Slot Summer Flounder - Immediate Action Needed!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Here is the link to register for the NJMFC meeting https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/1661444952985452300
You’ll need to do this ahead of time. They will ask for your name and email address and send you a link to the webinar.

What’s involved in getting a slot fish introduced into our regulations in 2022 and beyond and why hasn’t it been done? Although it’s a complex answer, let’s try and simplify it:
- First of all I know the NJ council and the board are 100% behind getting a slot fish. There is and has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes with the RFA and others to try and do just that, like getting
other state managers as well as scientists to agree.
- We are working directly with the councils / board members and are trying to provide as much transparency to the process as possible with more updates to follow as they come available.
- They understand that over time, a large portion of recreational harvest was focused on mature female breeding stock, which had recreational anglers targeting fish needed to sustain the fishery.
- Previous management efforts for a slot would have led to a significantly shorter season and this year and beyond our goal is to keep our season length and get a slot.
- In the past many of us got involved in the process when state options and final regulations were being decided and by that time, it was too late and virtually impossible to influence anything.
- This needs to change and we need to get involved at key points earlier in process and continue to stay involved all year long.

What are the action items for all of us?
- There is a meeting/webinar of the NJ Marines Fisheries Council on Thursday, January the 6th at 5:00PM. While a slot fish is not specifically on the agenda or any decisions made, it will likely be
discussed and we need to make our preferences are known when public comments are taken
- You can plan to listen in on the webinar meeting but you will need to register beforehand to be admitted. The link to register https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/1661444952985452300
- At the end of this meeting there will be an opportunity for Public Comments and this is when we need to encourage the council to push for introducing a slot fish.
- If you can’t attend the meeting and would prefer to send comments you can send an email to marinefisheriescouncil@dep.nj.gov between now and Wednesday, 1/5/2022
- See sample email below
- Please email, share on social media and send this to as many people as you can.
- The link you can copy and paste to share is https://www.njfishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117595
- After this meeting, the ASMFC will be meeting with a larger regional audience to include other states in and we’ll need your help again but more on that later.

We’re looking for people to help spread the word to others. If you are part of a group, club or organization that can help, please email me at njfishing@aol.com with your name and email address so I can keep you informed and email you directly when future public action is needed.

Lastly, there is no guarantee this will get done. If it does, it might not be the way we’d like or as soon as we’d all like. There are a lot of moving parts here and other things that can influence the future like quotas, landings, stock assessments etc. The only thing we can do is try and influence the outcome. It's ort of like being a parent, it’s a constant and ongoing job we need to continually focus on and it’s never over. In the end, the only guarantee is a lot of twists and turns along the way but if left unattended, it’s has no chance of it being even close to what we’d all want it to be. This is a marathon, not a sprint!


Sample email to be sent to marinefisheriescouncil@dep.nj.gov before 1/5/22

To: NJ Marine Fisheries Council

From : Your Name
: Your Home Address including City and State

Subject: Public Comments for NJ 2022 Summer Flounder Regulation Options

As a recreational fishermen residing in NJ, I would like to encourage the NJMFC to consider introducing a slot fish into the 2022 and beyond Summer Flounder fishing options. I feel this option will benefit the long term health of the fishery since our current regulations force us to retain larger female fish, which are needed to sustain and increase the Spawning Stock Biomass.

[Skolmann]

I added the following to the email I sent,

All one has to do is look how successful a slot limit has done for the resurgence of snook in Florida and redfish (red drum) in many Southeastern and Gulf states. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason why a slot limit on summer flounder (fluke) would not have the same results.

[TomKaye]

E-mail sent to NJ Marine Fisheries and forwarded link to a dozen or so fishing friends to insure they see this. Thanks Gerry.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I added the following to the email I sent,

All one has to do is look how successful a slot limit has done for the resurgence of snook in Florida and redfish (red drum) in many Southeastern and Gulf states. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason why a slot limit on summer flounder (fluke) would not have the same results.

Thanks Doc and very true!

[Gerry Zagorski]

E-mail sent to NJ Marine Fisheries and forwarded link to a dozen or so fishing friends to insure they see this. Thanks Gerry.

Thanks Tom!

[Gerry Zagorski]

It’s been brought to my attention that some people may not know what a slot fish is. It’s a fish of a certain size between x and y inches that differs from the size of other fish you are allowed to keep. As an example, right now the regulations are 3 fish over 18 inches. If we get one slot fish our regs could change to 2 at 18 inches and 1 at something smaller than 18 inches.

[Quin T Rex]

Done also included my $.02 Thanks for the opurtunity to voice my opinion.

[IrishHokie]

I fully support the idea of a slot fish. As noted, a slot fish would be one between X and Y. So for a 3 fish bag limit, 2 could be any size above the current NJ 18 inches. The third fish would be bigger than the lower slot, say 16 inches, AND smaller than the upper slot, for example 18 inches. You could not have 3 fish over 18 inches in your posession, just 2. You have to give up something (3rd fish of any size) to get something.
(I should be lucky enough to get 3 keepers of any size!)

[frugalfisherman]

Makes no sense. Get a "slot fish" and they might shorten season. If they do increase recreational allowance it sure would make more sense to bridge the season gap between fluke and seabass. Be careful what you ask for you just might get it.

[Gerry Zagorski]

A shorter season would be a deal breaker in my mind. We want to keep the season length and get a slot.

[hammer4reel]

A shorter season would be a deal breaker in my mind. We want to keep the season length and get a slot.

So you sell the slot fish as being less mortality’s on thrown back fish .
As well as remind them the quota is based on poundage , and smaller fish weigh less .

.

[frugalfisherman]

A shorter season would be a deal breaker in my mind. We want to keep the season length and get a slot.

Unfortunately, Gerry there is no deal to be made. If they say there will be a slot fish and the fluke season ends August 31 that's it. They are not making a "deal" with anyone.

[dakota560]

So you sell the slot fish as being less mortality’s on thrown back fish .
As well as remind them the quota is based on poundage , and smaller fish weigh less .

.

Dan I'll remind you of a conversation you and I had a few years ago at the Raritan Expo. You said, the recreational size minimum is 18" and will remain at 18". Believe you heard that right from the horse's mouth, so to speak. My bet is season length will be the target since possession limit reductions to management make no sense as 97% of anglers fishing today currently aren't coming close to hitting the current limits. No perceived benefit from management's perspective reducing them. And before anyone answers with liberalization and a larger quota, remember fisheries management controls the data which includes fishing effort, weight assignments, MRIP, discard assumptions and everything in between. If you honestly believe the recreational sector received a realistic higher quota, I think in 2023 you're going to be very disappointed when 2022 statistic are published.

FF, couldn't agree more with your comments, there's no selling or negotiating in this process. If nothing else, the last two decades have taught us that.

I've been on three calls in the last two years with Kiley Dancy and Dustin Colson Leaning. Kiley is a member of Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Committee "MAFMC" as Fisheries Management Specialist and Dustin is the Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator for Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission "ASMFC", both intimately involved with the management of the Summer Flounder Stock and members of the MAFMC Monitoring Committee "MC". The MC is arguably most influential in making recommendations to the Council and Board on how the stock is being managed and proposed regulations. Three times a slot fish came up in our discussions, three times the first question asked was how much of the season are you willing to concede. My reply each time was why should the recreational sector in this case concede anything since we've already made more than our fair share of sacrifices hurting many people and small businesses in the process due to bad decision making by management. Rebuttal as expected, no concessions, no slot.

This is all about politics and mismanagement of the stock. The use of increased size minimums killed the fishery causing declines to the spawning stock. Those declines triggered quota cuts based on the Magnuson Stevens Act of over 60% for both sectors. Recreational size minimums were increased to give the commercial sector exclusive harvest rights to a majority of the stock and essentially all fish up through 18" which carry the highest market values to protect catch values.

That's it in a nut shell. It's a rigged game, a lot of money changes hands and all this reports up under the Secretary of Commerce. Data supports change, logic supports change, the absolute decline in the stock supports change, anecdotal on the water evidence supports change but here we are. I wish everyone the best in this effort but if this fishery were a stock, my advise to all would be short it.

[dakota560]

Unfortunately, Gerry there is no deal to be made. If they say there will be a slot fish and the fluke season ends August 31 that's it. They are not making a "deal" with anyone.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[dakota560]

A shorter season would be a deal breaker in my mind. We want to keep the season length and get a slot.

Gerry just curious of your logic here. If as the data states over 80% of angler trips end up with no keepers and another 10% end up with one, why is season length so important. If maintaining the season length impacts the size slot we might get which works against rebuilding the spawning stock, the core problem the fishery is struggling with, what are we accomplishing.

[dales529]

The one thing that is paramount here regardless of some very good points is that if recreational fisherman dont finally get on board with voicing opinions loudly and often to the councils none of this happens. I know its been said before, done to a certain extent before but it really has never been enough.

Enough is enough never materialized in numbers of recreational support for any group / any issue/ any potential change in our favor.

Case in point the recent "quota allocation / liberalization" went from 40% rec / 60 % commercial to 45% rec / 55% commercial. The fight at the MAMFC meeting in Dec was for 50% / 50% . We lost 5% due to (3) Three new committee / council members (2) Two from NY and (1) from VA because commercial had physical / email / and lobbyist $$ presence vastly larger than recreational as usual which allowed these new members to sway the board.

YOU want a slot/ YOU want to save the fishery ? The process isnt going to change ( no deals) unless YOU change it and that means email / public comment pounding, Yes again even though you think we have done it you have to do it AGAIN.

Fisheries management is finally open to change and are listening on certain levels but unless the noise is loud enough it just wont happen.

In todays world with email / webinar attendance to meetings vs physical its not that hard to voice your opinion but yet this thread has little attention, the lobbyist fund raiser went nowhere and Tom Dakota petition (after all his hard work) went nowhere.

Stop complaining and do something!

[Rocky]

Stop complaining and do something!

Don't worry dales when we can't fish anymore because of mismanagment

there will be a lot of complaining, but it will be too late then.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Unfortunately, Gerry there is no deal to be made. If they say there will be a slot fish and the fluke season ends August 31 that's it. They are not making a "deal" with anyone.

I think we’re likely to get multiple options like we do most years. It’s very unlikely they come to us and say ok you got what you want, here’s your slot but but we’re taking 30 days off your season and have no other choices.

[Gerry Zagorski]

The one thing that is paramount here regardless of some very good points is that if recreational fisherman dont finally get on board with voicing opinions loudly and often to the councils none of this happens. I know its been said before, done to a certain extent before but it really has never been enough.

Enough is enough never materialized in numbers of recreational support for any group / any issue/ any potential change in our favor.

Case in point the recent "quota allocation / liberalization" went from 40% rec / 60 % commercial to 45% rec / 55% commercial. The fight at the MAMFC meeting in Dec was for 50% / 50% . We lost 5% due to (3) Three new committee / council members (2) Two from NY and (1) from VA because commercial had physical / email / and lobbyist $$ presence vastly larger than recreational as usual which allowed these new members to sway the board.

YOU want a slot/ YOU want to save the fishery ? The process isnt going to change ( no deals) unless YOU change it and that means email / public comment pounding, Yes again even though you think we have done it you have to do it AGAIN.

Fisheries management is finally open to change and are listening on certain levels but unless the noise is loud enough it just wont happen.

In todays world with email / webinar attendance to meetings vs physical its not that hard to voice your opinion but yet this thread has little attention, the lobbyist fund raiser went nowhere and Tom Dakota petition (after all his hard work) went nowhere.

Stop complaining and do something!

Yep - lead, follow or get out of the way!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Link to register for Thursday’s 1/6 NJMFC Meeting at 5:00 PM https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/1661444952985452300

[Gerry Zagorski]

Gerry just curious of your logic here. If as the data states over 80% of angler trips end up with no keepers and another 10% end up with one, why is season length so important. If maintaining the season length impacts the size slot we might get which works against rebuilding the spawning stock, the core problem the fishery is struggling with, what are we accomplishing.

To me and I think many others, especially the for hire sector, it’s all about access which means having the ability to fish for something as many days as possible. I’m hoping we can accomplish getting a slot fish and not have to loose any or an appreciable amount of days which I think is a win win. Not sure if it’s going to work out that way but that’s what we’re trying to work towards and I think we have a better chance getting this done than we have in the past.

[frugalfisherman]

I hope I'm wrong, but I think you're opening a can of worms here and this ain't gonna' end well.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I hope I'm wrong, but I think you're opening a can of worms here and this ain't gonna' end well.

I hope your wrong too…. A little side bet Frugal :D

[dakota560]

To me and I think many others, especially the for hire sector, it’s all about access which means having the ability to fish for something as many days as possible. I’m hoping we can accomplish getting a slot fish and not have to loose any or an appreciable amount of days which I think is a win win. Not sure if it’s going to work out that way but that’s what we’re trying to work towards and I think we have a better chance getting this done than we have in the past.

In my opinion, fwiw, until management starts addressing the reasons for declines in this stock, there's no logical or rational reason to believe the health of the fishery will improve which drives everything else. If the fishery doesn't improve, season lengths will be a moot point as we work closer to emergency measures which as you know is something like 2 fish over 21" or 22" and I believe a 4-6 week season.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against a slot or reduced minimum, my recommendations to all fisheries management at both the federal and state levels the last 4-5 years is harvesting younger age groups is one of if not the most important change needed for this stock to recover. My point is I'd be careful saying it's a deal breaker if a slot or reduced minimum comes with concessions because history has proven that's how this works. Will a perceived increase in quota help that, time will tell but I assure you the second a slot is mentioned concessions will be as well.

[dakota560]

I won't be able to listen in on tomorrow's call but there are so many things broken with this fishery not being addressed. If anyone has a chance, they might want to ask the powers to be on the call why assigned landing weight values for identical age groups are 40 - 60% greater for the recreational sector than the commercial sector. Since everything is ultimately weight based, every aspect of how the fishery is being managed and ultimately the regulations set for both sectors is impacted. And why would North Carolina weight values be even lower than commercial values for all other states. Almost North Carolina's entire commercial harvest occurs during the winter months off the NY/NJ coast. Years ago they were harvesting the Chesapeake stock which might have consisted of lesser weight fish back then but that stock is long gone. NC is harvesting from the same biomass commercially as all other states and the same biomass the recreational sector is harvesting from. A 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 year old fish caught by either sector should have exactly the same weight value assigned, not 40-60% differences between sectors.

No one, and I mean no one, will answer that question and most probably aren't even aware of the disparity.

[Gerry Zagorski]

In my opinion, fwiw, until management starts addressing the reasons for declines in this stock, there's no logical or rational reason to believe the health of the fishery will improve which drives everything else. If the fishery doesn't improve, season lengths will be a moot point as we work closer to emergency measures which as you know is something like 2 fish over 21" or 22" and I believe a 4-6 week season.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against a slot or reduced minimum, my recommendations to all fisheries management at both the federal and state levels the last 4-5 years is harvesting younger age groups is one of if not the most important change needed for this stock to recover. My point is I'd be careful saying it's a deal breaker if a slot or reduced minimum comes with concessions because history has proven that's how this works. Will a perceived increase in quota help that, time will tell but I assure you the second slot is mentioned concessions will be as well.
When you say “will a perceived increase in quota help that” I believe it will and this is what gives us some additional wiggle room when it comes to setting regulations and the reason I feel optimistic. I also agree that things need to change as far as recognizing the root cause of the decline and lowering size limits is the ultimate answer along with the changes we’ve discussed about the protecting the stocks from commercials during the spawn.

All good stuff here Tom, one step at a time. Lets hope everything falls into place and 5 years from now we’re looking at a rebuilt fishery with additional fish for us all.

[hammer4reel]

When you say “will a perceived increase in quota help that” I believe it will and this is what gives us some additional wiggle room when it comes to setting regulations and the reason I feel optimistic. I also agree that things need to change as far as recognizing the root cause of the decline and lowering size limits is the ultimate answer along with the changes we’ve discussed about the protecting the stocks from commercials during the spawn.

All good stuff here Tom, one step at a time. Lets hope everything falls into place and 5 years from now we’re looking at a rebuilt fishery with additional fish for us all.

See that’s the WISH not the reality .

This has been pushed off the table for over 5 years already or maybe we would have actually rebuilt it already . (Instead of an even steadier decline )

But the status quo (where we lost 2 fish ) and now the stance that the for hire sector is more important than the fisheries health shows we aren’t fighting about the same thing .

While access is great , If there isn’t anything to catch who will go ?


.

[dakota560]

Any pearls of wisdom from anyone who listened in on today's call?

[dakota560]

Ok any non pearls of wisdom, anything of importance or not, discussed on the call yesterday. Someone here must have listened in, would appreciate some idea of how things went. Thanks.

[No Keepers]

This was the first time I watch/attended a Council Meeting. Here are my thoughts;
1. Half the Council do not know their own regulations. Not surprising because they are volunteers and rely to much on Staff.
2.The DEP staffer is not a friend of the recreational community.
3. They know the system is broken but claim their hands are tied.
4, They are open to a slot but don't expect a slot to be in one of the options until 2023. DEP needs to prepare a report justifying a slot. At the speed DEP moves, getting a slot option in 2023 is most likely out and 2024 or 2025 is more realistic.
5. Jerry was well spoken well represented NJfishing in a positive light.
6. I was shocked that only 18 to 20 comments were submitted. I expected at least 50 from this site alone.

Like I said this was my first meeting so some of the above could be completely off base.

[dakota560]

This was the first time I watch/attended a Council Meeting. Here are my thoughts;
1. Half the Council do not know their own regulations. Not surprising because they are volunteers and rely to much on Staff.
2.The DEP staffer is not a friend of the recreational community.
3. They know the system is broken but claim their hands are tied.
4. They are open to a slot but don't expect a slot to be in one of the options until 2023. DEP needs to prepare a report justifying a slot. At the speed DEP moves, getting a slot option in 2023 is most likely out and 2024 or 2025 is more realistic.
5. Jerry was well spoken well represented NJfishing in a positive light.
6. I was shocked that only 18 to 20 comments were submitted. I expected at least 50 from this site alone.

Like I said this was my first meeting so some of the above could be completely off base.

NK, thanks for the courtesy of your reply. I'll give you what is hopefully my politically correct replies to your observations.

1. That's been my experience all along. Most people involved in this process don't understand or for that matter even know where the data exists and if you don't personally I don't know how you can be involved in the management process.
2. Don't know the DEP staffer so I can't really offer an opinion.
3. You basically just described Government in general. For the last 5 years up and down the entire process that seems to be the fallback position. We know the system isn't perfect, we know the process is broken, we know changes have to take place but our hands are tied. Biggest challenge is finding the people whose hands aren't tied and have influence in making changes. That's precisely why funds to support a lobbying effort come into play, something we should all understand.
4. 2023 seems to unanimously be the earliest a slot would be considered. I don't disagree with your concern because government typically works slower than expected. The good news here is that there is more substantive discussions about a slot happening this year then there's been in any past year. The bad news is a slot has been on the table for quite some time and it's never really moved forward so those are wasted years but nothing we can do about it at this point. It's all in the rear view mirror.
5. Gerry always does a good job representing NJF and it's constituency base so no surprise there.
6. Lack of comments from the recreational sector or lack of engaging in almost all aspects of fisheries management has been a problem for a long time. I know there's a lot of frustration and reason for people to use that as a reason not to get involved but it's only going to hurt us if we don't speak our peace of mind and represent ourselves. The public will never have a chance to contribute constructively to the management of fisheries and the recreational sector will never get their fair share of a fishery if we don't at minimum speak our minds. We still might not but at least we stand a chance, if we sit on our hands it's a guarantee we'll get the short end of the stick every time. Personally I feel there's a lot of people with a lot to offer and doing something or trying to do something is always better than the alternative.

Thanks again for replying to my post.

[Gerry Zagorski]

First mention concerning a slot was when it was reported that the council received all the write in public comments sent through email and the majority were in support of a slot fish. The fact that the comments were received and noted and the council had time to review and digest them was a minor victory in itself since this process went sideways last year when the final Fluke regulations were being decided and caused quite a controversy.

When live comments were taken in the webinar there were several people in the wings who wrote in comments in support of the slot and it was suggested that rather then hearing the same comment from us all, a few of us would be heard.
Myself and John Azzinaro from the Hi-Mar club were able to comment.

Based on what I heard it seemed like everyone on the council supports a slot but a few cautioned it would likely be more of a 2023 possibility since there would be a ton of work in too short of a timeframe to get it done this year. I haven’t given up hope here since there has already been some behind the scenes work done at the NJ Marine Fisheries Bureau to consider the potential slot.

Adam Nowalsky although part of the council, was given an opportunity for public comments wearing his recreational fishermen and RFA board member hat. His comments were centered around the desire for the council to devise a more formal, transparent and systematic process to account for public opinion and comments.

All in all I’m encouraged that we all got involved and were heard earlier in the process. In the the past most got involved at the meetings when the options on the table had already decided and by that point it was too late. It’s also encouraging to know that the council and the NJ Marine Fisheries Bureau understand and support the underlying need for a slot fish.

Much more on this to follow and next step will be to provide comments at the larger Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council meeting while the slot is being worked behind the scenes.

Stay tuned and please try and get others on board so we’re ready for the next meeting.

[dakota560]

First mention concerning a slot was when it was reported that the council received all the write in public comments sent through email and the majority were in support of a slot fish. The fact that the comments were received and noted and the council had time to review and digest them was a minor victory in itself since this process went sideways last year when the final Fluke regulations were being decided and caused quite a controversy.

When live comments were taken in the webinar there were several people in the wings who wrote in comments in support of the slot and it was suggested that rather then hearing the same comment from us all, a few of us would be heard.
Myself and John Azzinaro from the Hi-Mar club were able to comment.

Based on what I heard it seemed like everyone on the council supports a slot but a few cautioned it would likely be more of a 2023 possibility since there would be a ton of work in too short of a timeframe to get it done this year. I haven’t given up hope here since there has already been some behind the scenes work done at the NJ Marine Fisheries Bureau to consider the potential slot.

Adam Nowalsky although part of the council, was given an opportunity for public comments wearing his recreational fishermen and RFA board member hat. His comments were centered around the desire for the council to devise a more formal, transparent and systematic process to account for public opinion and comments.

All in all I’m encouraged that we all got involved and were heard earlier in the process. In the the past most got involved at the meetings when the options on the table had already decided and by that point it was too late. It’s also encouraging to know that the council and the NJ Marine Fisheries Bureau understand and support the underlying need for a slot fish.

Much more on this to follow and next step will be to provide comments at the larger Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council meeting while the slot is being worked behind the scenes.

Stay tuned and please try and get others on board so we’re ready for the next meeting.

Gerry you changed Adam's last name so I know you read my post. I deleted it because I don't want this thread to become controversial but most including myself want to know how and more important why this process is going to finally end with constructive change and not the same rhetoric we've been dealing with seemingly forever.

Does the NJ Marine Council realize the key points of the analysis I've worked on over five years including a
50% decline or disappearance of 31,000,000 mature females from the population
Over 60 million decrease in the population of the spawning stock in seven short years.
120 million increase in stock population when younger age classes were being harvested in the 90's and early 2000's compared to the more recent 70 million decrease when older age classes became the target of harvest these past two decades
Recruitment levels not seen in 50 years which coincide with increased recreational size minimums and the targeting of older age classes commercially
the relationship between recruitment and SSB or mature females since 1997 showing an 80% decline, a relationship that flat lined within one year's time 25 years ago when Amendment 10 was adopted by MAFMC mandating the increase of commercial mesh sizes to target older age classes commercially and never recovering. Positive proof the spawn is being negatively impacted by targeting exclusively fish from the spawning stock.
32% decline in spawning stock size and severe decrease in the female population of every relevant age class making up the stock.


HarvestIng younger age classes, a higher percentage males, and protecting the spawn means everything to this fishery for it to recover. To your knowledge, does the NJ Marine Council possess this information since it holds the keys to the future of this fishery and where their focus should be trying to introduce a slot and gradually work our way back to significantly lower recreational size minimums for every state to support a more gender balanced harvest in the fishery. If they don't possess the information, why not and how do we assist them in understanding what's really taken place here and help assist them in whatever analysis they deem necessary to minimize the learning curve and help focus them on the best data and analysis available to support the above points? You mentioned Adam's request for more transparency with public input, why wait if there's truly any intention of taking that input seriously.

I'm telling you the works done, I've done it. They can put it in whatever protocol or format they require but it's done and based on NMFS's own data so the data itself is indisputable. How in yours and Adam's opinions can we work together with the NJ Marine Council to correct this fishery and make NJ and Federal fisheries management understand what happened here and what it's going to take to correct it?

Personally I don't want to be sitting here 5-yrs from now as I'm sure no one does with another "Enough is Enough" scenario wondering why nothing happened. How do we prevent that situation from repeating itself?

[dakota560]

Gerry would appreciate getting an answer to a very simple question. What is the primary focus of yours, Adams and the RFA's efforts regarding the 2022 summer flounder recreational measures in your discussions with the New Jersey Marine Council "NJMC". I know you mentioned earlier, a shortened season for a slot would be a deal breaker which partly is why I'm asking the question. If we're trying to add days to the season as opposed to using a more liberalized quota to address the issues causing the stocks substantial declines, we're making a big mistake. Regulatory changes need to address the issues hurting the fishery, nothing else. A growing fishery will start resolving decades long concerns of both sectors, including season lengths.

In 1999 when the stock was stable, healthy and growing, New Jerseys recreational regulations were 8 daily possession limit, a 15.5" size minimum with a season from May 15 - October 11 or 150 days. Last year the season length was May 22 - Sept. 21 or 121 days with a 3 possession limit at 18". So in 1999 due to harvesting younger age classes, the right classes, we had 150 days access versus 121 last year or 25% more season, the sector harvested over 150% more fish (8.1 million to 3.1 million) and the stock was still growing the result of a stronger spawning stock and healthy recruitment levels. Imagine what 5 million more fish harvested would mean to party boats and for hire businesses and what harvesting the right age groups would mean to the recovery efforts for this stock.

So please, an answer to my question would be appreciated. What specifically are your primary areas of focus in yours, Adam's and the RFA's on-going efforts with the NJMC and please tell me based on your earlier comment that season length isn't number one because if it is I'm telling you it's a short term perspective which will further hurt the fishery.

Case in point, winter flounder regulations today are a 307 day season (3/1 - 12/31) with a 2 fish limit at 12". The stock has beyond crashed but we have access to them all year long, not what anyone would consider a beneficial trade off. In 1999, it was a 200 day split season between spring and fall with no possession limit and a 10" size minimum, still a relatively robust fishery. Today the fishery is gone. Season length significantly longer but the stock has already been destroyed. How many party and or charter boats are targeting and sailing for winter flounder these days even with year round access?

Please tell me we're not lobbying to make the same mistake with summer flounder because if we are I for one am telling you we're taking a golden opportunity to start helping this stock and throwing it away. Reduced size minimums and protection of the spawning season from commercial harvest are the two top priorities that will nurse this fishery back to health and benefit everyone. Now's not the time to cut off our nose to spite our face. I'm sure the benefits of the party boat and for hire patrons, many who currently don't catch one keeper, will far outweigh the benefits of the anglers who prefer extended seasons. And if the patrons benefit, the party boat and for hire owners will benefit with improved business. Reverting back to harvesting younger age classes more proportionately male will help the stock and benefit future regulations. Managing season lengths will have zero impact on the health of the fishery and even more so if it comes at the expense of decisions that will help the stock it'll actually result in adverse consequences. Please don't focus on the results of decades of ineffective regulations, focus on changing those regulations and season lengths and everything else will take care of themselves.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Just got back from a little vacation in Florida... I'll answer your question when I get caught up from being away.

[dakota560]

Hope you had a great vacation, you picked a good time to dodge the snow! Appreciate hearing your reply. We've waited a long time for there to be a possible liberalization of regulations, I want to make sure we use that opportunity in the best way possible to improve the stock. Like I've said all along, that's the key to nursing this fishery back to health and it's the key and only way to improve the restrictive regulations both sectors are being governed by.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Yes, the NJ Council understands the analysis and the need for a slot. In fact there are some behind the scenes work going on not only in NJ but now in NY and CT to try and get the slot done.

One thing I did not know prior to attending last weeks meeting was that the law did not allow for a slot fish. Those laws were changed in 2021 mid season after our 2021 regulations were already set. This is why a slot can now be considered and actually have an opportunity of being approved and why people are now trying to work towards one.

[dakota560]

Gerry what law doesn't allow for a slot? If a slot fish wasn't an option the last few years, why was the Monitoring Committee debating the pros and cons of one and making a recommendation against one to the Board?

Still would like an answer to my question, do you, Adam and the RFA prioritize longer seasons over a slot fish or a slot fish over longer seasons. I know both would be the preference but in your efforts which of the two are you pushing for most?

[dales529]

Tom,
Not putting words in Gerry's mouth here.
Been working with you for many years now and involved with the "process" as you know for for 13 + years . We are all trying to sustain the stock while providing the best access to any fishery which includes getting a slot fish. NO ONE is "pushing" season length vs slot or slot over season.

The regulations typically include Scup, Summer Flounder and Seabass while exclusive by species are inclusive in the management so lots to consider when applying certain aspects to each.

More to follow on the slot fish and upcoming ASMFC meeting which again will need Rec angler comments in support of the slot for summer flounder.

[dakota560]

Dave I know your commitment and efforts, no need to remind me of your contributions or get upset.

I thought the question to Gerry was fair when he posted "To me and I think many others, especially the for hire sector, it’s all about access which means having the ability to fish for something as many days as possible." and "A shorter season would be a deal breaker in my mind." That certainly sounds to me like season length is more important than a slot or everything else. Just pointing out, in my opinion which I thought I could post here, that would be a huge mistake horse trading the two or anything that would prohibit getting these size minimums down as low as possible. Size minimums and the impact they've had causing an imbalance of gender in catch composition and as a result the stock is the core problem causing this fisheries decline.

Gerry would also appreciate where you heard a slot was against the law and what law that actually is. Very interested knowing because like you it's the first I've heard that in 5 years. Here's a link to a November 2019 document from Kiley Dancy to the Council and Board regarding slots and 2020 recreational measures. If slots were against the law, surprised so much of the attached document addresses slots and the Monitoring Committees concerns. In particular, read the section "Potential Biological and Socioeconomic Impacts of Slot Limits" pages one through three.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HuIIEnW0gfy0FMS9vrybR2KlQTWHGsL5/view?usp=sharing

If my questions strike a nerve, just delete my posts on this thread or all my posts for that matter. Been at this for a very long time to help everyone, and I mean everyone, involved in this fishery and if a simple respectable question doesn't warrant an answer I'll find somewhere else to ask it.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Jeff Brust the NJ Marine Fisheries Bureau Chief mentioned the no slot rule on the call last week… I have an email into the Bureau to find out more.

As far as your question about trading a significantly reduced season length for a slot fish, your are correct, not something I would support. I can’t speak for the council but I don’t think it would be popular with them either. The hope is we get a slot and little to no change to the season length… Is that going to actually happen? Lots of moving parts here so who knows but I do know 2 things 1) We are closer to getting a slot then we’ve ever been and 2) you’ve exceeded your question quota for this week. :D

[dakota560]

My question wasn't would you or RFA trade a slot fish for a significantly reduced season length, my question was whoever is having these discussions with NJMC are they pushing for a longer season length more so than a slot.

That's a comment, not a question, so don't worry about replying. I think what's already been posted answers my earlier questions anyway.

[hammer4reel]

Fish and game directors have been working on a slot fish for over two years .
All the way to the top is on board with it and their information is based on not losing any fishing days we currently have , it actually increases it by 6 days .

they understand the need for change in this fishery ..

[dakota560]

Fish and game directors have been working on a slot fish for over two years .
All the way to the top is on board with it and their information is based on not losing any fishing days we currently have , it actually increases it by 6 days .

they understand the need for change in this fishery ..

Dan thanks, sort of the answer I've been looking for based on the questions I've been asking. I appreciate your update since my allotment of questions has run out for the week.

[dales529]

Fish and game directors have been working on a slot fish for over two years .
All the way to the top is on board with it and their information is based on not losing any fishing days we currently have , it actually increases it by 6 days .

they understand the need for change in this fishery ..

If only Fish and game had the authority to implement the change!
Until the option passes through AMSMC/ MAMFC, and NOAA Technical, Monitoring and Science Statistical committee's for constraint on harvest its still a process.
But again ALL NJ councils and fishing groups are in favor of the slot fish to my knowledge and now NY and CT are also in the mix.

Can it happen: Sure! Will it happen this year: hopefully

[TwoDDs]

Just curious:
Current regulations are 3 fish at 18" or greater.
Does the introduction of a slot mean:
3 fish @ >16", but less that 18", or something like that?
-or-
1 fish @ >16" but <18" AND 2 fish @ 18" or greater?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Just curious:
Current regulations are 3 fish at 18" or greater.
Does the introduction of a slot mean:
3 fish @ >16", but less that 18", or something like that?
-or-
1 fish @ >16" but <18" AND 2 fish @ 18" or greater?

It could be several things but I think the most likely scenario if we get a slot done this year are
- We'll continue to have a 3 fish limit but it will be
. One or two fish @ 18 inches and over
. One or two fish between 16 and 18 inches

[Gerry Zagorski]

Gerry what law doesn't allow for a slot? If a slot fish wasn't an option the last few years, why was the Monitoring Committee debating the pros and cons of one and making a recommendation against one to the Board?

Just spoke the NJ Marine Fisheries Bureau and confirmed the ASMFC approved in 2021 the allowance of a slot fish for the 2022 season.

And yes our NJ Council and the Bureau have been taking about the need for a slot for a few years now but it was not possible until the ASMFC recently allowed for it.

[dakota560]

Gerry thanks didn't realize ASMFC didn't allow for a slot in the summer flounder fishery. They obviously do with stripers, so assume that means it's on a species by species basis. If so, that's very positive news.

I submitted a recovery plan to the Commission and Council two years ago based on their request which suggested transitioning back to lower recreational minimums. Meaning for NJ as an example in year one go from 3 @18" to 1 between 14" and 16" and 2 over 18". Year two, go to 2 between 14" and 16" and 1 over 18". Year three go to 3 @ 14" / 15" or over. In other words in year three, convert everything to lower minimums but use a slot in the first two years to transition there. Every state would do the same. As far as size minimums we're concerned, we'd be back to the 90's levels. As the population increases which it will, appropriate changes to possession limits should be considered based on higher quotas. That's how this fishery will be rebuilt.

At the same time, close the spawn to commercial fishing operations for September and October (protect the spawn), check recruitment every year and assess where the stock is and how it responded to those changes after three years. That would represent that sectors contribution, quota stays the same just allocated differently throughout the year to avoid harvest during the spawn. My bet is average recruitment after a few short years would more than double and the problems facing the fishery will be in the rear view mirror.

Key to the slot size is to identify the correct range that pulls more males from the stock than females (preferably immature males), starts increasing the spawning stock and promotes better recruitment levels. Those ranges are well known in fisheries management.

If we can do something along those lines, there will be hope for this fishery and fisheries management will have made the right decision.

[IrishHokie]

So a summer flounder slot fish is a possibility! We will still be limited to an overall recreational weight limit. Could this be:
1. The same limit with or without the slot fish? Probably
2. Some increased overall limit by "discounting" the weight of slot fish landed? Probably not
Would this be up to some equivalency formula to calcuate?
Is there a danger of a very large overage?

I would not be opposed to enacting the slot fish just for party boats this 2022 season. They keep records which should allow a good estimate of their landings with and without a slot fish. In 2023 it would be open to all. Using the 2022 party boat date, fish and game would understand how to enact and not result in a large overage.

Just thinking out loud. Shoot your arrows now!

[frugalfisherman]

So a summer flounder slot fish is a possibility! We will still be limited to an overall recreational weight limit. Could this be:
1. The same limit with or without the slot fish? Probably
2. Some increased overall limit by "discounting" the weight of slot fish landed? Probably not
Would this be up to some equivalency formula to calcuate?
Is there a danger of a very large overage?

I would not be opposed to enacting the slot fish just for party boats this 2022 season. They keep records which should allow a good estimate of their landings with and without a slot fish. In 2023 it would be open to all. Using the 2022 party boat date, fish and game would understand how to enact and not result in a large overage.

Just thinking out loud. Shoot your arrows now!

What in the world gave you the idea that they count and weigh fish to get their numbers? If you have your own boat or fish from shore when was the last time you had your fish weighed? Who counts and weighs fish on a party boat? If they did they could send in any number they want. They get their "scientific" numbers like the government gets everything else. They pull them out of their butts.

[Gerry Zagorski]

So a summer flounder slot fish is a possibility! We will still be limited to an overall recreational weight limit. Could this be:
1. The same limit with or without the slot fish? Probably
2. Some increased overall limit by "discounting" the weight of slot fish landed? Probably not
Would this be up to some equivalency formula to calcuate?
Is there a danger of a very large overage?

I would not be opposed to enacting the slot fish just for party boats this 2022 season. They keep records which should allow a good estimate of their landings with and without a slot fish. In 2023 it would be open to all. Using the 2022 party boat date, fish and game would understand how to enact and not result in a large overage.

Just thinking out loud. Shoot your arrows now!

Never going to go by weight, it will surely stay at inches, I don't think they would make it just for part boats either, too many people would fight them over that.

[frugalfisherman]

OK. Just substitute measured for weighed in my post. When did that ever happen?