Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

I was at the meeting and while I agree with this . I also believe that poor attendance on the part of local north Jersey fluke fishermen led to this . Next year lets hope for a better turnout !

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

The poll taken on this site may have showed 37% favoring option 2 compared to 31% favoring option 5 which may seem close when you first look at the numbers. In actuality though, about 61% of those polled favored the 18" size limit with some form of the longer season as compared to only about 33%who favored either the 17 1/2" or 17" option.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

While I voted for Option 2 just because of actually having something to fish for in October with the longer season, and feel the 1/2" decrease was not going to make much of a differnce because were still fishing within the same age class fish.

I think going by a poll on ANY fishing site and trying to bring credibility to the pole is silly.

There are a little over 5000 active members daily here, (which only 249 even voted on the poll) which is about 2 % of the salt water fisherman registered in NJ, , and who knows how many more are not even registered, since if they only fish on head boats they dont have to.

Those are the guys who have no idea fishing sites even exist, yet are the MAINSTAY to the party boat business, just looking to go have a fun day with friends and family, and possibly take home some fish.

I actually know quite a few guys who love to fish , yet only do it from the surf beause they cant afford to fish even on a half day boat.
maybe those guys will also get a few extra fish to take home.

Our board here is made up by guys who really take fishing to another level. there are MANY very good fisherman here, that are going to still catch way more fish per year than they need or their friends and family can consume.
Fishing isnt what we do , its WHO we are.

seems to me there are alot more guys who are going to be happy to get to keep an extra fish or two , that might actually drive them to be the type of fisherman you see post here everyday.

They are entitled to get that chance too


Yet what really makes me laugh is so many of us are saying WTH its only 1/2 and inch , yet if it had been a 1/2" increase in size we would be jumping up and down about it

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Now there is a man with some common sense.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

It's interesting how many people would rather fluke fish on October 20th in NE winds and 5-6 foot seas than would rather see a young kid on his or her first fishing trip take home a nice, fat, healthy, 17 3/4 inch fluke and be able to take pictures, show his friends, etcetera... and turn them into life long fisher(wo)men.

Seems the fluke "sharpies" out there are putting themselves before the "greater good".

If five keeper fluke isn't enough for you than you are probably fishing for all the wrong reasons anyway. It reminds of what a mate on a belmar party boat had to say about blackfisherman when the bag limit would change from 6 to 4 fish. Those same fisherman who would stop coming down to fish were the same guys who never caught more than 4 keepers anyway! No matter what the limit!

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

So lets get this straight. You want to pack your freezer...ok..you tell me if its easier to pack the freezer with 5@ 17.5 or 8@ 18? Before you answer, when is the last time you caught 8@18? I know i haven't caught 8@18...EVER..I'm not the best fluker but I'm certainly not the worst either. I fish in my own boat mostly in the bay.

Do you realize how much money those "wally weekenders" spend on a headboat every spring and summer? Do you think that there are enough regulars to fill those boats every day during the season? I think not. They are the meat and potatoes of the summer fishing industry. No one said fluke fishing is about the sport...they aren't sport fish...they are meat fish.

Re read your last sentence. It just proves my point.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Mick and Gerry.... i guess its me... but try and understand my thinking on this.....

Its NOT, oh 5 fish is enough for anyone why complain about not keeping 8....

Its about what this could lead to when the People in charge of decisions claim we have now over fished this season so next year we HAVE TO GO TO 3 or possibly 2 fish in 2013/2014.....yea yea it sounds crazy right..... tell the guys in NY that after looking at the past practices.....

Honestly... would you be happy keeping only 2 or 3 fish at 17.5 inches this year.... come on

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

We have another winner. Said many times, if you go to 5, next time you have to take a reduction where are you going to start from??

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Yeah wouldn't bother me one bit actually. A couple keeper fluke to eat fresh and not frozen and enjoying a nice relaxing day on the water sounds like a pretty good recipe for "happy" to me!

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

hahaha...now who's putting themselves before the "greater good.....

not many NJ head boats gonna put people on the deck for 2-3 keepers @ 50-60 bux per head

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

I agree!!!!!

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

So all the summertime families and tourists looking to enjoy a fun day of fishing are going to say "sorry kids this year the limit is 2-3 keepers and not 8, looks like it's mini-golf instead!" :confused:
Let them take home a fish and maybe next year maybe you see them back. They sure don't need 8 to be happy.

Additionally, how many people walk off head boats with MORE than 2-3 keepers a trip? Sure seems like people have still been paying the 50-60 bucks and leaving with 0-2 keepers anyway. Goes back to what I said about blackfisherman and bag limits.

The "greater good" is to keep the season open during it's peak (summer months) and let people actually take something home with them.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

.. I understand the way fishery management has been that is DEFINETLY a concern , but since most of the surveys show the majority of fluke in our waters are 16-16 1/2" I dont think (AND HOPE ) that doesnt happen. I think if anything we did catch alot more keepers when It was at 16" just becasue that was the size most available on hand.

Hopefully them setting the bag limit of 5 at 17 1/2" eliminates the chance of over fishing.

Plus If done correctly since its based on Tonage and not Number of fish caught . some smaller fish should show less total weight caught per angler ??

New yorks regs are based on Montauk ETC where each fish caught is like catching 3 fish here at 18" weight wise .

There limit reflects that , catch 3, 4 pounders that 12 pounds of fish , same as us keeping 6 , 2 pounders etc


.Just them basing it on weight and not fish caught puts us behind the 8 ball as all those bigger fish take away from the total much faster

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

I see your point Tom, its just my opinion that they are going to do whatever they damn well please anyway. All I'm trying to point out is that 98% of the folks on here that fluke fish don't limit out anyway. Guys like you and a few other very good flukers can catch 17.5" fish most of the day. All the rest of us are going to be lucky to limit on the 17.5's, and I'm one of those guys.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Bobber, you're striking the right chords here with this. It is NOT about catching more fish, I was lucky enough to have a great season this year and actually did limit out several times, I am an addict as well to fishing and as others have put it, fishing is and has been since childhood my retreat and emotional therapy that I enjoy doing more than anything else...not the point. I also hope this size limit allows for the beginner fisherman, the dad and his kids to catch more fish and be repeat customers for the benefit of the boats and the fishing business. But, It's about what WILL happen next year when those in control can and will say we over fished our quotas this year, depleted the stock and now we need to course correct to fix that with I can only imagine what the numbers WILL be... 2-3 at 18"- let's go the NY route and up it to let's say 19" and 3? For those of you working to support our rights, I do thank you sincerely. I just wish I could see that that support was paying dividends for the longer term.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Capt.TB you make the most sense on this issue and many others. I wish the Captains from down South "Tuckerton to Cape May Pt." would look at the big picture like you do on these fluke regs. Thank you for all your work on this and many issues concerning the WHOLE state of recreational anglers.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

AGAIN my point also..... so this year they MAY take home some fish with the new limits...... but what happens when all this backfires and the fisheries people say ok we gotta go back to 18 but sorry only 2-3 fish can be kept... there is to much potential in this ruling to hurt the industry in the long run, which is why i made an earlier point of why not leave all as is and put in the 2 slot fish at 17-17.5..... the argument was because the Co's would have to do more work ....really ?????

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

You seem certain that a slot fish system would have less potential to hurt the long term fishery than what was chosen...?
It seems a pretty big leap to already have a "doomsday" attitude just as a belief. There's no telling what the "powers that be" will feed us after this season, no matter what set of regulations were chosen, no matter how good or bad the season was, no matter how many fish were kept or not kept. I don't see the validity in trying to be "Ms. Cleo" about it.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Tommy - Believe me when I say I respect your opinon on this. You are probably the most dedicated and passionate Fluker I've ever met. Also remember, I too supported option 2 for the same reasons you, Tony and many others on this site supported it.

My point in my earlier post is even though I have a difference of opinion with others who voted differently, I don't think that should divide us or cause us to pull our support of those people or organizations. They carry the tourch on much bigger things and deserve our support and appreciation and I consider them part of the team.

Next time I see Adam and Fran I will shake their hands, thank them for their service and then respectfully try and convince them of the err in their southern ways on this particular issue. :D

How's that for politically correctness ;)

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

This says it all for me. I truly feel we took a dangerous step backwards.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

2 slot fish at 17-17.5....And maybe a bonus tag for other same size fish........ Been telling the CO at the dock for years...And I see them offen " In a good way" :D Hopefully this dosen't kill us this or next year....

I wish everyone a great season....

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Regs suck azzz....getting my eye patch ready.:mad:

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Mick i catch more then my share of limits a year.My point is why are we giving up 3 fish to a stock that is rebuilt.The more we give up the easier it is to take.Since so many people thimk its easyer to catch at 17.5 you dont think the powers that be will say we overfished this year.Then what for next year sorry you over fished the stock so now we are back at 18 and still at 5 fish or worst at 3.You have alot of faith in the powers that be,when have the Rec. guys not been screwed .

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

That is a fair question. But first understand that to the vast majority of fishermen as evidenced by many of the posts in this thread, very few people are giving up anything. Again, I respect those that have been successful, but you (generally speaking) are in the vast minority of anglers. And if you were limiting out every time at 8 fish at 18", I hope that the 17.5" size limit allows you to capture your limit more quickly without traveling as far and allow you to make an extra couple of trips. That is a win for everyone and you still get your "meat".

I can give you the long winded technical reason for 8 vs. 5 fish bag limits that many would say isn't based in a ton of common sense to most anglers or I can give you the more practicable answer. Practically speaking - because we still have a long way to go in the work of SSFFF, RFA and all the groups working to improve science for Summer Flounder and other species. It becomes a mathematical exercise quite frankly. The mathematical exercise in reducing the size 1/2" and gaining five days of season required capping the limit at 5 fish. I'm not saying I agree with the system any more than the next guy, and am working hard to try to improve the systems to provide results for the better of as many as possible. We saw the bag limit go up from 6 to 8 not long ago, if everyone keeps working together to improve the science and the processes we can strive to get the bag up again from 5.

Here's another point to consider NO MATTER WHAT THE REGS. We may UNDERFISH our harvest target this year, and still have to be MORE RESTRICTIVE NEXT YEAR if the quota goes down. Another reason to continue to support the work that has been effective in supporting quota increases.

I know that many believe that the management process is some "black hole" with puppeteers working behind the scenes. By and large, our fisheries are managed by a lot of every day folks. Spend enough time and it becomes comprehendable. I don't know much about rocket science so I don't know if I would call it that, but just because it isn't understood by an individual(s) doesn't mean it's incomprehensible to all. There remains, comparatively speaking, so many unknowns in fisheries management. There are problems with becoming slaves to the process no doubt. But there are a lot of creative ideas bounced around aimed at improving the science and the process and we all need to continue to do our part to support those efforts.

Finally, since it was brought up in this thread, my decision to support option 5 had nothing to do with potential effect on my business considering fluke fishing accounts for about 5% of my trips. Such has been my business pretty much from day one, irregardless of what the regs have been over the past decade. It was based primarily on the belief based upon personal contact that many would benefit from the lower size. As for constraining the harvest to the target, I put forth the researchable reasons for supporting this path, but at the end of the day, MRFSS is still MRFSS (even behind the MRIP name), a recreational ESTIMATE that is simply incapable in its current form to support the management processes as they are currently implemented. What it spits out next year is truly anyone's guess, including mine. I am hoping for the best just like the rest of you.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Thanks Adam.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Capt Adam you still didnt answer the question.Why are we giving up 3 fish to a stock that even with the backwards thinking and flawed science says that its rebuilt.Most put money into SSSF and the RFA and came together and won some back for the little guy ie 6 fish to 8 fish then just hand it back like its no big deal.Makes you feel like we just pissed that money away giving up gains:confused:

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Ha! While I wholeheartedly agree with you; a better turnout, indeed, could have made a difference. Remember, the northern guys got railroaded, two or three years ago when the season was front loaded in May and shut down very early September. Which definitely benefitted the southern part of the state. The northern guys lost out on some prime time especially on ambrose. Anyhow, when that happened, that very same battle cry you propose went out. How quick we forget.

Not trying to make this a North vs. South battle. But, you'd have to admit either side would take any advantage they could get, and run like a thief. Problem is, it ain't N vs. S. It's us against them. Unite to win. Or stay divided and in the long run we all lose.

17 1/2 or 18", 5 or 8. In reality that argument can no longer be made. The regs are set, and like it or not we all have to live with them. We need to figure a way to move forward in unison, instead of the splintered individuals we are fast becoming.

Divide and conquer is the oldest tactic in the book to achieve victory vs. an opponent. The folks at MRFSS are laughing seeing as they have us further divided than ever. Like all sharks they can smell the blood.

WE had better get OUR collective spit together.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

I will try this another way.

Decrease in size limit = +x% harvest
Increase in size limit = -x% harvest

Decrease in bag limit = -y% harvest
Increase in bag limit = +y% harvest

Decrease in season length = -z% harvest
Increase in season length = +z% harvest

Add together x, y and z based on how to increase/decrease size, bag and season and it needs to cumulatively match the allowed increase/decrease in harvest in a given year.

Our 2011 harvest was less than our 2012 quota (forget about whether we overfished or underfished our 2011 harvest target or whether the 2012 quota went up or down from 2011 because neither matter, it only matters how last year's landings compares to this year's quota) allowing us to increase harvest by +38%. (If you must know we were over 50% below our target in 2011 but because the 2012 quota decreased from 2011, we are only allowed a 38% liberalization.)

The drop in size (+x%) combined with lengthened season (+z%) required a decrease in bag (-y%) to make x + y + z = +38%.

There are other factors but I am trying to keep it as simple as possible.

There are many, many, many combinations of x, y and z every year. The Bureau of Marine Fisheries staff works very hard to come up with a bunch of approved options, then a Committee of the Marine Fisheries Council meets with advisors to whittle down the options developed by staff to be presented to the full council at the public meeting every year.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

It's all BS

The KEY is how they're getting the landing numbers. I fished on boats with over 70 fisherman where there were NO keepers, another trip where 50 fisherman caught 3 keepers and BOTH trips there was a survey person on board taking information. I also was called twice during the season and they NEVER asked how many keepers I caught on my last trip. ??????

Truth be told, I had a very successful fluke season, catching a limit most times (on private boat). We also had trips were WE caught an uncountable amount of short fish (not 17"+); SHORTS! (and every damn one of them bolted back to the bottom no worse for wear - mortality rate my azz) And this was in "big fish" areas. I speak with a lot of boats, anglers etc and 2011 was a banner year, from Manasquan River to Ambrose. A LOT of limits and a lot of big fish. But the season ENDED with Irene as it never shaped back up for a September/October fluke bite.

In my lifetime WE have lost whiting, weakfish is a shadow of a memory and What's a Flounder??? While striped bass has made a miraculous recovery and cod a nice showing the past couple years, it's been more lost than gained.

We GAVE up Fall flounder and will never get THAT back. With a 2 fish limit, we've essentially given up Spring flounder; DONE! Now they've dropped us by almost 50% on fluke...........?????????

What bothers me most is this. They've taken all the "best science available" and coupled that with input from other agencies (even taking input from the Fish Police) and came to the meeting prepared to give us Option #2. (they had it highlighted up on the screen) Then an articulate statement from someone during public input swayed enough Board members to change their minds???????????

Rambling but that's normal ....... one question in closing????

What is the Official Position of RFA on this subject? An answer with an explanation will decide my personal opinion the next time I write a check or decide if an njfishing.com trip that I put together makes a donation. The greater good that an organization does should represent it's members and be for the betterment of the entire fishery.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Understand where the "preferred option" came from. That was the "preferred option" put forth by the members of a sub-committee of the full council. The membership of that committee represents less than half the number of persons on the full council. So to say that was the "preferred option" by the council is not true. It was the preferred option of the committee, not the council.

RFA-NJ/SSFFF did not comment at the meeting on a preferred option as an organization. Individuals from said organizations spoke solely on their own, personal positions.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Paul

I had the FULL graph printed out and maybe I should have given ALL the vote numbers to the Board?? Nice monday morning qb! You could have printed out the same info that I did and presented it? Don't shoot the messenger.

Here's the REAL bottom line. Over 5,000 registered and over 6,000 views and UNDER 250 votes??? NOW if I had gone to that meeting with 65% of 5,000 people saying they wanted SOME length of a season with an 18" X 8 Fish Limit.......Then it would have been worth speaking. With 2% of registered members voting, I was actually embarrassed reporting the apathy of such a large group.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Understood Adam

Does RFA have a position on the subject?

Does SSFFF?

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Mike, I think it's quite clear that this was an issue of huge personal preference. No public comment was given from either group which reflects those divisions, I'm not really sure what else I can offer on the matter. No public comment was no public comment. Sorry I can't paint this one black or white for you. I can tell you SSFFF and RFA-NJ, as has already been posted, is more about fighting for the opportunity to liberalize period. This is a very difficult state to manage fisheries on a statewide basis due to the diversity of fishing patterns from one end to the other and more often than not, as the saying goes, what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander when it comes to regulations. A huge challenge for all, especially when we need to unify to fight for quota only to be divided when fighting for individual regs. We have to get past the individual battles and get on with the war.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

So we are not overfishing the stock and we were under quota and we still lost fish :confused: .Typical goverment math plain and simple 2+2 = lose three fish.Shouldnt this be what the RFA is fighting against not learning how to teach the math.Whatever it is what it is no changing it this year or ever as past fisherys have proven.Thank you Capt Adam for you answers and explaining it to me.One more thing you could maybe answer for me is why did the RFA not have a offical position on this.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

What I want to know is why the quota was lowered? The fishery is the healthiest I've seen.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Buckfin, see above. Looks like we were both typing.

The science needs improvement, plain and simple. The work of SSFFF, et. al. goes on.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

How do we get past the individual battles if one of the biggst groups for the fisherman cant even decide what they are for.Shouldnt the RFA lead by example.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

What's done is done. It is in the books and we have to live with it for this season and pray to god it doesn't haunt us next year. Personally I voted for option 4 later start still before memorial day when majority of business picks up for party/charter boats, and went latest in year to bridge gap while other seasons were closed. I voted for option 4 because it was shorter than option two and had similar fall fishing options. I figured giving up few days in may would maybe help us not only keep from going over quota, and in return maybe let us have very similar season again the next year. Now we just need to wait and see the results on quota from this season, and hopefully be able to work to get it back next season. I think I am going to count how many 17.5-18 inch fish I catch and post only that in my fluke reports.

I don't understand the decision, and won't ask why because I do not feel like you will get a straight answer. Kind of smells like its to political if you catch my drift.

Re: Some Comments on Fluke
 

Mike, for the record SSFFF has Never taken a position. We are not and never have been affiliated with Any other group. Our mission has always been to provide the best science available so that we always have a fluke season up and down the coast. On a personal level you know that I favored option 2.