2024 and 2025 Fluke Options Poll

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by FishingSinceIWasThree

These poll numbers are totally different from yesterdays' poll numbers...TOTALLY DIFFERENT....more fake polls and votes

Our country and culture is totally corrupt....needs to be completely overhauled

# 2 was in the lead and the numbers have all been subtracted from #2

don't believe anything you see anymore

The reason #2 was changed from the original poll was because I screwed it up and put down the incorrect higher number of days fishing.

This was the original 5/24-9/4, 3 @ 17.5 inches or more for 124 days
This is the revised 5/24-9/4, 3 @ 17.5 inches or more for 104 days

As you can see, the original as I posted it had 20 more days of fishing which was incorrect and the reason it was more attractive to many on here..

And let me take a wild guess that you preferred and still do prefer 17.5 inch fish/option 2 and since what you want is not polling as well, the survey is obviously rigged

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

In one breath you're saying commercials prime size fish to target are over 4 lbs. and then you say a majority of the biomass is made up of fish under 18 inches. How many 4 lb. 18 in fluke have you caught in your lifetime?

The people saying larger fish while having more eggs are less fertile than younger age classes are the same guys harvesting those older breeders to rationalize their catch. The juvenile female fluke when they first attain sexual maturity are said to produce approximately 400,000 eggs a year. Large breeders can produce up to 4 million a year.

There might be some truth to the fact that larger breeders on a relative basis are less fertile but there's no science that suggests that differential in fertility comes close to mitigating the incremental eggs a larger breeder is capable of producing.

You need to read slower . I said NMFS wants us to believe the largest part of the biomass is under 18” IMO they have no idea what it really is .
They have no idea what the break down per age year class is available in the fishery .
Nor do they have a breakdown of females vs males .
Your a graph and numbers guy, but you also have no idea whether info your using is actually accurate or not .
Bad info in is bad info out .

Only way we will ever have accurate information is when info is based on real life conditions , and not guesses from the hip .

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

In one breath you're saying commercials prime size fish to target are over 4 lbs. and then you say a majority of the biomass is made up of fish under 18 inches. How many 4 lb. 18 in fluke have you caught in your lifetime?

The people saying larger fish while having more eggs are less fertile than younger age classes are the same guys harvesting those older breeders to rationalize their catch. The juvenile female fluke when they first attain sexual maturity are said to produce approximately 400,000 eggs a year. Large breeders can produce up to 4 million a year.

There might be some truth to the fact that larger breeders on a relative basis are less fertile but there's no science that suggests that differential in fertility comes close to mitigating the incremental eggs a larger breeder is capable of producing.

Commercial guys don’t care what the largest part if the biomass is . They care about filling their nets with the most profitable fish .
Instead of fishing with the minimum size net , they bump up the net size to target larger fish .

Bigger 7 day boats are making long steams to get to areas holding the biggest fish . It makes them an extra 30 grand a week to do so .

.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

You need to read slower . I said NMFS wants us to believe the largest part of the biomass is under 18” IMO they have no idea what it really is .
They have no idea what the break down per age year class is available in the fishery .
Nor do they have a breakdown of females vs males .
Your a graph and numbers guy, but you also have no idea whether info your using is actually accurate or not .
Bad info in is bad info out .

Only way we will ever have accurate information is when info is based on real life conditions, and not guesses from the hip .

My reading is fine. You wrote "If they claim the biggest biomass of fish is under 18”, letting them breed an extra year should also be beneficial. I don't see NMFS's name mentioned in your post and it sounds like you agree with the statement. Your words, not mine.

Their information, if you're referring to NMFS still, are their numbers and the accuracy of their data has been in questions for as long as their existence. No different than the accuracy of information you receive from your commercials cronies who will say anything that gives them the ability to further exploit the resource and increase catch values. You think they're concerned about long term conservation, maybe a few are but the vast majority could care less and are only concerned with how much money goes in their pockets every trip and they'll exploit, kill and discard as much of the resource as necessary to harvest the most valuable fish they can sell back at the docks. Don't be an alter boy.

Yeah I'm an analytical guy and much more, something you'll never be able to comprehend. What's your point? NMFS's information is sketchy but it's the information regulatory decisions are based on and I've used it to prove decisions made by NMFS are wrong based on that very data. Proof they ignore. And you believe your data from commercial guys you know who have a vested interest to provide only information which will serve their best interests is clean. Please, use the the common sense God gave you.

Please provide one fishery you're aware of which has flourished where the breeding population is pounded year round, younger juvenile fish are killed in the process by the millions and larger breeders of both genders are the mandated target of the recreational regulations and where large female breeders, based on your spot on intelligence, are the prime target of commercial netters. And add to that, the stock is actively mugged by commercial concerns during their spawn.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Commercial guys don’t care what the largest part if the biomass is . They care about filling their nets with the most profitable fish .
Instead of fishing with the minimum size net , they bump up the net size to target larger fish .

Bigger 7 day boats are making long steams to get to areas holding the biggest fish . It makes them an extra 30 grand a week to do so .

.

Biomass means nothing to commercials but you missed my point by a mile. One point of your post we agree on is when mesh sizes were increased to facilitate the harvest of larger fish, the fishery went into a prolonged decline. That coincided with the continued increase in recreational size limit minimums to insure a large portion of the sexually mature biomass, fish between 15" and over, became the exclusive harvest of the commercial sector. Regulation shifted access of a substantial portion of the biomass from recreational to commercial. That's what size minimum increases have been about from day one. Problem is that's not a viable strategy and we're seeing the proof in recruitment, a decline in the biomass and a decline in the spawning stock. When nets get plugged, even with larger mesh sizes, they kill millions of underaged, smaller lesser market value fish which get thrown back dead. Fishing related mortality in the commercial fishery is arguably 5 times greater than reported and probably exceeds the commercial sector's entire annual quota. If as you say, 4 lb. fish are the primary target of commercial netters, they're targeting 22" and above fish. Imagine then how many 22" and below fish are being thrown back dead. That's the future of this stock and includes all the fish the recreational sector is mandated to release during our short 4 - 4 1/2 month season. You think that conservation minded actions by the commercial sector or effective regulations by NMFS, ASMFC or MAMFC?

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

My reading is fine. You wrote "If they claim the biggest biomass of fish is under 18”, letting them breed an extra year should also be beneficial. I don't see NMFS's name mentioned in your post and it sounds like you agree with the statement. Your words, not mine.

Their information, if you're referring to NMFS still, are their numbers and the accuracy of their data has been in questions for as long as their existence. No different than the accuracy of information you receive from your commercials cronies who will say anything that gives them the ability to further exploit the resource of and increase catch values. You think they're concerned about long term conservation, maybe a few are but the vast majority could care less and are only concerned with how much money goes in their pockets every trip and they'll exploit, kill and discard as much of the resource as necessary to harvest the most valuable fish they can sell back at the docks. Don't be an alter boy.

Yeah I'm an analytical guy and much more, something you'll never be able to comprehend. What's your point? NMFS's information is sketchy but it's the information regulatory decisions are based on and I've used it to prove decisions made by NMFS are wrong based on that very data. Proof they ignore. And you believe your data from commercial guys you know who have a vested interest to provide only information which will serve their best interests is clean. Please, use the the common sense God gave you.

Please provide one fishery you're aware of which has flourished where the breeding population is pounded year round, younger juvenile fish are killed in the process by the millions and larger breeders of both genders are the mandated target of the recreational regulations and where large female breeders, based on your spot on intelligence, are the prime target of commercial netters. And add to that, the stock is actively mugged by commercial concerns during their spawn.

Since your so analytical think you would have caught the THEY part as to who we were talking about .

I have said the same in reference to commercials hammering this stock at times they shouldn’t be .
But imo it’s the NC fleet doing the damage to these stocks . The smaller guys aren’t allowed those huge landings .

Problem is currently there are no regulations to where the netters can go in federal waters .
Example would be NJ boats allowed to harvest 3000 pounds a week , and just make quota .
But a NC boat takes 30000 from the same area .
Our fishery suffers while they drive that load south .
.
Why or how can NJ landing limits help the fishery when all the rest of this is going on .
.
And as far as me not understanding your analytics , you can cherry pick anything you want . But you also can’t back it up with actual science because there really isnt any accurate information available to make an ACCURATE finding .

You only want to believe numbers that fit your narrative .
All these findings used for all the graph and chart are based on anecdotal info .

If I was to believe the fishery was just on my actual observations, I would think 20” fish are in abundance .
Reading other guys findings it’s 16” fish. Which possibly is accurate where they are fishing .

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Since your so analytical think you would have caught the THEY part as to who we were talking about .

I have said the same in reference to commercials hammering this stock at times they shouldn’t be .
But imo it’s the NC fleet doing the damage to these stocks . The smaller guys aren’t allowed those huge landings .

Problem is currently there are no regulations to where the netters can go in federal waters .
Example would be NJ boats allowed to harvest 3000 pounds a week , and just make quota .
But a NC boat takes 30000 from the same area .
Our fishery suffers while they drive that load south .
.
Why or how can NJ landing limits help the fishery when all the rest of this is going on .
.
And as far as me not understanding your analytics , you can cherry pick anything you want . But you also can’t back it up with actual science because there really isnt any accurate information available to make an ACCURATE finding .

You only want to believe numbers that fit your narrative .
All these findings used for all the graph and chart are based on anecdotal info .

If I was to believe the fishery was just on my actual observations, I would think 20” fish are in abundance .
Reading other guys findings it’s 16” fish. Which possibly is accurate where they are fishing .

First, word choice isn't analytics. I thought someone of your intelligence would understand that. I thought your reference to "they" meant commercials, not NMFS.

Second, I completely agree with your points about NC and always have. They destroyed the southern stock and will do the same without blinking to the remaining northern stock and should be removed from our waters. Plus the favorable weight assignments they receive are about 30 years outdated and a huge problem to every other state and major benefit to NC. That completely flies under everyone's radar screen and never receives any mention. Their allowable landings, which already represents a third of the commercial quota, is doubled because their weight assignments for fish are substantially lower than all other commercial states and the recreational sector.

Third, I'm not cherry picking a thing, my analysis is as comprehensive and objective as any done on NMFS data. Again it's their data, like it or not, decisions based on MSA are supposed to be based on and it's flawed in more ways than you can imagine. Just as much as I'm sure the data you receive from commercials is not verified by anyone but the commercial operators providing it who have a vested interest to have it support their best interests and their narrative. If anyone's data is cherry picked, it's theirs. Ask any of your buddies exactly what their average discard mortality rates to landings or catch are and compare it to the below chart which is data provided by independent federal observers. Compare the black lines, observer percentages of discards to the blue lines, %'s reported by operators on Vessel Trip Reports. Then compare to the red lines, actual landings. Objective and verifiable. The disparities are enormous.

I believe commercial mesh sizes were increased in the late 90's / early 2000, look at the spike in discard percentages. These statistics were from the 57th Stock Assessment and I'm sure infuriated the commercial sector and embarrassed NMFS so they simply removed the chart from subsequent assessments. Don't address the problem, just make the data disappear and sweep ,the problem under the rug. And if it was that bad back then, think about what it is today based on your own comments and the pursuit of fish over 4 lbs. It's a huge problem in this fishery which NMFS has turned a blind eye on.

My conclusions are based on 20 years of historical data, relationships and trends, something well beyond your paygrade. If you can't grasp it, that's understandable, but don't insult me by saying it's my narrative. Or we can use your extensive on water experience and believe what your commercial buddies are telling you which you apparently accept face value as empirical data while the fishery continues it's declines. LMFAO.

[hammer4reel]

Your conclusions are based on portions of their data
Which anyone spending 5 minutes on the water knows isn’t accurate

They do trawl studies where the operator tells them they will never find the results they are looking for
Then act as though it’s accurate
They have no idea the actual mortality of our releases
No actual data except when observers are in the commercial boats ( and I’m told most time never even leave the cabin ) to actual discards

They estimate everything
Even actual landings are allowed to be off 10%

Then throw in all the bicatch while commercial are fishing for other species etc

So IMO there really isn’t accurate info

As far as who to believe
Commercial guys are actually on the water 300 plus days a year . Seeing what’s coming up in the nets
Your charts are based off bean counters who probably couldn’t tell you how to get to the ocean ,
That’s why they have failed at every fishery there is .

Insanity is you now thinking their way of managing the resources from their charts will get any better

[hammer4reel]

Bill if your data was extremely accurate .
Why is it that most party boats , and charter boats have no problems catching limits day after day ?
Why is it that guys fishing tournaments are mostly limited out by 8 am and have to leave spots open while fishing for a tourney fish ?

Most all why is Nj having such a tough time with 18” fish when states Just south of us , and every state north of us isn’t having a problem catching 18” fish ?

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Insanity is you now thinking their way of managing the resources from their charts will get any better

My conclusions are based on many factors. I posted two charts, sex and length comparison, which if you've been on the water for the years you have, you know males are smaller, grow slower and live shorter lives. Or do you wish to dispute that as well? I also posted INDEPENDENT information from federal observers to information provided by commercial operators based on the honor system which shows a major disparity in discard rates reported. Do you dispute that? Reported commercial mortality rates in the SAW range between 10% - 26% of catch and 13% to 36% of landings. Independent Federal Observer data, not questionable science, indicates it could exceed 100% of catch and 200% of landings. Do you dispute that? If that data is remotely close to being true, it means the commercial fishery can kill twice if not more of their annual landings quota in the pursuit of culling the size fish they want to retain which bring the highest catch values. Do you dispute that?

I never said managing the resource from the charts will get any better, I've actually said the opposite which is managing the resource in the manner NMFS has over the last two decades will insure one thing, the ultimate failure of this fishery.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less. You can have the last word, I've said my piece and I'm done with this discussion. Just keep this exchange in mind when NJ's regulation are 2 fish daily at 22" with a 60 day season.