MAFMC webinar 27-Feb: Fluke/SeaBass assessments + 2019 recreational recommendations

[hartattack]

http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/...meeting-feb-27

The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee will meet on Wednesday, February 27, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The meeting will take place over webinar with a telephone-only connection option.
• Webinar Link: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/mc-feb2019/
• Audio: 800-832-0736; room number 4472108
The purpose of this meeting is to review updated summer flounder stock assessment information and recommend revised 2019 and new 2020-2021 commercial and recreational Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Annual Catch Targets (ACTs), commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits for summer flounder. The Committee will also recommend recreational management measures for summer flounder in 2019, including either the use of conservation equivalency or coastwide recreational management measures to achieve but not exceed the revised 2019 recreational harvest limit.
Meeting Materials
• Draft Agenda https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...aft_AGENDA.pdf
• 66th SAW Assessment Summary Report
o Updated 2019-2021 OFL and ABC projections (as of 1/31/19)
• Staff Memo: 2019-2021 Summer Flounder Specifications
• Staff Memo: 2019 Su mmer Flounder Recreational Measures
• Staff Memo: 2020 Interim Specifications for Scup, Black Sea Bass, and Bluefish
• February 21 SSC Report
• Revised catch and landings limit tables based on SSC recommendations

AGENDA Please note: times are approximate and may change based on pace of discussion. Public comment will be allowed during the meeting at designated times, at the discretion of staff.
10:00 a.m. Summer Flounder 2019-2021 ACLs and ACTs
• Review stock status, staff recommendations, and SSC recommendations based on the recent benchmark stock assessment. Recommend annual ACLs, ACTs, and resulting commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits for 2019 (revised) and 2020-2021.
12:00 p.m. Break for lunch
1:00 p.m. Summer Flounder 2019 Recreational Measures
• Review recent recreational data for summer flounder, and recommend the use of either conservation equivalency or coastwide measures for 2019. If conservation equivalency is recommended, non-preferred coastwide and precautionary default measures must be identified; if coastwide measures are recommended, the Committee should identify coastwide measures that would constrain harvest to the Monitoring Committee-recommended recreational harvest limit (RHL).
• Progress update on summer flounder recreational Management Strategy Evaluation contract (J. McNamee)
2:40 p.m. Update on Scup and Black Sea Bass 2020 Specifications Timeline
3:00 p.m. Adjourn

Larry thanks for the heads up. Will try listening in on the webinar. Look at updated graphs through 2017 on pages 21 and 23 of the 66th SAW, they illustrate the ENTIRE problem the summer flounder fishery is experiencing due to the flawed policy decisions and ideologies NMFS has utilized. I find it interesting they refer to recruitment statistics in the graph on page 23 as relative survival as opposed to relative overall egg production, two entirely different meanings. Not sure if that's intended to mean egg reproduction is occuring but the eggs are not surviving causing the precipitous decline or if overall egg reproduction is down because of the number of eggs being produced is far less due to too many females being harvested and other factors. Two different issues all together. In my opinion, the cause is the later due to large females being harvested both recreationally and commercially and increased harvest by commercials of larger females with greater egg production capacity. As I've said too many times already, if that problem and the trajectory it's been on for over twenty years isn't better understood and corrected, this fishery will continue its slide. Absolutely no reason for that to have to be the outcome here. We have history and regulations from 1989 through 2002 which had a definitive and highly positive impact on SSB at much greater catch levels (tonnage), significantly higher possession limits, significantly lower size limits than today but NMFS and ASMFC for some reason choose to ignore that tried and proven approach to managing the fishery. Just don't understand their logic with or without the constraints of MSA being considered.

As I've stated before, NMFS / ASMFC are doing nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with their management philosophy towards this fishery.

Interesting if you review the same chart comparing SSB and Recruitment statistics between 1982 to present from Addendum XXVlll (top graph) and 66th SAW (bottom graph), the data is directionally and relatively the same but the numbers on the Y axis are completely different regarding SSB (mt, metric tons) and recruitment (age 0, 000's). I can understand thresh hold target levels changing but how does historical metric tons of SSB and recruitment statistics change, it's the same chart just updated from 2015 to 2017.

Example, solid black line is SSB. Top chart has it reaching it's highest level around 2002 at ~50,000 metric tons. Updated chart in the 66th SAW (bottom chart) has it at ~70,000 metric tons in 2002. The entire scale on both Y axis has changed between versions which I believe not to be possible.

Doesn't change the fact that recruitment has been completely destroyed, just pointing out numbers which in my opinion should be identical to previously published numbers have changed in this latest release.

A more global view of the attached charts to support my theories. The vertical bars represent egg production. The solid black line is SSB. When the bars exceed the black line, we're getting more egg production out of the biomass. When the bars drop below the solid line, we're getting less overall relative egg production. Every year before 2002 egg production exceeded the SSB line. Every year after 2002, egg production was under the SSB line meaning weaker egg production relative to the biomass and the gap has widened from 2003 to current. The crossover point in 2002 was when the size limit was increased to 16.5" in NJ and 17" in NY and Ct. Recruitment continued to weaken as size limit increases continued almost every year to where they are today. Doesn't take a genius to see the fishery responded adversely to the regulations adopted between 2003 and current while SSB grew exponentially (600%) with the regulations in place between 1989 and 2002. There's a saying we're all very familiar with "Never leave fish to find fish". Same principle applies here. Why change regulations that proved successful for a 13-yr period ranging from 1989 to 2002 to regulations which have failed the fishery for the past 16 years since. Senseless.

[Ry609]

My god I hope you are making it to the March 7 meeting and not just posting this stuff on a forum where guys stop reading after the first sentence! Good to have you on our side, now let's hope the powers that be will listen before it's too late.

[hartattack]

The 7-March NJ Marine Fisheries Council is at the Stafford Twp. Municipal Building, 260 East Bay Avenue, Manahawkin, NJ 08050. They will discuss the guidelines that MAFMC proposes today and hopefully propose/vote on the NJ 2019 regs - would be nice to see a good turnout on 7-March (5pm start time sucks)

Here is agenda for 7-March NJ meeting: https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2019/...da03-07-19.pdf

[AndyS]

The "scientists" recently stated that the ENTIRE bio-mass of summer flounder has shifted North.

Originally Posted by AndyS

The "scientists" recently stated that the ENTIRE bio-mass of summer flounder has shifted North.

Andy my theory which I mentioned earlier is since harvest sizes have increased, we're obviously harvesting larger fish but the average size fish in the biomass has also increased. What every angler knows who fishes for summer flounder or almost any species of fish, larger fish seek out cooler water then smaller ones. In my opinion based on that fact alone, the biomass moved further north for that reason, not global warming. Not saying global warming isn't occuring, I think we'd be very wrong taking that position. Just my opinion with this fishery and a modest .5 temperature increase over the last 30 years I don't believe that's why the biomass is now heavily concentrated at points further north. It's that concentration which also makes the biomass more vulnerable to commercial harvest and the potential impacts the Fall / Winter commercial fishery potentially is having on the spawning process.

Larry just sent you a pm......shortest message I ever posted!

[Ry609]

Sounds like status quo being recommended, and they cut off the guy who was asking too many questions that made sense of why it shouldn't be status quo! Question came up about what is status quo doing for the health of the fishery, and there was some bs answer followed by a lecture by the moderator to keep questions short. Ugh

Update: Must've been you Dakota560

Originally Posted by Ry609

Sounds like status quo being recommended, and they cut off the guy who was asking too many questions that made sense of why it shouldn't be status quo! Question came up about what is status quo doing for the health of the fishery, and there was some bs answer followed by a lecture by the moderator to keep questions short. Ugh

Ry609, that would be me asking those questions which were highly ignored.