NOAA is both right and wrong about Fluke

Originally Posted by gnuisance

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?

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.

[Striper80]

Originally Posted by reason162

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.

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

[laketrout]

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

[Rocky]

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.

Originally Posted by reason162

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.

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.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

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.

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.

Originally Posted by reason162

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.

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.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dakota560

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.

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.

Originally Posted by reason162

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.

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?

[gnuisance]

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.