https://www.njfishing.com/forums/att...1&d=1563541310
In response to Reason 162's conclusion that fish populations are moving north because of climate change, global warming, greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide dome, ozone level or whatever today's, current politically correct terminology is, please look at the chart. If summer flounder numbers are leaving their southern grounds because of any of the above reasons, it would stand to reason that their landings would also increase in the northern range of the Mid Atlantic states like NJ or R.I.
Check the chart. I don't see much, if any, noticeable changes other than the decreased landings in a state like N.C. If the fluke are leaving N.C. because of temperature changes, they should show up in larger numbers where the water is cooler. That would be a logical conclusion. The landing numbers in N.J. don't seem to indicate any increase. I guess because our ocean waters are too warm as well. Then, they should be showing up in larger numbers in places like Massachusetts and Maine where the waters are cooler. They aren't there either.
I've fished locally over the past few years in places like Barnegate Bay, and the
Manasquan, Shark, Shrewsbury, and Navesink Rivers where fluke are still being caught despite the warm shallow water. Given the climate change, warming waters theory, those fluke should never have been there or should certainly have left by the end of May. They seem to have taken a liking to the warm, bait-choked waters where they can fatten up before migrating offshore to spawn.
I'm having a real problem with accepting the climate change theory in general and more toward how it is supposedly affecting the summer flounder numbers or their migration.
Finally, check the recreational numbers of fluke that have been landed since the over-regulations were implemented in the early'80's. As the size limits increased, the "landings" have decreased. Does it mean there are fewer fluke? I don't think so. If you can't keep a fluke, it doesn't get included in the landing totals. As the size limits kept increasing, the landing numbers have kept decreasing. Is there a correlation? I say, Yes! So, it appears there are fewer fluke when actually it can be concluded that by raising the size limits, fewer legal fish are being caught or reported.
If the size limit was raised to 20" would there be fewer fluke, or fewer fluke harvested and reported?
Finally.......If the agencies that are in charge of regulating the fisheries programs are government agencies, and, if the government works for us, why won't they concede that the public, recreational fishermen want things to change? Someone mentioned a pissing contest. Well, it is. Only, it's between the recreational anglers and the government agencies. Right now, the government hasn't made any concessions and that's just not right.
