NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

This will be unpopular here but it's time to face facts. This fluke year is very very poor. Too poor to be lumped in with other years that weren't that great. Is it possible that there will be a big push of bait after this moon or the deeper water temps will jump and turn on a good bite - maybe, but even that wouldn't salvage our season at this point. The season is basically halfway over. I've been out at least twice a week and have 5 keepers. I'm no fluke jesus but I'm not a noob either. I've been bouncing jigs, dragging bait. Have fished killies, squid, spearing, gulp, strip baits and some other things.

If you want to tell me I suck and that's why I'm not catching then please by all means go ahead. I was catching pretty easy 5 fish limits at this time last year in all the same spots.

So here is how NOAA is both right and wrong. They are right that the biomass is hurting and overfishing is occurring. They are wrong about how to manage the fishery in general. If we can get a consensus on both of these things and get some proper management then maybe this fishery can be saved. If not, it's going the way of other fisheries here in NJ that were woefully mismanaged.

I welcome your thoughts, insults and criticisms :D

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

No argument here. Been Fluke fishing for at least 50 years, this is by far the worst season I have ever seen. Been out with a buddy at least 5 times in the Keyport, Keansburg areas, only 2 keepers between us for all the trips, even short Fluke were not around. Did not see any other boats out there catching either. Commerical nets are killing off everything.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I agree , season sucks and I think everyone knows . Management has got to get better and I think it will . It is what it is , a bad year , and only a bad year , better fishing is ahead .

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I enjoy reading the posts here but rarely respond but yours intrigued me. Mainly because you welcomed comments and criticism. Your last sentence was the reason I want to respond. I don't think fishing has been the same since Sandy. But I also strongly believe our current regs make little sense. When we do catch a keeper fluke it will most likely be a female breeder. But the biggest harm, in my opinion, is protecting dogfish and conger eels. Two very prolific and bottom feeding species. How many fish eggs and young fish do they destroy? Add in the bait fish and a lot if unfavorable fishing conditions and it adds up to poor fishing. I often wonder if the people that make our regulations have ever been on a boat much less ever fished. I also welcome any comments and/or criticism.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

We sure as hell pay enough in taxes - why can't we get a PhD to determine fluke mortality...and then act on it. It sure as hell is not the 100 keepers recreational fisherman per day

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I have to agree with skate on almost everything this year is the worst for me and my crew. Fluke fishing sucks this year. I've only been seriously fluke fishing for 5 years and have done very well in years past things aren't the same my buddy blames all south winds turning up cold water others blame draggers in the bay.what ever it may be we have to figure it out because this is not good.We need a NFA national fishing association.I enjoy reading and rarely respond because i can't work the computer to well and can't figure how to take my name off my post but i don't care anymore i said my piece.I hope everyone does better in the second half.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I have been fluke fishing for 40 years. There is little doubt in my mind the commercial draggers wiped out the local population over the winter. Very little at all..

Don't believe me? Maybe your one that thinks the ling and whiting are still in demise due to recreational fishing also. The solution is real easy. Hold the commercials liable and account for their goddam bycatch....

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

How do we do that?

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Not that long ago there wasn't a winter off shore fluke fishery. Now these fish are harvested by commercials year round and worse if you've read any of my previous posts it coincides with the primary fluke spawning season. These fish are pounded when they're concentrated in large schools during their offshore migration. Does anyone here believe the commercial guys cast their lines, steam 50 - 100 miles off shore and keep the smaller fluke which could fetch 40 - 50% less in value back at the docks? The larger females are targeted, smaller fluke tossed back dead and God only knows what impact this has on the spawn and survival rates of eggs. For starters, NMFS should close the season until this fishery is figured out. It's closed to recreational anglers, close it from September to at minimum the end of November to commercial dragging if not longer.

FMP needs to address the significantly higher prices larger fluke fetch wholesale. If all fluke were valued the same at the docks, hygrading at sea would effectively be eliminated since the economic benefit no longer exists.

There's a reason everyone is complaining about this fluke seasons, NMFS regulations have annihilated the female population of this stock. Reproduction has been obliterated. There is no right to how NOAA / NMFS is managing this fishery. If the biomass exploded exponentially between 1989 and 2002 by 600% when catch averaged more than 50% every year of SSB, why is it tanking today when annual catch has been reduced to ~15% of SSB? And why at that same time when recreational anglers were allowed 8 fish at 14 inches was the stock flourishing? By default, we were harvesting less breeders and recruitmentt numbers were significantly higher. The data is there for everyone to see. it's being ignored because of politics.

There's no good ending to this story as long as NMFS maintains their current ideology of managing catch through size increases. The fishery using that management philosophy is doomed.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

GOOD POINT.

Why can't they track catches of Commercial guys and publicly post results? We can see tear to yea, month to month, state to state if they are having a banner year, or screwed like us.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I think blaming past regulations for our current situation is tomfoolery, based on eggshell-thin evidence and bro-science talk of sex ratio for a species that by all accounts is extremely fecund and resistant to sex ratio imbalance. I'll stand corrected if/when the sex study passes peer review, but even then...the net impact of rec fishing sex selection cannot explain the past decade of low recruitment.

The larger story is climate change, the thing that is turning global ecosystems upside down for every species (including us). To ignore that awesome phenomenon and point your entire finger at NOAA regulations...is insanity.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I think climate change is a factor as well. I hesitate to bring that up here because this crowd doesn't want to hear about it and the entire thing devolves into a climate change debate.

What I really want to talk about is why aren't the fluke here this year and what is the solution for sustainable summer flounder fishing moving forward? Everyone blames the commercial by catch situation but nothing ever changes. Do these guys have any accountability? How can we start the process of making sure they have some?

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

fe·cund
ˈfekənd,ˈfēkənd/
adjective
producing or capable of producing an abundance of offspring or new growth; fertile.


Just helping out here.....:p

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Glad you've solved that mystery and have concrete evidence.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Not global warming. Fluke catches are great in other areas of the Northeast. Montauk etc..

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

This years slow fluke catch has more to do with water temp and the lack of feed source (bait) in the usual areas from years past. The sky is not falling, but management needs to be corrected for future growth.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Yeah the crowd doesn't want to hear it, but climate change is upending migratory patterns/populations around the world, there is no way its impact on a migratory species like fluke is nominal.

I read that NOAA is taking climate change into account for future modeling, if so that is the only way forward. Yes, better science re sex ratio/slot limits are good and necessary things, but they are baby steps in the context of even a 1 degree F rise in average water temperatures, and we're looking down the barrel of a much larger increase.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Reason I respect your posts and you seem like an intelligent person which makes your comments more confusing. Recruitment numbers (BASED ON NMFS"S OWN DATA) show a steady and sharp decline over the last 25 years to the magnitude of an 80% decrease in strength. These are the facts presented by NMFS, not mine or third party. What accounts are you referring to that would lead anyone to believe the stock is fecund and resistant to sex ratio imbalances because the raw data we're all being regulated by says the complete opposite. If you take the time to trend recruitment statistics against size limit increases it shows a clear and continuous inverse relationship throughout the last 25 years. EVERY year size limit increases are legislated higher, recruitment in the absolute and in a relative sense to SSB has declined.....EVERY YEAR. We're all expected to believe this is a result of gradual climate change over 25 years. There's no basis or logic for believing that.

Look at it from a different perspective, between 1989 and 2002 as I've posted numerous times, SSB increased by 600%. Is that possible if climate change was at play and the biomass was migrating further north and or east. I'm sure some of that is going on but trawl studies in areas revealing a 600% increase in spawning stock biomass also reported a continuous and significant decline in reproduction. So based on your theory, you'd have us believe the stock was expanding exponentially, a six-fold increase, but climate change was causing reproduction numbers to tank. I fail to see the logic in that argument.

You ever been down to the Point Pleasant Coop off Channel Drive when the commercials return from these off shore trips. I'd invite everyone to check it out, in particular the size of the fluke off loaded. Would bet 95% or more of their catch are females. The fluke brought in from those offshore trips are some of the biggest fluke you'll ever see. You think their nets catch only large fluke. How many smaller fish and even larger fish were caught and killed in the process and what percentage are we to believe was reported on the FVTR's (Fishing Vessel Trip Reports). I think the reported average for commercial operators is somewhere in the 7 - 10% range, wouldn't surprise me if dead discard on these off shore trips is over 100% of allowed harvest. Would be surprised actually if it was that low.

NMFS knows too many female fluke are being harvested which is why they're considering the sex study in peer review. It's there only way out of this without admitting they've mismanaged the fishery for the last fifteen to twenty years. In my opinion, they'll come out in a few years and say the results of their scientific findings based on models incorporating size and sex consideration have shown the need to introduce a slot limit and my guess is it will happen for the '19 season, not next year. By then the fishery will be irreparably damaged if it's not already. Then we'll see just how "steep" or "fecund" the stock really is when it becomes the next whiting and ling fishery. As I've said, the facts are there for anyone taking the time to interpret what it's telling us. Doesn't take a genius, just someone with an objective perspective as opposed to a politically motivated agenda.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

What the crowd wants to hear are proposed changes based on facts and not summise, conjecture or theories which is precisely what climate change and steepness are....theories. NMFS scientists themselves are divided on it's relevance. The facts overwhelmingly show a much more definitive and prolonged trend killing this fishery caused by the same failing management philosophies of NMFS. As I said the facts are there for anyone interested in reviewing them.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

if by "climate change" you gentlemen are saying that this years COLD water has slowed the fluke bite, I might agree.. Its fast approaching mid July, and there are still bycatches of Ling inshore with the Fluke every day... Otherwise I call horse shit.. We have all been around long enough to remember DEAD fluke fishing on certain years, even back in the good old days before the terms "global warming" or the more politically correct term "climate change" were ever uttered.

Just because the NY Bight has been slow doesn't mean the fish have died off or changed their migration patterns because of ""climate change"".. Fluke range from Newfoundland to Florida and are caught by recs along the entire Altantic Coast of the US... Fluke fishing is doing well this year actually, along much of the coast..... bob

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Read my post. If the powers to be can address the significant market price fluctuations between smaller and larger fluke, hygrading (dead discard) is eliminated immediately. Simultaneously there should be a complete fishery closure during the primary spawn September thru November. Give every breeder another year to drop eggs as opposed to having commercials pound them on their off shore migration without understanding the impact this has on the entire spawn process. Like I said in my earlier post, check out the off loads at the Coop if you want a first hand look at what's going on, you'll be shocked and pissed when you see the size fsih being harvested. What you won't see are all the fish we released throughout the season tossed back dead in the process of retaining the larger more value breeders. The fishery is being destroyed and the targeting of larger fluke by commercials along with the associated discard that process generates coupled with 15 - 20 years of mismanagement by NMFS with size limit increases is 95% of the reason this fishery is failing. Don't have to look anywhere else.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Amen my friend.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I have given up fluke fishing, really is a joke this year, a waste of time. commercial guys killed it vacuumed the ocean floors. they want us off the water.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I spoke with a "commercial guy" over the weekend and he has not only given up on fluke this season do to no fish in the area, but his conch pots as well. He's raking clams a few days a week and working on a squid boat to make a days pay. It's not just us recreational guys having a slow season. Water temps are off.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Time for rod and reel ONLY commercial fishing... Strict quotas like us recreational guys have... Yes the catch will only be a fraction, but prices for available fish will skyrocket.... If people want fresh flounder fluke, etc, either pay the price as you must with expensive prime beef, lobster, shrimp, scallops, or eat tilapia or farm raised salmon...

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Could it be that the majority of fluke took a more northern path this year, heading straight up to New York waters and beyond during their annual migration from out east. Is it part of a new cycle because of changing currents, etc. I don't know. What I do know is if you look at the reports from new York, long Island and Montauk plus mass., looks like they are having one hell of a year. Hell, just saw a report from a 6 pack out of mass., 6 fluke 9 pounds or better.
As far as NOAA......,,Never On About Anything.......just my cents....

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I hate to be that guy but my Friends down here in LBI that work the dragger are getting their 500 pounds in 4 tows.... The fish are there. Just have to get that temp up and bait to move in

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Dakota, I also read your posts with great interest. I am not dismissing out of hand the sex ratio theory, but there is countering evidence which you do seem to dismiss, that fluke is indeed a particularly steep species and therefore resistant to sex ratio imbalance. I think the Rutgers study will shed light on squaring that circle, but the fact is there might not be a conflict to resolve within those parameters if there are larger forces at play. Climate change would most certainly have an impact on fluke migration/recruitment/abundance, as it does on every species on earth. My assumption is that even if true, whatever effect the sex ratio imbalance is on recruitment, the effects of climate change largely eclipses.

I know I don't need to point out to you the difference between causation and correlation, but for the benefit of the forum: the "perfect inverse relationship" you plot between size regulation and recruitment is firmly in the first camp, and could very well be irrelevant IF the causation lies elsewhere, ie global climate change. I wish you were correct, that fisheries management alone is to blame, or that regulations account for the majority of poor recruitment. If that is the case, the solution is relatively easy.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Is it just me or is anyone else picking up on the dichotomy of reasons effecting fluke. Climate change (aka global warming) is thrown out as often as any other explanation but at the same time we talk about how the bite is off because the water is too cold. That argument comes up almost as often as climate change. South wind, bottom temperatures dropped, water too cold, fluke just sitting on the buck tail not committing etc. etc. Fish swim, bait moves and fish spread out but in my opinion nothing that supports the fact that an SSB that's 500% greater at 34,250 metric tons in 2015 compared to 1989 when it was a mere 7,000 metric tons is struggling to sustain itself. The biomass is there, it's not in Maine. Catch levels even at a paltry 15% of SSB compared to years ago when recreational and commercial harvest approximated 60 - 70% of SSB annually and the fishery can't sustain itself. We've lost almost 85% of the reproduction strength of the biomass translating into significantly less new fish being introduced yearly to repopulate the biomass even at today's reduced catch levels.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Reason appreciate your reply and position. When I look at the data holistically I come to a different conclusion. If climate change were the primary culprit, in my opinion we wouldn't have seen a resurgence in SSB from 1989 to 2002 with a sudden reversal and continued decline ever since. The biomass is there, but it's declining every year and at an accelerated rate. Could climate be effecting egg reproduction, can't rule it out. I'd bet the build up of a winter commercial fishery and the biomass being pounded during the spawn has caused considerably more harm in the reproductive process itself and significantly higher levels of unreported dead discard. These fish years ago once they started migrating off shore went untouched for the most part, today they have no safe haven.

NMFS has tried the same failed approach for the last 20 years to the point they said the stock was rebuilt in I believe '10 or '11 and they're wrong. They've been wrong with their management approach and they're still wrong today. Let's wait and see what next year holds in store with the regulations (going to be a disaster) and what the next stock assessment tells us even with chain sweep technology. Hope I'm wrong but in my opinion we're on the wrong path and managing the fishery to a collapse.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

If fluke as a species relies on larger-class females to sustain recruitment, that is the kind of evidence you'd expect to lay blame on rec regs selecting for larger females. So far there is no evidence to that effect, though obviously we can learn much more about the species than we do currently.

I agree that winter dragging on the spawning grounds can have a huge impact, much more so than 18 - 19" rec regs. No fish should be molested during spawn, I am firmly in favor of no Spring tog season in NY for that reason.

The thing with climate change is...unfortunately, its effects on a granular level (impact on fluke for instance) is poorly understood. The data is just so massive, and as you know ecosystems are so complex and intertwined...that drawing firm conclusions as to the how and why isn't yet possible. It could be egg production, it could be juveniles settling on the bottom and not establishing themselves due to lack of plankton/food source, it could be an explosion of hitherto unknown predatory species on juveniles...I think regardless of what else NOAA gets wrong or right, incorporating climate change into their model is absolutely necessary, because it's happening.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

I'm not of the opinion that 25 - 30 years of very definitive trends and distinct relationships are correlations, I believe they're very much are cause and effect driven. Either way these trends and relationships have existed for too long a period of time to be ignored and not better understood. After all that is the responsibility of fisheries management yes?

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Both of you guys definitely raise the level of the discourse, that's for sure. I feel like I'm more in a graduate school classroom than an internet forum.

Don't fluke migrate east to west? Does climate change still affect that type of migration? But not as directly? Right now we have warm surface temps but colder temps down deeper, how unusual is this for this time of year? Because of a south wind?

From where I'm sitting it just seems so unfair that commercial fisherman are getting hundreds of pounds of fish in every tow while the rec guys are grinding it out for a couple bites. I don't feel an allegiance to commercial fishing like some guys do.

The DEP came out this year in protection of the fluke fishing industry, both rec and commercial. With the idea being that the reduction would harm the industry. Well here we are 6 weeks later and the party boats are sea bassing and ling fishing and many rec anglers have given up entirely and it's not because we went to a 3 fish limit.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

Gnuisance the fluke fishery is essentially an east / west migration. I've always felt based on what I believe your implying that fluke are more prone to stage at different depths east / west to find the water depth they prefer and bait concentrations they need as opposed to a north / south migration but there's a lot that factors into that so that's an assumption. Bait concentrations, currents, water quality, storms (i.e. Sandy) etc. might and probably will impact some level of movement. That's precisely why in the spring the fluke move into the bays where the waters warmer and bait is more prevalent and exit the bays in the summer as the water temperatures increase and move further off shore to deeper water, larger fluke in particular. That point is also covered in Rutgers Sex and Size Study. As I've mentioned, the biomass is there albeit its been declining since 2009 when it was recorded at ~46,000 metric tons. In '15, last year on record, it was ~36,259 metric tons.

A few more statistics directly from NMFS. In 1989 when SSB hit rock bottom at ~7,000 metric tons, the subsequent three years catch as a percentage of SSB were 68%, 108% and 100%. Those are insane catch percentages when SSB was dramatically declining YET after that three year period SSB increased to 12,500 metric tons, an almost 80% increase in three years with significantly higher catch percentages compared to today's ~ 15%. For the last three years on record from NMFS, '13 thru '15, SSB decreased from ~40,000 metric tons to ~36,250 metric tons while catch as a percentage of SSB in those years was reported at 26%, 24% and 21% respectively. The increase between '90 and '92 could be interpreted to Reason's argument that the stock is fecund and "found a way" in light of being at reduced levels. My opinion instead is you can't discuss a stock's recruitment capacity without consideration being given to the gender composition of that biomass. That's what I personally believe to be the biggest flaw with steepness theories and advocates. Say it differently, if SSB was 50,000 metric tons but was comprised of all males and no females, would the future be more promising than an SSB of 10,000 metric tons with a 50 / 50 gender mix. You can't categorize a stock as steep without consideration being given to the gender make up of that stock....period. Not to mention the fact that the data does not support the fluke fishery as being fecund or steep since the biomass has been trending down for 15 years now. The reason SSB increased between '90 thru '92 in spite of extremely high catch percentages relative to overall SSB was recruitment strength was still strong enough to support a sustainable fishery. That all changed over the last 15 years as size limits regulations changed and commercial interests started pounding larger fluke year round, especially during the primary spawn period..

To my initial point, the data tells us the biomass is there, 500% greater than it was in 1989 (36,250 mt's compared to 7,000 mt's), catch has been slashed yet SSB declines. Plot that data against recruitment strength for the same period of time. For the years '90 thru '92, recruitment averaged ~2,900 new fish age zero for every metric ton of SSB, that average crashed to ~675 for the period '13 thru '15. That's a 76% decrease in reproduction for those periods. That is the primary issue killing this fishery.

The million-dollar question is what's causing that decline which NMFS is NOT addressing with the same approach to managing the fishery which is catch reductions thru size limit increases. If you examine the data as I have for 25 years and look at the relationships between a sliding recruitment line directly proportional to an increasing size limit trend line it's hard if not impossible to not believe there is a causal relationship between size limit increases, the effect they have on more female fluke being harvested and the corresponding negative impact on recruitment statistics. There's 25 - 30 years of data to support that conclusion.

One last comment on migration, commercial operators will tell you fluke are being caught in areas north and east of traditional spots which fuels the migration theory. You have to ask the question if true, could that be the case because the biomass is spreading out in certain areas as opposed to a massive change in migratory movements due to climate change. What I mean is look at the quotas, catch level and size limits over the last 10 years by state. A few more statistics. '16 reported results from the ASMFC Draft Addendum catch totals for our area (NJ, NY and Ct.) were 5,466,371 pounds. The northern most states included in the Mid-Atlantic region RI and Ma had a projected harvest of 412,261 pounds, not even 15% of the catch in our immediate area. Size limits in our immediate area have been 18” the last two years, in Ma it was 16” in 2016. Keep in mind that NY in ’09 and ’10 was 2 fish at 21’ and in ’11 it increased to a 3 fish possession limit at 20.5”. No one can emphatically prove it but it begs the questions of whether the appearance of a change in fluke migratory patterns is in actuality the result of lower size limits and greatly reduced possession limits in the northern states of the Mid-Atlantic region combined with an overall harvest level not even 15% of that in the NY Bight. As I said, bait concentrations move, fish swim, storms happen which reshape the ocean’s contour. Do these factors impact yearly migration patterns, you could assume to some degree they might. BUT does it mean there’s a massive wholesale movement of the biomass to northern areas as a result, personally I don’t read the data that way. The biomass was still reported at ~36,250 metric tons in ’15, that tells me the biomass is still where it’s largely been for the last 25 – 30 years. In my opinion if there 's an appearance of the biomass moving north it could just as easily be the result of significantly less harvest in the northern states of the region combined with size and possession limits for those states more protective of the female breeders than in our immediate area. Can't prove that point any more than anyone can prove there's a massive shift in fluke migration taking place.

Re: NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke
 

How does climate change impact bottom water temperature?
I know surface temperature of the earth have increased 1.3 degrees in the last century.
Curious to know how that impacts the bottom temperature? I assume it would be something less than 1.3 degrees over the last 100 years.