Commercial concerns lose days to weather, they still maintain the same quota and have six two month intervals to fill them. 40% increase to commercials in '19 is just another disproportionate allocation of a public resource and should give a good indication of where the management of the fishery is focused.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Not going to give my opinions on climate change here either...

I will however give you one opinion you can take to the bank... If all you do is complain here on the Interweb, nothing will change... People need to get involved and support the groups and organizations that fight for recreational fishermen's rights and better science, 2 of which you'll see in my signature...