Bluefish regs not looking good for next year

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dales529

While I have always respected your dedication to conservation it appears your opinion is a little short on facts.

I don't want to disparage Tom's dedication, god knows he's put in countless hours into his interpretation of the data. Has the Rutgers study passed peer review? I really have nothing to say about fluke until that happens (or fails to happen). Personally my gut feeling is that climate change is playing a huge role in our fluke fishery, and that once fully understood that phenomenon will fill some gaping holes in the data we are experiencing now. Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't be as surprised as many on this forum if that turns out to be the case.

But back to feds vs state management. Here's from NOAA's website...46 stocks rebuilt as of 2019: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/natio...status-updates

I freely admit one of the sources of info I read is Charles Witek's blog. Anyone who is interested in the process should give his writings on the subject serious consideration: http://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/

As Capt Sal pointed out, there tends to be a chorus of agreement on management issues here. I don't enjoy being contrarian, but I do think open, civil discourse is important, and that internet thought bubbles tend to result in mistakes.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Capt Sal

Again "THE FOR HIRE" people are the bad guys. There the ones who pay for this site not you. This is just your opinion and it ain't worth shit!!I am glad there are not more people like you on this site you are trying to ruin.

Lol as eloquent as ever. Hey Capt, if Gerry shuts this down please don't PM me again

[Capt John]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Capt John,

Here's your answer and believe it or not it's because of Nixon!

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012...rce-department

Many agree fisheries management should fall under the Department of Interior, the article in the attached link explains why it doesn't. Politics within politics if you will. To compound the issue, there apparently exists significant issues between the various Technical, Science, Advisory Committees and the Commission and Council itself, more politics within the political framework.

Add to that the priority of the DoC to drive Commerce and the amount of lobbyist funds I can only imagine changes hands to promote the commercial industry its no wonder the scales of justice are as imbalanced as they are.

Tom

Tom,

The article you sent me.."Why NOAA Is in the Commerce Department
By Jeffrey Mervis Jan. 13, 2012 , 2:28 PM was a real eye opener to say the least. How in the world you had access to that article amazes even me....bravo.

So even today we (recreational fisherman...private boaters and the for hire group) are paying a dear price for Nixon's paranoia...very sad.

I would have thought that over the past 40 years or so, someone would have corrected this horrible situation, but then again, who cares about a bunch of fishermen.

Sadly, the for-hire group is getting smaller and smaller every year, generating less and less income for the state of NJ. When Fluke, which happens to be the major draw for recreational anglers to our state vanishes, so will MANY other businesses....the domino effect.

Did I hear you say Winter Flounder...what's that?

Tom, once again, many thanks for your input on this issue. As a life long resident (60+ years) of NJ and an avid and pretty damn good angler, it's sad to know that my grandchildren may never experience the joy of a day on the water (GOD'S country) like I do. I love my country and I love NJ, but something has to change soon....very soon.

Originally Posted by reason162

I don't want to disparage Tom's dedication, god knows he's put in countless hours into his interpretation of the data. Has the Rutgers study passed peer review? I really have nothing to say about fluke until that happens (or fails to happen). Personally my gut feeling is that climate change is playing a huge role in our fluke fishery, and that once fully understood that phenomenon will fill some gaping holes in the data we are experiencing now. Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't be as surprised as many on this forum if that turns out to be the case.

But back to feds vs state management. Here's from NOAA's website...46 stocks rebuilt as of 2019: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/natio...status-updates

I freely admit one of the sources of info I read is Charles Witek's blog. Anyone who is interested in the process should give his writings on the subject serious consideration: http://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/

As Capt Sal pointed out, there tends to be a chorus of agreement on management issues here. I don't enjoy being contrarian, but I do think open, civil discourse is important, and that internet thought bubbles tend to result in mistakes.

Last I heard about Rutgers Length and Sex study is it was rejected by Peer Review because it consisted of one year which I believe was 2016 and wasn't considered because the period reviewed was too short in duration. I haven't heard anything since so others might have more current updates.

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll state my opinion again on climate change. We'd be foolish to not acknowledge it's real, a problem which needs to be addressed and is contributing to environmental changes world-wide but I still don't believe it's the cause of the severe decline in the fluke fishery. I believe the attached chart is.....decline in recruitment. In many ways this one chart summarizes what has occurred in this fishery. Harvest of older age classes began both recreationally and commercially in 1997. Gender composition of the biomass decreased significantly starting in 1997. Discard rates increased substantially starting in 1997, especially commercial rates. Recruitment levels began collapsing in early 2000. Fishery peaked in 2003 and has been on a declining trend between 30% - 50% in every key aspect since. As recreational size limits began increasing in the late 90's, shortly thereafter biomass and SSB experienced respective declines. Targeting larger fish commercially brought harvest during the fall spawn into the equation and harvest of larger sexually mature fish during winter months when they're staged off-shore. Precisely why the chart illustrating recruitment to SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass), a marine fisheries chart on page 451 of the 66th SAW if anyone's interested, showed an immediate and substantial reduction in survival of new recruits which started in 1997, one the fishery has never recovered from. Climate change didn't start in 1997 and even so wouldn't have caused a decline in a years time in the relationships I've outlined in my analysis.

As far as Charles Witek is concerned, I don't deny he's a intelligent person. But when someone publicly discounts my work and my abilities simply because of my professional trade as a Chief Financial Officer or as he put it a "corporate bean counter", I can't take his opinions seriously. Science creates data, someone has to interpret that data before management decisions can be made. I guess in Mr. Witek's ultimate wisdom being a Corporate Attorney better positions him to analyze information other than someone who has honed his skills in that arena for more than 35 years. I can't take someone's work seriously if their judgement of character and capability is that short sided. I NEVER introduced new data, I analyzed existing data developed by science for trends to identify changes in a fishery that went from explosive growth for a sustainable period of time to a prolonged decline over night.

As far as NOAA's website and 46 stocks rebuilt, I'd add an asterisk. I believe fishery management does a lot of good work but they don't have answers for all the worlds problems themselves AND MSA states specifically public input should be factored into the management process. ITS NOT. They won't allow it because they don't want their work being challenged or their data questioned. That's a serious issue for a Governance body managing a public resource. If you look at the list of 46 stocks rebuilt, it includes summer flounder, bluefish and porgies (scup) which the Monitoring Committee two weeks ago recommended a 3 fish limit or 55% reduction before having a change of heart and recommending status quo coast wide which is a 50 fish bag limit in NJ. That range of change within a week should concern everyone about their thought process. Any stock listed that has Gulf of Maine or George's Banks listed, realize the fishery recovered because 6,600 square miles of the banks were closed due to the over harvest by commercial operations in 1994. PLEASE read the following two articles in the attached links because its in my opinion indicative of the extent and speed of the destructive nature of commercial harvest especially with today's technologies. Doesn't mean commercial concerns don't have equal rights to harvest the resource, it means they don't have the right to destroy the fishery or habitat in the process:

https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/...f-georges-bank

https://www.encyclopedia.com/environ...ground-fishery

This excerpt in the second article will provide some idea of how quickly commercial operations can destroy a fishery and the necessary habitat that supports it.

In 1994 the National Marine Fisheries Service found that the Georges Bank cod stock had declined by 40% since 1990, the largest decline ever recorded. Furthermore, the yellow tail flounder stock had collapsed. In a given year, only eight out of 100 flounder survived and the breeding population had fallen 94% in three years. WORTH REPEATING......BREEDING POPULATION FELL 94% IN THREE YEARS!

NOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUT BELIEVE ME WHEN I TELL YOU CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT THE PROBLEM FACING SUMMER FLOUNDER. When the banks were closed due to commercial greed, every commercial operator had to target a different species in order to survive. Think maybe that had an impact on winter flounder and summer flounder and who knows what other species. Other species had to be targeted to compensate for the Banks closure and the impact that had on commercial catch values. Change the food chain and balance that exists in the ecosystem and you change the entire ecosystem.

Reason I think you like being contrarian otherwise you wouldn't be so good at it. I don't mean that sarcastically, in order for change to occur there needs to be healthy debate and will always be opposing thoughts which I personally believe is healthy. If we don't discuss these issues and cause change, I think status quo is going to hurt many people and fisheries which doesn't have to happen.

[FishingSinceIWasThree]

Originally Posted by Honger

I'm sure every ounce of it was put into good use.

I have been reading fishing books since I was a little kid. I read back then that bluefish run in 50 year cycles. Back in the early sixties there were not many blues around. Looks like we are back in that pattern. This is not all about how many fish people can keep. It has more to do with those natural cycles....similar with Weakfish. There are species like blowfish with no regulation at all which have made a comeback. Those Feds seem to care more about showing off their own power than helping us in the USA. They are probably making deals with the UN to ship our fish to other countries for their own personal gain....actually they are definitely shipping our fish to other countries for their own gain. Thank God for Brexit!

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by FishingSinceIWasThree

I have been reading fishing books since I was a little kid. I read back then that bluefish run in 50 year cycles. Back in the early sixties there were not many blues around. Looks like we are back in that pattern. This is not all about how many fish people can keep. It has more to do with those natural cycles....similar with Weakfish. There are species like blowfish with no regulation at all which have made a comeback. Those Feds seem to care more about showing off their own power than helping us in the USA. They are probably making deals with the UN to ship our fish to other countries for their own personal gain....actually they are definitely shipping our fish to other countries for their own gain. Thank God for Brexit!

You are correct. blues were scarce during some periods when I was younger.
I hope that this is just a down cycle... We'll see... bob

[Capt Sal]

Originally Posted by reason162

Lol as eloquent as ever. Hey Capt, if Gerry shuts this down please don't PM me again

No PM. Want everyone to read this. You have a hatred for charter and party boat people trying to make a living. So i wasn't trying to be''eloquent'' lol

Question for the For Hire and Party Boat Captains. Comment was made in the summer flounder presentation in Tuesday's Joint Meeting presentation on Summer Flounder which said "Most total fishery catch now appears to be male" which personally I believe is complete BS based on what I've witnessed personally. And I'm not concerned with catch, I'm concerned with landings.

I know commercial operators submit VTR's when offloading their catch. What reporting requirements do Party Boats and For Hire vessels have? Is it electronic, paper and what information is included? What I'm getting at is does it currently include landings information and if so does it include sex.

Everyone whose read my comments knows my theory that among other issues we're harvesting too many breeders both recreationally and commercially for different reasons.

I assume most keeper summer flounder are filleted on board and identifying sex is easy. They either have an egg sac or they don't. Is this information currently provided in the reporting requirements and if not would it be possible with the system starting next year if the system allowed for that information to start capturing it or would it be too onerous. I believe it's a critical metric in turning this fishery around so keep that in mind when answering.

What I want to do is quantify based on "real information" what gender fish are being harvested so we're dealing with facts and not innuendo.

Maybe 10 party boats and 10 for hire vessels per state (statistical sample) volunteer and those boats provide the data next year. Mates clean the fish so it should be relatively easy to maintain a log and start capturing the information.

Going to suggest the same with fish processing houses for commercial catch by "objective parties" to quantify the same. This is a key measurement in this fishery which is currently not monitored and theirs opposing opinions all over the board.

For starters, would appreciate hearing from some of our sponsors about the current process, does it include gender which I don't believe it does and would it be possible to track and input next year if the system allowed for that information to be entered. If not, they need to reprogram the input fields which should be simple.

Appreciate your help.

[captainrich]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Question for the For Hire and Party Boat Captains. Comment was made in the summer flounder presentation in Tuesday's Joint Meeting presentation on Summer Flounder which said "Most total fishery catch now appears to be male" which personally I believe is complete BS based on what I've witnessed personally. And I'm not concerned with catch, I'm concerned with landings.

I know commercial operators submit VTR's when offloading their catch. What reporting requirements do Party Boats and For Hire vessels have? Is it electronic, paper and what information is included? What I'm getting at is does it currently include landings information and if so does it include sex.

Everyone whose read my comments knows my theory that among other issues we're harvesting too many breeders both recreationally and commercially for different reasons.

I assume most keeper summer flounder are filleted on board and identifying sex is easy. They either have an egg sac or they don't. Is this information currently provided in the reporting requirements and if not would it be possible with the system starting next year if the system allowed for that information to start capturing it or would it be too onerous. I believe it's a critical metric in turning this fishery around so keep that in mind when answering.

What I want to do is quantify based on "real information" what gender fish are being harvested so we're dealing with facts and not innuendo.

Maybe 10 party boats and 10 for hire vessels per state (statistical sample) volunteer and those boats provide the data next year. Mates clean the fish so it should be relatively easy to maintain a log and start capturing the information.

Going to suggest the same with fish processing houses for commercial catch by "objective parties" to quantify the same. This is a key measurement in this fishery which is currently not monitored and theirs opposing opinions all over the board.

For starters, would appreciate hearing from some of our sponsors about the current process, does it include gender which I don't believe it does and would it be possible to track and input next year if the system allowed for that information to be entered. If not, they need to reprogram the input fields which should be simple.

Appreciate your help.

I love it when someone, who has no clue, volunteers my time and my crews time which I pay for, for their own edification & purposes.
That's why I don't advertise on this site any more!!

[Honger]

Lmao why bother check the sex of fluke? Literally all fluke on fillet tables have eggs in them.