Petition to Change Summer Flounder Regulations

[frugalfisherman]

OK. I don't get it. You say you want to change the regulations. To what? The petition indicates lowering the size limit but what good would that do? If someone catches an 8lb female they could still keep it. The only thing that would have an impact would be to have a maximum size limit. Everything over say 22 inches throw back only trouble is no more boat pools or tournaments. Just my opinion.

[TomKaye]

Quote :
""As I mentioned, I wanted to send the petition with list of signatures and reasons from Change.org along with my correspondence. On change.org this morning, there's 11,732 views and only 334 signatures. Worse, on the two pinned threads on NJF, a recreational and pro fisheries web site, there's approximately 1,300 views for the petition and over 6,000 views from Dave's request to raise a measly $5k for the RFA and lobbying efforts to address the same concerns with the management of the summer flounder stock. Ignoring Change.org for now, between the two NJF threads there's over 7,000 views but only 334 signatures on the petition and I'd guess an immaterial amount of the $5k goal raised.""

Never ceases to amaze me all the guys crying "something's gotta be done",
but won't sign a petition, or give up the price of a 12 pack or a 30 pack for a worthy cause.
Change.Org's politics are immaterial to me. I signed.
I'm a conservative fixed income RFA member and sent a small additional donation as well.
Have not contributed to SSFFF in a couple years but will do so after I take care of Holiday CC bills.
Hopefully all of our kids and grandkids get to enjoy our recreational passion one day.

Will send the link on again to some fishing buddies. Open up your wallets please guys.
Tight lines and stay healthy.

Originally Posted by frugalfisherman

OK. I don't get it. You say you want to change the regulations. To what? The petition indicates lowering the size limit but what good would that do? If someone catches an 8lb female they could still keep it. The only thing that would have an impact would be to have a maximum size limit. Everything over say 22 inches throw back only trouble is no more boat pools or tournaments. Just my opinion.

Frugal I'm glad you asked the question because we have to change the thought process in this fishery.

A shot answering your question. I assume you're suggesting a slot of some sort with a 22" maximum. Is that correct? If so, what are we really changing? The discards mortality rate would remain sky high and the recreational sector as a whole would still be harvesting almost entirely females and fish making up the spawning stock. With the maximum, more of the larger fish would be released and you're correct tournaments would be at risk but we'd actually be creating more discard mortality and have less of our quota eligible for harvest. We'd probably also see a shortened season for the same reason. Lastly, what concessions would you propose for the commercial sector because you certainly can't put a maximum size limit on that sector. I think your thought process while creative moves us further away from the regulation we already have the benefit of knowing work.

My second reply would be with a return question. Why do you think when the recreational size minimums we're 13" and 14" and the same as commercial in the 90's, the stock increased in population by 121 million fish and the spawning stock increased by 61 million metric tons or a 900% increase? At the same time, annual landing were more than double what they are today and possession limits were between 8 and 10 fish. Keep in mind discard mortality rates were maybe 5% of landings recreationally, today I think we've reached 40%. My point is those same regulation had the effect of promoting growth and most important balance in the fishery in the last fifty years more than any other, why change them.

Today's recreational harvest is over 90% females in NJ and probably over 95% in the three states with 19" minimums. If you don't believe that, ask any sponsor on this site or check your fish when filleted. There's enough scientific data out there as well to support that statement. Drop the recreational minimum starting with a smaller slot of maybe 15.5", keep the possession limits as they are until the population starts to increase and as a sector two things happen. We'll harvest less females and less older age classes adding protection to the spawning stock.

Today based on the size minimums encumbering the recreational fishery and based on size tables, we won't harvest females until age 4 and we won't harvest males until age 6. At 25% natural mortality, we're losing almost 60% of age classes to natural mortality for females before they're eligible for harvest and almost 80% of males.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to harvest them when younger before losing them to natural mortality? And that's before consideration for the impacts of fishing related mortality.

We've already proven the philosophy of harvesting younger age classes has grown the stock to it's most prolific growth ever, harvest the younger less mature population not yet contributing to the stocks future and let the older age class mega breeders perpetuate the stock. When we switched to harvesting the older age classes, destroying recruitment classes, then reducing them even more with insane discard mortality rates plus 25% natural mortality, we decimated the spawning stock by almost 40% and the female population of the stock declined by over 30 million fish or 50% of the population in 7 short years between 2010 and 2017. We continue on that path, we lose this fishery.

To further answer your question, in most cases for the person who catches that 8 lb female, he or she will have already caught their limit and the big girl will be released. Obviously there are those who will high grade, throw away one of the now dead smaller fish and retain the 8 lb. fish. Maybe for a few years, three or five fish tournaments have to change to one fish. We had a lot of tournaments in the nineties when size minimums we're 13" or 14", why can't we do it today?

We either do what I'm suggesting or there won't be tournaments because like winter flounder there won't be a summer flounder fishery. So fisheries management either starts managing this fishery for growth and the fisheries benefit or at some point in the not too distant future we start talking about summer flounder in the past tense like we do winter flounder today.

In addition to everything above which impacts the recreational sector, in my opinion since sizes and lower spawning stocks and less females caused recruitment to decline precipitously and the stock to decline by over 70 million fish, protecting the spawn from commercial harvest in the two months they spawn while migrating offshore in the fall is that sectors contribution to the recovery process. Don't lose the 15% of their annual quota they typically harvest those two months, reallocate 1.5% a month to the other ten months so they're annual quota remains in tact. Let the entire spawning stock spawn without interruption for three years to bolster annual recruitment, assess the impact from there and reassess if necessary. But harvesting a stock struggling with recruitment for the better part of a decade without knowing the impact harvest is having on the spawn isn't managing, it's gambling.

If we allow the trends in the fishery to continue because we're targeting the harvest of the spawning stock and large breeders, the summer flounder fishery will not make it. Since 2010, fisheries management declared the stock rebuilt meaning the regulation were working. They continued increasing size minimums and ever since it's been declining substantially. Regulation need to change.

Originally Posted by TomKaye

Quote :
""As I mentioned, I wanted to send the petition with list of signatures and reasons from Change.org along with my correspondence. On change.org this morning, there's 11,732 views and only 334 signatures. Worse, on the two pinned threads on NJF, a recreational and pro fisheries web site, there's approximately 1,300 views for the petition and over 6,000 views from Dave's request to raise a measly $5k for the RFA and lobbying efforts to address the same concerns with the management of the summer flounder stock. Ignoring Change.org for now, between the two NJF threads there's over 7,000 views but only 334 signatures on the petition and I'd guess an immaterial amount of the $5k goal raised.""

Never ceases to amaze me all the guys crying "something's gotta be done",
but won't sign a petition, or give up the price of a 12 pack or a 30 pack for a worthy cause.
Change.Org's politics are immaterial to me. I signed.
I'm a conservative fixed income RFA member and sent a small additional donation as well.
Have not contributed to SSFFF in a couple years but will do so after I take care of Holiday CC bills.
Hopefully all of our kids and grandkids get to enjoy our recreational passion one day.

Will send the link on again to some fishing buddies. Open up your wallets please guys.
Tight lines and stay healthy.

Tom thank you! That's exactly what's needed. Passion, conviction, determination and most of all support to change something we've all complained about and know hasn't worked for probably 15 years now. You get it. It doesn't offend me that others don't but when you look at the data and the condition of the stock and the declines we've lived with over the last decade and still believe nothing has to change, I'm sorry but those opinions I certainly don't understand nor agree with. To me that's throwing in the towel or waiting for someone else to do the work. We ALL have something to contribute even if just a signature in a petition. We were told short term sacrifices for more liberalized regulations down the road and preservation of the stock. Well we've sacrificed, commercial and recreational, for twenty years, no more liberalized regulations or any on the immediate horizon and the stock faces more threats today than it did when it crashed in 1988.

TIME FOR REGULATIONS TO CHANGE to start harvesting younger age groups no different than what the recent changes in the striped bass fishery are intended to accomplish. Protect breeders, harvest younger age classes, improve recruitment and protect the spawn. Why was it so easy doing that in that fishery but we can't do it in the summer flounder fishery which is screaming for help.

Good morning. Checked the website this morning. Petition signatures up to 435 with almost 16,000 views of the petition and 87 shares. Almost 9,000 views on the two pinned threads here asking for financial support to hire a lobbyist for RFA and support to sign the petition changing the regulations. Again I'm appreciative of the people who get it and signed, disappointed there's such a large difference between views and signatures or funds raised. Not going to stop trying to promote change in the fluke fishery to get the regulations back where they belong and make sure businesses and families don't suffer the economic hardships of a failed fishery and future generations have the same opportunities to enjoy this fishery we have in our lifetime.

Letters to Secretary of Commerce, NOAA and NMFS going out tomorrow and copies being submitted to ASMFC and MAFMC no later than Tuesday to be part of briefing materials for the upcoming December 13 - 16 meeting. There's been a lot of discussion about a higher RHL but the same amount of discussions between the tech groups and science groups as to what the final numbers will be and what impact it'll have on 2022 regulations. The range is all over the board from a slight increase in recreational harvest limit "RHL" to the possibility of a decrease.

Whatever the outcome is, there's a minority of us who tried to have our voices heard and the majority who chose to sit on the sideline so keep that in your back pocket when the regulations are made final.

[Fred E. Goose]

frugalfisherman asked my question. I read over this whole long thread and all of your lengthy responses and just thought...

Originally Posted by frugalfisherman

OK. I don't get it. You say you want to change the regulations. To what?

and you gave him another long-winded response that doesn't really answer anything. Are you suggesting changing the size minimums to 13", 14" for recreational? The mortality rate of these fish when caught and released is one thing. It depends on a lot of factors including health of the fish, time out of water, length of fight, handling, etc. But the mortality rate of these fish increases to 100% when they are in someone's cooler!

It's a good thought and a worthy cause, but recreational is NOT the problem. Commercial is a big problem. Actual enforcement of laws against recreational and commercial are big problems. Human population growth is a big problem...you have more people fishing now than in the 90's, taking more fish than in the 90's, and you have more demand for the commercial fisheries.

I don't mean to offend, but I read a lot of this wondering what you are actually trying to change the regulations to and why. I hope you are successful because I mainly fish the bay and would like to keep the smaller fish that I currently don't because I follow the rules. But, that means I hope you are successful for my own selfish reasons and not anything to do with conservation.

Good Luck

Originally Posted by Fred E. Goose

frugalfisherman asked my question. I read over this whole long thread and all of your lengthy responses and just thought...
and you gave him another long-winded response that doesn't really answer anything. Are you suggesting changing the size minimums to 13", 14" for recreational? The mortality rate of these fish when caught and released is one thing. It depends on a lot of factors including health of the fish, time out of water, length of fight, handling, etc. But the mortality rate of these fish increases to 100% when they are in someone's cooler!

It's a good thought and a worthy cause, but recreational is NOT the problem. Commercial is a big problem. Actual enforcement of laws against recreational and commercial are big problems. Human population growth is a big problem...you have more people fishing now than in the 90's, taking more fish than in the 90's, and you have more demand for the commercial fisheries.

I don't mean to offend, but I read a lot of this wondering what you are actually trying to change the regulations to and why. I hope you are successful because I mainly fish the bay and would like to keep the smaller fish that I currently don't because I follow the rules. But, that means I hope you are successful for my own selfish reasons and not anything to do with conservation.

Good Luck

I'm not offended at all. Fisheries management is a complex process run by a convoluted number of federal and state agencies. Short answers to complex issues threatening the fishery aren't easy to do. The answer I gave Frugal I thought was very clear in what needs to happen in this fishery to reverse the significant declines in the stock over this past decade. If that explanation didn't make sense to you or anyone else, nothing I can add will so probably best to leave it at that.

frugalfisherman asked my question. I read over this whole long thread and all of your lengthy responses and just thought...
and you gave him another long-winded response that doesn't really answer anything. Are you suggesting changing the size minimums to 13", 14" for recreational? The mortality rate of these fish when caught and released is one thing. It depends on a lot of factors including health of the fish, time out of water, length of fight, handling, etc. But the mortality rate of these fish increases to 100% when they are in someone's cooler!

Between 2009 and 2011, because of the highest recreational size minimums on record, the recreational sector is reported to have caught 164.5 million fish to harvest 11.5 million. Is it your opinion catching, handling and discarding 153 million fish to harvest 11.5 million because of the insane size minimums the recreational sector is handicapped by is beneficial to the stock?

It's a good thought and a worthy cause, but recreational is NOT the problem. Commercial is a big problem. Actual enforcement of laws against recreational and commercial are big problems. Human population growth is a big problem...you have more people fishing now than in the 90's, taking more fish than in the 90's, and you have more demand for the commercial fisheries.

Not True. Between 1990 and 2000 when the stock experienced its best growth harvesting younger age classes, many sexually immature, both sectors combined to land 191 million fish or an average of 17.5 million fish a year. Between 2010 and 2017 when the stock lost between 40 - 50% of it's population, landings declined to 77 million fish or 9.6 million annually, almost half of what was taken in the 90's. You'd also probably be surprised if I told you landing weights for the commercial sector between 2004 and 2017 were cut by 67%. Point is both sectors combined have lived through significant cuts in quota and more fish are not being landed today than 30 years ago and the stock continues to decline significantly even with significant quota cuts. Regulations are forcing both sectors to harvest different age classes, the wrong age classes. We're harvesting fish making up the spawning stock, sexually mature with many being the mega female breeders of the stock, killing recruitment in the process and putting the fishery in an uncontrollable downward spiral.

Your argument implies one dead fish harvested in a cooler is the equivalent to one fish that dies as a result of improper handling being discarded. My point is your argument doesn't at all factor in gender or sexual maturity. I'd rather see 5 smaller sexually immature males harvested than two 10 yr-old female breeders capable of producing 5 million eggs a year to insure the future of the fishery. Until the regulations acknowledge the importance of gender composition in this stock, which is directly tied to size since females grow faster and live longer, the stock will continue declining.

And for what it's worth, the stock grew by over 120 million fish between 1990 and 2004 finding a balance between the commercial and recreational sectors before recreational size minimums were increased too high. That changed the gender balance of harvest and changed the gender balance of the stock while killing millions of younger age class fish in the process of harvesting older age class fish. The composition of the stock started changing right then and from 2010 on declined in population every year.

Hope that sheds a better light on my perspective and now I'll leave it at that. Thanks for asking your question and sharing your opinion as it's important to exchange views.

[Duffman]

I swore I’d stay out of this discussion. Tried reading the entire thread but my brain just isn’t capable of all that.

Just a simple straight forward question…….what does the RFA and SSFF want to see as the next fluke regs? The actual number? 3 @16, 5 @14? What is it? I’m just spit balling these numbers. Have no clue. Just want the number they have in mind.

Last post on summer flounder promise. Maybe this simplifies matters.

(A) Nineties, both sectors harvested younger age classes 1 and 2 years old. Proportionately more males, less females, high percentage sexually immature fish. Let the older age classes breed which promoted record recruitment classes. Population exploded higher.

(B) Last 15 or so years. Harvest mostly age classes 4 - 6. All sexually mature fish making up the spawning stock. Significantly higher percentage females being harvested than males even though fisheries management disputes that while their own data proves them wrong. Female proportions of every age class has declined significantly because were harvesting the older fish, future of the stock. Destroy the spawning stock, remove too many females from the stock, no babies, population declines, quotas get cut per Magnuson, possession limits go down or seasons are shortened. We've been in that cycle since around 2007 and with recruitment levels at 50 year lows, management still allows the commercial sector to harvest during the spawn while the stock has a major recruitment problem and no one in fisheries management knows the impact commercial harvest is having on the spawn. Fisheries management is risking the health of the entire fishery by allowing the commercial sector to harvest during the two primary fall months the spawn occurs representing ~15% of their annual quota. Reallocate the quota to the months outside the spawn and let the stock spawn without netting. Most fisheries try protecting the spawn, this one promotes harvesting during it. Insane.

I'll let someone else speak on behalf of RFA or SSFFF, but your choices are A or B. I choose A, harvesting younger age classes and protecting the spawning stock and breeders. Those regulations brought the stock to it's highest levels in the last 40 years while providing the most liberalized regulations for both sectors in the last 40 years. Those who want B will be putting the final nail in the fisheries coffin.

Sending my work to Washington, already submitted to MAFMC for Decembers meeting and let the chips fall where they may.

PS If you agree with what they recently did with the regulations for the striper stock to protect large female breeders while introducing a slot to harvest middle age groups while protecting the juveniles, well the regulations for summer flounder need all those same protections and regulations to provide them. Striper regulations were changed literally in a year. We've been asking for fluke regulations to be changed for 15 years yet that ask falls on deaf ears. Each of you draw your own conclusion why.