Winter Flounder report

Originally Posted by reason162

Here's a couple of abstract links, I know I've read the full study years ago...maybe you could find it:

https://news.stonybrook.edu/newsroom...ongislandbays/

https://you.stonybrook.edu/frisk/res...under-ecology/

The stock assessment and what is apparently an isolated population distribution for winter flounder are not in conflict. The surveys are just counting fish...you can perform the survey assuming flounder are as "mixed" as most other saltwater species, but only genetic analysis can yield the data necessary to conclude inbreeding, and hence...extreme isolation in spawning populations.

The other interesting thing is (and again I don't have ready access to the paper but I trust my memory isn't failing), climate change is hypothesized to reverse the predator/prey balance re winter flounder vs crab/shrimp. A fraction of a few degrees cooler, and flounder eggs hatch first, and flounder larvae eats juvenile crustaceans. A few fractions of a degree warmer, and the arthropods hatch first, and they in turn prey on juvenile flounder.

This was a few years ago, not sure if they ever reached a conclusion in that study...but if true, it would be the ultimate FU to winter flounder from the universe.

In any case, I am all for restrictions on comm fishing, but it seems like in this case --- specifically re inshore flounder --- the story is more complicated than meets the eye. Unless there is some new-found enthusiasm for a stocking program...I wouldn't count on any kind of "rebound," even if they declare a moratorium tomorrow (or 20 years ago).

Reason this is meant in a constructive manner. Here's the issues I have in general with science (which I respect and believe we need) and fisheries management philosophies in general and then I'll get to the two links you posted with articles you referenced. When a fishery declines, there ends up being hundreds of opposing reasons why while NOTHING changes. Speak with a hundred scientists. marine biologists, climatologists and fishery specialists etc. and you'll come back with a hundred different theories because everyone has to justify their existence and opinions. There's no historical reference in the case of the winter flounder fishery supporting their theories relative to the period of decline so no baseline has been established, therefore their findings are nothing more than commentary about the CURRENT state or make up of the fishery which sheds little to no light on why the fishery collapsed in the 80's, continued it's slide in the 90's and never rebounded. Rome burns, no one can get on the same age while the fishery dies on the vine.

Case in point, global warming, predation from crustaceans, predation from striped bass, urban development etc. All arguments about the destruction of SSB and Recruitment in the fishery without providing historical perspective so in essence these theories used as a reason for the stocks decline are speculative and guesses at best.

Follow this logic and facts, Winter Flounder SSB for our region declined between '81 to '91 from ~21,000 metric tons to ~6,000 metric tons. ~70% decline in 10 years. Recruitment for the same period declined from ~60,000,000 eggs to approximately 12,000,000, an 80% decline. During that same time frame documented ocean temperatures from EPA increased by .2 degrees Farhenheit and on average zero during that decade. Striped bass which have been theorized as a possible reason for decline were at an all time low over the last 35 years during that period, doesn't coincide with the drop in SSB and recruitment so discount that theory. Historically, every year historically when blues and stripers showed up and winter flounder headed for the deep, I'm sure the same holds true today. With no noticeable or absolute change in ocean temperatures during that decade, I think the predatory impact argument of crustaceans in general is unfounded. Could inshore water quality be a contributing factor, be foolish to believe it couldn't have some impact. Did it cause a coastal decline of this magnitude in a 10-yr period starting in '81, personally I don't believe so. If that were the case, why would the bass population which has a 100% inshore life cycle increased exponentially over the last 25 years and not be effected by the same issues if environmental or habitat were the cause? BUT everyone has to have a theory to justify their programs, credibility, funding and very existence so we wallow in theories and inaction while fishery after fishery fails.

The articles you referenced touched on the points of your previous post suggesting inbreeding, global warming and possible predatory impacts due to global warming from crustaceans. Both were written in 2013 and 2015. Since there's no historical studies or references made to inbreeding I don't know how any reliability can be placed on that theory. Both articles also point out the number of breeders found being remarkably low, which supports over harvest of the resource and the residual impact on egg production. What's more likely to be the cause of the decline. Significant over-harvest (historical highs in the 80's) of the resource, primarily comprised of commercial harvest, destroying the spawning biomass in a relatively short time frame and the reproductive strength of the biomass in the process or any of the theories contained within the two articles attached. I choose facts over theories with no historical perspectives or comparisons to relate to problems which occurred 40 years ago and have continued since.

You wrote "The stock assessment and what is apparently an isolated population distribution for winter flounder are not in conflict. The surveys are just counting fish" I couldn't disagree more this is an isolated problem, data doesn't support that at all. Surveys are just counting fish which is their intended purpose. As long as the data from those surveys drive regulatory decisions, conclusions drawn from them need to be sound. I've taken the position in past and still do, data collection as difficult as it might be is what it is. I believe the biggest fishery management issue we have is in the interpretation of that data or even worse it's being ignored for other reasons. Either way this fishery and the summer flounder fishery are and have been in a state of significant decline so we can hypothesize the reason why for 40 more years but personally I believe the answers are there for anyone to see who cares to take the time.

In salt water fisheries management, once the spawning population has been destroyed and recruitment damaged, it's game over until it's rebuilt which I believe it can be over a prolonged period of time. Until then the fishery should be closed down to commercial since as we know it's essentially already been closed to recreational since 2010 with the implementation of the 2-fish limit.

Just a closing comment on the attached striped bass chart. Notice the trend of recruitment from early 2000's to current. Fishery collapses in the 70's / 80's due to commercial fishing primarily in southern states during the spawn. Moratorium imposed and stock is successfully managed back to health. Fisheries management opens it back up to commercial harvest and adopts recreational legislation allowing the harvest of the large breeders and once again the biomass led by reduced recruitment numbers is in a state of serious decline. 300 million recruits in 2004 down to 100 million in 2017. Think about that every time you see the pictures of all the 30+ lb breeders being harvested. This isn't about science. Decisions are being made politically and not for the health of the fishery, a problem which will negatively impact every fishery until that mind set changes.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Reason this is meant in a constructive manner.

First let's talk about winter flounder distribution. There was an acoustical tagging study done about a decade ago, that demonstrated a large contingent of resident fish: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...20.2011.603957

Salient:

Two distinct behavioral groups have historically been identified: an inshore contingent that is present in coastal bays year-round (i.e., “bay fish” or “resident fish”), and an offshore contingent of larger individuals that travel inshore during winter to spawn.

Further,

Based on year-round tag returns, suggested the existence of a resident population of winter flounder in Great South Bay and other south shore bays.

I don't know if there were any follow up tagging studies, but the separate genetic analysis studies indicating an extreme bottleneck of breeding WF seems to support a dwindling, isolated inshore population that is not being replenished by offshore (or other inshore) populations.

How do they know WF are inbreeding? The same way they know cheetahs in large swathes of sub-Saharan Africa are inbred: they perform genetic mapping through collected DNA samples.

As for climate change's part in predator/prey role reversals, I don't know the threshold that is being proposed. It could well be 0.2F average inshore temp change, but I read it as a hypothesis and I would be surprised if there are any species not impacted by climate change...but that's my opinion. There could well be winners and losers, but winter flounder doesn't seem like a winner at this point.

In any case, both those studies point in the same direction: isolated and diminishing pockets of WF, no mixing with offshore spawners, and no mixing with other inshore spawners. Add weak recruitment (climate change induced or pollution, w/e the case may be) and the picture painted is bleak, with or w/o any changes to rec/comm regs.

And please take the following as constructive criticism as well:

Scientific conclusions are based on data, and armchair science can only take you so far. Yes it is confusing, yes it is complicated, with scientists proposing multiple possibilities for every phenomenon. That's to be expected because many of these problems simply don't have easy solutions. The world is complex, ecosystems are complex.

For decades we thought winter flounder were a purely inshore/offshore migratory species. Now we have strong evidence that a good portion of them stay put inside our bays and estuaries. There is even talk of some of these isolated populations being a sub-species of seudopleuronectes americanus. But in any case, this new knowledge ought surely change your view of the problem.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

Just a closing comment on the attached striped bass chart. Notice the trend of recruitment from early 2000's to current. Fishery collapses in the 70's / 80's due to commercial fishing primarily in southern states during the spawn. Moratorium imposed and stock is successfully managed back to health. Fisheries management opens it back up to commercial harvest and adopts recreational legislation allowing the harvest of the large breeders and once again the biomass led by reduced recruitment numbers is in a state of serious decline. 300 million recruits in 2004 down to 100 million in 2017. Think about that every time you see the pictures of all the 30+ lb breeders being harvested. This isn't about science. Decisions are being made politically and not for the health of the fishery, a problem which will negatively impact every fishery until that mind set changes.

The current striper situation is 100% a recreational angling problem.

You are correct that the science is ignored for political and economical reasons (often one and the same). If it were up to me, the fisheries biologists would have final say in regulations, period. The ASMFC is a political system that have failed time and time again bc they're allowed to factor in socio-economical impacts...and that wiggle room has proved devastating to a myriad of our gamefish species.

MD's representatives, backed by a fleet of for-hires have repeatedly thumbed its nose at scientific recommendations. NJ is probably second worst, a specialist at the "conservation equivalency" racket.

The state of tog is even more abysmal than stripers. The technical committee have recommended a 50% cut in both NY and NJ for years, yet our regulations haven't changed and won't change for years to come. In fact, NY inexplicably opened up a Spring tog season last year, and will continue to do so this year.

I agree a much higher percentage of the striped bass problem is caused by recreational catch of large breeders since the regulations allow it and I believe 85% - 90% of the overall harvest comes from recreational. Commercial harvest of breeders in southern states prior to and during the spawn is a factor which shouldn't be ignored or overlooked. No fishery in decline should allow harvest during the spawn or period leading up to it, it defies all logic.

[Papasown]

WOW !! Didn't this thread take a left turn !!
Hey Brewlugger, How's the bite ??? Maybe we have to wait for a few more degrees in water temp. Been there for the last couple of weeks, but can't make the scene this week.... Best to you guys. .........Papa

[rumster]

How about them flounder..... Anyone catching em yet?

Originally Posted by reason162

For decades we thought winter flounder were a purely inshore/offshore migratory species. Now we have strong evidence that a good portion of them stay put inside our bays and estuaries. There is even talk of some of these isolated populations being a sub-species of seudopleuronectes americanus. But in any case, this new knowledge ought surely change your view of the problem.

This new knowledge actually makes me believe more than ever my view of the problem is on target. Strong evidence you say, let's review that evidence in the below attachment involving movement patterns of the relevant 40-fish study conducted in Shinnecock Bay. 11 of the 40 fish released were never detected so immediately discount 27.5% of the sample size. Bear in mind Shinnecock Bay is 100 miles east of NY and as a result contains colder water later into the spring and earlier in the fall than NJ. Even though the article says detection only counted when bottom temperatures exceeded 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit), a winter flounders water temperature tolerances are said to range between 50 - 65 degrees. There's maybe 8 fish of the 40 which appear to be detected during the summer months. Since the transmitters were surgically implanted in the peritoneal cavity of the fish (location where organs are located), and since the article mentions 100% retention of transmitters from first batch (13 of 40-fish sample size) with no transmitter related mortality but conveniently fails to comment on the second and third group of fish (27 of 30), what does that imply? 7 of the 13 fish implanted in the first group were part of the 11 fish mentioned earlier with zero detection so in the absence of any detection how can they unequivocally state there was no transmitter related mortality in the first group. 7 makes up more than 50% of that group. Comments are based on following two excerpts from article.

Data on winter flounder presence within the study area indicated variation in residency over the 20-month period of monitoring (Figure 2). Three groups of winter flounder were recognized based on time of deployment: (1) 13 fish that were deployed in summer–fall 2007 (fish numbers 1–13); (2) 10 fish that were deployed in winter–spring 2008 (fish numbers 14–23); and (3) 17 fish that were deployed in summer 2008 (fish numbers 24–40). Among the winter flounder from deployment group 1, six fish were detected.

Monitoring of fish from the first batch indicated 100% retention of transmitters and no transmitter-related mortality.

Since the article is silent towards the second and third wave of fish coupled with the fact the transmitters were implanted in the peritoneal cavity of the fish, what proof is there the fish detected in the summer months weren't caught and filleted during the winter / spring and the racks with transmitters were floating around the bay with the tidal changes during the summer.

If detection was supposedly reported only when bottom waters exceeded 59 degrees (solid fill on chart), how would you explain detection occurring in the months of November, December, January, February and March and even April when there's no way bottom temperatures exceeded 59 degrees that time of year.

You also conveniently failed to mention the following excerpt in the second paragraph of the article:

Declines in winter flounder stocks have impaired fisheries, especially in New York, where commercial catch is currently less than 9% of peak levels observed in the 1980s and recreational catch is less than 2% of peak levels (NMFS 2007; National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, personal communication).

That statement is the most relevant point made in the entire article. The problem with the winter flounder fishery was created by commercial over-harvest in the 80's and it's impact on SSB and future reproduction capacity. Over 38 million and 40 million pounds harvested in '80 and '81, more than 80% representing commercial harvest, and more than twice the average harvest levels of the 60's and 70's. That's all anyone needs to know, fate of the fishery was sealed and the powers to be who regulate this fishery sat by passively allowing it to happen.

PS I hope your arm chair science comment wasn't directed towards me. If it was, we can discuss off line.

Originally Posted by Papasown

WOW !! Didn't this thread take a left turn !!
Hey Brewlugger, How's the bite ??? Maybe we have to wait for a few more degrees in water temp. Been there for the last couple of weeks, but can't make the scene this week.... Best to you guys. .........Papa

Hard to discuss flounder fishing without discussing how the fishery was destroyed. Knowledge is important, if you believe anything posted is irrelevant or inaccurate, your comments would be welcome. If you believe another fishery destroyed by regulatory ineptitude and recreational anglers being forced to settle once again for the crumbs left isn't worthy of discussion on the board, I'd disagree but would be more than happy to stop posting what I thought to be useful information and facts about the ruination of another fishery.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

PS I hope your arm chair science comment wasn't directed towards me. If it was, we can discuss off line.

With all due respect, yes it was directed at you. Neither of us are scientists, neither of us "do" any science...but imo, you have a set of dogmas that cloud your view on the actual science being done. If a study runs against your preconceived notions...the study must be flawed. Fair enough, but that's not how science works or is supposed to work.

I assume the methodology in the acoustic tagging study held up to peer review. I also assume the genetic mapping study which indicated inbreeding also passed peer review. If you're not convinced that the WF species are divided into offshore and inshore groups...well, I suppose that's a point of view.

Also, I think it's evident that we are talking at cross purposes here...no argument from me that commercial fishing is the prime suspect for WF collapse, but yet another dogma oft parroted on these boards that "rec angling will never hurt a fishery" is obviously nonsense. Tog and stripers are 100% a rec issue.

But I digress: the point of the study isn't to confer blame, it's attempting to answer the question of why WF are not rebuilding, and may never rebuild. It's not a complete answer, there are gaps remaining to be filled (as always), but I find no reasons to doubt its conclusion, esp coupled with the genetic data. In fact, the gene mapping study is strong enough evidence in and of itself that WF are --- unique among saltwater species --- highly isolated and discreet.

Originally Posted by reason162

With all due respect, yes it was directed at you. Neither of us are scientists, neither of us "do" any science...but imo, you have a set of dogmas that cloud your view on the actual science being done. If a study runs against your preconceived notions...the study must be flawed. Fair enough, but that's not how science works or is supposed to work.

With all due respect? Please don't use words you don't understand the meaning of, it's insulting. Preconceived notions, every post I've made regarding the demise of the winter and summer flounder fishery I've tried supporting with attached data developed from the science you so vigorously defend. I've accepted the data, right or wrong, in forming my opinions and drawing my conclusions, not the opposite as you infer.

On the other hand, you post an article about a 40 fish study where 11 fish are completely unaccounted for from the sample and you label it "strong evidence". Please! I ask three very simple questions which you don't answer so as people in your position do, you attack credibility or deflect. Let's try one more time, maybe you can enlighten the board with an answer this time.

1. I've attached a monthly chart of Shinnecock average monthly water temperature readings. These are ocean readings which will have some variability to bay temperatures but considering these temperatures reflect surface and not bottom I'd assume the spring month numbers might be slightly understated and the fall month numbers slightly overstated. The article states detections were only recorded when bottom temperatures exceeded 15 degrees Celsius, explain then how the chart reflects any detections from January through May and possibly even June or November through December and possibly even October.

2. Transmitters were implanted in the peritoneal cavity of the fish, what proof is there the fish detected in the summer months weren't caught and filleted during the winter / spring and the racks with transmitters still intact is what was being detected. Shinnecock is known for heavy tides, wouldn't be difficult for racks to float around with the tides in the area if they were disposed of in the water.

3. The article mentions "Monitoring of fish from the first batch indicated 100% retention of transmitters and no transmitter-related mortality." Again how can you make that statement when 7 of the 11 fish in the first batch transmitted ZERO detections? Fish 1, 4-7 and 12-13. If they're really saying 100% retention and no mortality from the point the transmitters were installed to the point of release which was less than 30 minutes, the statement is completely misleading. Whose to say the transmitters didn't come out after release. And why no mention regarding the same issue with the second and third batch which represents ~70% of the sample size.

Either way I find it irresponsible to categorize a 40 fish sample with 11 fish having no detection and the water temperature and transmitter retention issue in question qualifying as strong evidence of any sort other than more baseless theories. And you accuse me of preconceived conclusions. If a 40 fish study of this nature was included in Peer Review but Rutgers Sex and Length Study was dismissed in this latest Peer Review over technicalities, than the situation is more hopeless than I imagined.

The science you defend so emphatically constitutes all the data I've based my opinions on. And that's with the realization that trying to quantify recreational catch is the equivalent of trying to grab air. MRIP was upgraded recently but is no less of a massive set of assumptions now than beforehand. Recreational anglers took a 40% reduction in quota for '19 as a result and commercial received a 40% increase, completely based on assumptions that were proven in the latest 66th SAW to be significantly different than the assumptions or reference points used in previous stock assessment models. But you would want us to believe based on your opinion of science the numbers being published which dictate regulations should be accepted without question. Changes in some cases which caused previously reported catch levels, SSB and recruitment numbers to change by as much as 40% but your position suggests we should simply accept these numbers face value since science only deals with data and facts and all these numbers were developed through models that passed peer review. That's a lot to ask from people who have been asked to make sacrifices, been made promises which never materialized and screwed repeatedly over the last twenty or more years. If it's a leap of faith you're suggesting here, we've passed that mile marker many years ago.

Recreational has it's impacts for sure. But to think striped bass and tog were not and are still not impacted by commercial netting of breeders in the southern states (as far as bass are concerned) and pots, rock hopper trawlers and illegal harvest of short fish being sold to Asian markets (as far as tog are concerned), I also disagree. Both recreational and commercial have contributed and are still contributing to the decline in each of these fisheries.

You and I will never agree on the cause of what I consider to be a complete collapse of one fishery which started almost 40 years ago and the eventual collapse of another which has all the same signs based on data from the scientific community you defend. The common thread here is destruction of reproduction capacity in two stocks based on over harvest with winter flounder and increases in size retention for summer flounder driven by regulatory increases for recreational and increase in average size fish being harvested by commercials to compensate for reductions in catch quotas. I suppose the harvest of almost exclusively sexually immature fish in the 80's and 90's with summer flounder versus the complete opposite the last two decades is something I made up to support my preconceived position. Again I never introduced third party data in any of my analysis, I used only whats been published by NMFS and ASMFC.

Obviously you disagree with my opinions or ability to read and analyze data. Obviously I disagree with many of your opinions regarding the issues effecting these fisheries. I've stated before, I don't blame the science for the data being developed even with the limitations and challenges involved. I blame the regulatory bodies involved with poor decisions based on that data and their failures involving the mismanagement of both these fisheries. The only focus they have is catch, there's been zero remedial measures taken to address recruitment declines over the last thirty or more years which is the root cause of the problem facing both these fisheries and it's not even being acknowledged.