One more point for the resident Peer Review disciples. The stock assessment report provides commercial catch statistics and biomass composition in terms of age class fish for the years 1982 through 2012.

Here's what that data states. 90% of commercial catch in the 80's and 90's was made up of age class fish 2 years or younger. For the years 2010 - 2012, that percentage dropped to 16% and based on the trend is most likely less than 5% today. The importance of that statistic among other things is summer flounder don't attain sexually maturity until somewhere between 2-3 years of age. Keep in mind, in the 80's and 90's, recreational size limits were either 13" or 14" so recreational catch most likely consisted of similar catch composition.

Number of fish commercially harvested between 1982 - 1989 ages 2 and younger averaged 23.3 million fish annually. In 2012, last year of published data, that number dropped to 887,000, a significant change in catch composition. So in the 90's when the data shows a 600% increase in the biomass, overall harvest consisted predominantly of sexually immature fish. Scroll forward to today, it's the exact opposite. Recreational because of size limit increases, commercial because there's increased catch value harvesting the larger fish recreational anglers are being forced to release to compensate for cuts in catch quotas. I don't blame them one bit to remain in business. I blame fisheries management for not understanding the consequences of their decisions.

Keep following the logic. If summer flounder in the 2 yr and younger class are essentially no longer commercially or recreationally being harvested, we should be seeing explosive growth in the biomass of these year classes. We're not. Years 1982 - 1989 averaged 122 million fish in the biomass annually, years 2011 - 2012 averaged 72 million, a 41% decrease in a biomass that increased 600% over that period. That's virtually impossible. If 23 million less fish a year are being harvested commercially and none recreationally, coupled with the six-fold increase in the size of the biomass today compared to the mid 80's, there should be somewhere in the proximity of 250 - 300 million of these age class fish in today's biomass. The question the scientific community and fisheries management should be asking is what's happened to these age classes? We should be seeing an exponential increase in these age classes but the data instead shows a significant reduction. Either the fish are there and the stock is being materially under estimated or the data is correct which means there's a major problem with this age class of the stock not being addressed. Pick your poison since they both negatively impact catch quotas.

Again best available science, peer review so we should accept the data and decisions face value. I couldn't disagree more. These are material changes in historical relationships in a fishery that's been in a prolonged decline. In my opinion, the result of unintended consequences of regulatory decisions. But my opinion or anyone else's doesn't matter so we depend on the scientific community, councils and committees to ask the question for us but don't hear anyone asking these questions. Instead, they immediately go to cuts in catch, shortened seasons, increases in size limits or reductions in possession limits all decisions in my opinion further compounding the problem.