Fluke just curious

[hammer4reel]

While I personally believe the body of fluke we fish in north jersey is doing way better than NMFS says it is I'm just curious .
I believe their thinking is that allowing females an extra year to breed by throwing them back till 19" will put more fish back into the water.
So while we are mostly keeping females at 19" those fish still did get to breed approx 2 extra years than if we had a 16" limit.

So if we had a shorter bag limit at 16" where we are taking females earlier would you throw back ALL the fish over 19" ?

As I expect the answer will be am I crazy.

So which really is ideal. Having a slot limit of fish from 16-19" where possibly the catch is partially males .
Or as they are doing raising the limit to guarantee an extra year of growth ?

[bigfishy]

Good point!!! I think the rec. fishing world is just tired of uncle sam calling ALL the shots....

[Gerry Zagorski]

For now, I think the 19 inch limit is simply viewed by the council as a way to reduce the harvest and rebuild the stocks. You up the size limits and landings go down.

It won't be until the work that was done on the size sex study, in part funded by the SSFFF, is recognized and plays into our regulations.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

For now, I think the 19 inch limit is simply viewed by the council as a way to reduce the harvest and rebuild the stocks. You up the size limits and landings go down.

It won't be until the work that was done on the size sex study, in part funded by the SSFFF, is recognized and plays into our regulations.

You didn't answer either ?

If females don't breed till around
Age 3 why would we want to keep them at 16" when the quite possibly haven't even spawned once ?


Shame we can't tell males from females at the same size as we can do with most other species

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

While I personally believe the body of fluke we fish in north jersey is doing way better than NMFS says it is I'm just curious .
I believe their thinking is that allowing females an extra year to breed by throwing them back till 19" will put more fish back into the water.
So while we are mostly keeping females at 19" those fish still did get to breed approx 2 extra years than if we had a 16" limit.

So if we had a shorter bag limit at 16" where we are taking females earlier would you throw back ALL the fish over 19" ?

As I expect the answer will be am I crazy.

So which really is ideal. Having a slot limit of fish from 16-19" where possibly the catch is partially males .
Or as they are doing raising the limit to guarantee an extra year of growth ?

Truthfully I don't think it matters if we throw back 19" fish or 16" fish if the end result is a majority of those fish are being mopped up by commercials. Assume for sake of argument, NMFS data is correct and the stock is in such condition you have to give 17" and 18" inch fish another year to spawn. If anyone believes that's because of recreational pressure they're crazy, it's impossible. Too many fish are being harvested by commercial interests. Technology and the ability to track every species of fish has developed to a point where even fish that migrate east / west as opposed to along the coast like bass have no sanctuary. These fish are pounded coming and going to and from their wintering grounds and throughout the entire season. Let's change the regulations to one fish at 27" and give them 5 more years to spawn. Again if all those fish released end up in the market what changes? Status quo with commercial quotas set where they are with no sensible management plan and this fishery is the next to collapse if it hasn't already.

Dan you of all people know how it works. You know a commercial guy who targets fluke every year and has it down to a science. You also once told me they get more money per pound for larger fish, the females we're discussing. How many fish do you think get culled in the course of filling a quota and tossed over board dead along with all the incidental by catch until guys fill their quotas with larger fish that demand a higher price back at the dock. And maybe your buddy doesn't do that but we'd be foolish to believe the commercial guys suddenly grew a conscience and what I outlined doesn't happen. The recreational community is losing the fight to big business.......period end.

Mackerel, cod, whiting, ling, black fish (roller trawlers and pots), bass in the 70's and 80's (prior to commercial closure), weakfish, winter flounder, blue fin tuna, swordfish and the latest summer flounder! Every one of these stocks was or is still being decimated by domestic or foreign commercial pressure. I'm not against people making a living from the sea. I believe they have every right to do so. But that living collectively can't come at the expense of the health of the entire fishery. Otherwise we all lose. This is precisely where government is failing....in my opinion.

Look at the table governing commercial fluke landings I posted in the "2017 Fluke Regulations " thread. As Capt Allen mentioned in that thread, size and creel limits were initially introduced for fluke in the early 80's. Look at the corresponding commercial catch of fluke in the following ten years after the restrictions were legislated compared to commercial landings from 1962 thru the mid 70's. It went from an approximate average of 3,000 metric tons per year to an average of approximately 14,000 metric tons. That's a 350% increase in harvest at a time when size and creel limits were being implemented and mandated to recreational anglers, party and charter boats. And again that's reported landings, God only knows what the real numbers are when dead fish discarded and black market numbers are added. It wouldn't surprise me if that number should be doubled. 14,000 metric tons equals almost 31 million pounds. Assume an average size fish of 2 lbs and that's 15 million plus fish harvested by commercial interests. How many fluke were culled to keep the larger fish and how many fish were discarded dead, not to mention by catch. Add to that number the black market and it's no wonder we're at the cross roads.

The fluke fishery can be saved as the bass fishery was but overall harvest in particular commercial harvest needs to be reeled in. Do whatever has to be done to rebuild the stocks, which government said it was last year, but now it mysteriously collapsed again prompting a 40% reduction. NOAA / NMFS see our fisheries as a bargaining chip / revenue generator for their own exploitation. Until we have a seat in the game, there's no reason to believe the trend will change any time soon. As I said in a different thread, Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. For 35 years limits have been made more restrictive and if you believe what we've been told it hasn't worked. No one is addressing the core problem and until they do we'll be having the same conversations year in year out while small businesses and the entire recreational angling community suffer the consequences of those decisions.

[hammer4reel]

Tom,
Are you aware most of the commercial guys fluked less than half their allowable days last year due to scallops being so high ?
That they are gps tracked every trip they make.
And fish and game is there when they pull in to watch their catch weighed ?
And last year they took a 27% reduction
This year another 21% so in two years their allowable daily landing decreased by 48%

Many of them won't even fish for what they are allowed today.
They are not putting the hurting on the fishery that everyone wants to believe.
And the fleet has been getting smaller yearly not larger ,

Real problem is no one knows the real number of fish in the ocean.
Right now the samples being taken are in Georgia with a net 18' off the bottom.
How accurate do you think those findings will be.

Everyone wants to blame the other guy .
When in reality no one knows if we really have an issue with the stocks.
While some areas are showing tough fishing other areas are having banner catches.
The fish are just in different places.
As you said insanity is doing the same thing over expecting different results.
Yet that's what we watched most guys doing last summer.
Fishing areas that used to be good complaining there were no fish around.
Yet us guys burning gas were catching triple limits.



.

[hartattack]

"I believe their thinking is that allowing females an extra year to breed by throwing them back till 19" will put more fish back into the water."

Dan, I think the Regulators' thought process is - to harvest less fish, make size limit bigger and bag limit smaller. If they don't accept SSFFF science about male vs. female, sex doesn't come into their equation, IMHO.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

You didn't answer either ?

If females don't breed till around
Age 3 why would we want to keep them at 16" when the quite possibly haven't even spawned once ?


Shame we can't tell males from females at the same size as we can do with most other species

Dan the way the current regulations are being discussed ( x fish @ 19 inches) and the fact that most fish over 19 inches are female it stands to reason if you keep your x limit at 19 inches you are targeting females. If on the other hand you could keep fish under 19 that is more desirable since there is a chance some of them will be males and that takes the pressure off female landings.

I agree that we don t nessecarily want to encourage keeping females of any size. However, since we don't know how to tell the sex and we are stuck with an x fish at y inches, if y is smaller then 19 inches you are going to be keeping a mix of males and females.

Am I making any sense here?

PS. Interesting information on the Commercial landings and how they are tracked.. Something I was not aware of. However as the price of Fluke goes up at market (I've seen as much as $14.99 a pound) less fish at a higher price works to their benefit. If you're a Farrier, I'm guessing you'd rather shoe 2 horses at $200 then 4 at $100, right?

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Dan the way the current regulations are being discussed ( x fish @ 19 inches) and the fact that most fish over 19 inches are female it stands to reason if you keep your x limit at 19 inches you are targeting females. If on the other hand you could keep fish under 19 that is more desirable since there is a chance some of them will be males and that takes the pressure off female landings.

I agree that we don t nessecarily want to encourage keeping females of any size. However, since we don't know how to tell the sex and we are stuck with an x fish at y inches, if y is smaller then 19 inches you are going to be keeping a mix of males and females.

Am I making any sense here?

I understand that thinking but it only works if enough females make it through to 19" so you can believe it's a female when you catch it.
So would you throw all fish over 19" back ?
In the hopes that your bag limit was partially males at the smaller size.

I think while not the popular choice there is a better chance of more fish spawning allowing them to spawn the extra few years it takes for them to reach 19"

[hammer4reel]

The commercial guys got more per pound last year than ever.
But they also believe their will be a point that people won't pay the crazy price for flounder .
It's capping out, why eat flounder when you can eat much finer seafood for less money