Fishery Management

Originally Posted by AndyS

I did a tilefish trip a few year back and we were BAILING blueline tilefish like porgies. The limit went to 7 blueline tilefish for NJ boats, ooops not a word was spoken or posted about that. Now tell me how the sun rises and sets on these pathetic fluke, I'm waiting.

There was quite a stir when limits were imposed on blue lines. Still don't get your disdain against summer flounder which happens to be one of if not the most important fisheries both socially and economically for the Mid-Atlantic States. I don't recall anyone saying the sun rises and sets on summer flounder but if your opinion is it's not a vital resource I couldn't disagree with you more.

Think you're going to have to keep waiting because truthfully I don't even understand the basis of your analogy. One fishery has nothing to do with the other and couldn't be more polar opposite.

Originally Posted by reason162

Your posts re fluke center around 2 themes: sex ratio imbalance and unsustainable commercial harvesting. Neither of these are born out by the data. You are going against the grain of scientific consensus as it stands today.

Your goal is to relax size limits. Great! If the biomass is shifting north, and size increases in the northern range vs the southern range (and that IS the scientific consensus), you arrive at your goal of looser size restrictions by aligning yourself with the scientific community.

In other words...your prolific efforts up to this point is largely misguided. Focus on the accepted science of climate change and how it's influencing migratory patterns, and you end up in the same place. Except then you'd largely be making sense doing it.

My posts revolve around a distinct relationship illustrating a decrease in recruitment levels in the absolute and relative to SSB which coincides with the precise timing of increases in size limits for recreational anglers and responsible for consequential changes in the composition of commercial and recreational harvest with larger sexually mature fish albeit for different reasons. Recreational due to size limit mandates, commercial based on a conscious effort to harvest larger fish having greater market values. ALL FACTS. whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. All that in addition to an extreme disparity in access to the resource between commercial and recreational interests due to the same recreational size limit increases while commercial size limits remained status quo.

My goal is to bring those issues to the surface with fisheries management which are the underlying reasons in my opinion causing the fishery to fail unless of course your definition of a successful fishery involves a declining biomass even with catch levels being cut by two-thirds over the last three decades. The data supports my positions and conclusions 100% in spite of your inability to comprehend that. Your cross to bear, not mine. Regardless of where the biomass is located and why, if you read the attached two charts as signs of a healthy fishery which outline those catch level reductions, SSB continuing it's 17-yr downward trend and recruitment continuing to fail over a significantly more prolonged 35-yr period then there's really no need for continued discussions. Can't have an intellectual fact-based discussion with someone who lacks the capacity to interpret data. Your obsession with science doing no wrong in light of material discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own data and your position on climate change have skewed your perspective of reality. Just keep enjoying the banner fluke season we're currently having, keep subsidizing the commercial harvest with discards while commercials enjoy their 40% quota increase and laugh all the way to the bank at our expense.

[OH HENRY II]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone, but, is this pissing contest over yet?

[JeffZ]

This is why we are where we are and will continue to stay there

Originally Posted by OH HENRY II

I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone, but, is this pissing contest over yet?

Will focus my efforts on addressing observations and concerns with the various federal fishery management agencies who hold the fate of many including our children's rights to these fisheries in their hands along with industry and state organizations that have a vested interest in these outcomes. Sharing information on this site, at least of a regulatory nature, with those who'd prefer to sit on the side lines and bitch as opposed to becoming educated is a pointless exercise so consider the pissing match over.

[AndyS]

Originally Posted by OH HENRY II

I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone, but, is this pissing contest over yet?

Not even close, Bud !

[Billfish715]

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.

[Capt Sal]

Originally Posted by OH HENRY II

I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone, but, is this pissing contest over yet?

What have you done to help preserve our sport?

[Capt. Lou]

You might ask the tackle companies this same question , To my knowledge there is my one that continually steps up and has been on the forefront of fisheries issues for decades ! AFTCO !
Years back they helped save our fluke fishery by selling T Shirts and donating all profits to RFA !
Why the hell we support any of these guys like the majors is on you ! They don’t give a dam when it comes to local fisheries and business support on the east coast !
Many aren’t American owned companies and we are forced to purchase there products because so dam few American companies can compete with sweatshop manufacturing !
Not only is our fisheries system broken but so is our manufacturing system ! We give our dollars the the wrong people !

[dales529]

Here is a brief and most likely feeble attempt to try and rein in a thread like this.
Back in 2008 - 2010 Gerry agreed at my and others beckoning to start a Fisheries "Regulations / Management" Thread which to date is still located however "locked" for posting at the bottom of the main page. To me its is still a wealth of information and I suggest anyone who posted here to take some time reliving the past. Our "forefathers" have left posting but are still very involved in regulations. Some of our best on this site have also passed on in this life like LAB and other chose to continue the fight behind the scenes due to the bickering but honoring their legacy is still to date very important.

Enter Tom Dakota: We talk daily about the process through emails . phone calls, travel to meetings and some time fishing. We do not always agree on everything but its been nothing short of a very productive effort to date.

What is most important to recognize is this (Toms analysis) effort is difficult within the process but NOT reliant on politicians (yet), climate change and or science peer review. All of the data Tom is talking about has been peer reviewed and presented to the government and us as the data that dictates our regulations. Its NOAA's Data pure and simple looked at and trended in a different perspective based on that same data.

What is happening:
Tom's Data (Again based on NOAA Data) has been presented and is being reviewed by the SSC (Science Statistical Committee, the technical committee, NOAA , ASA (American Sportsman Association) RFA etc and I believe it will be in the ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council meeting materials for upcoming meetings in Sept / Oct. No EASY task.

We will attend and defend this data until they prove him wrong. May work maybe not but my god quite an effort.

Leave all the other stuff to another thread as none of is relative. This is based on NOAA data submitted and peer reviewed that is the result of our regulations. Sorry Recreational MRIP , SAW assessments, trawls, catch and mortality assessments are NOT Science, While i personally agree that Climate change should be considered and stocks of Fluke are migrating northward I believe to the tune of 20 miles per decade its NOT yet factored in to our current regulations.
So lets leave TOM , myself and many many others to do the work most wont and see what happens. A slot fish maybe in our future with enough support and less BS,