Where the heck are the Fluke?

Originally Posted by bulletbob

My opinion is that wherever they are, they aren't going looking for colder water..
BTW, I had no idea about this commercial 40% quota increase that was was posted on this thread... Thats catastrophic if true.
I would love for someone to enlighten me on this ... bob

Bob......here's a link to an article written by Dan Radel with APP which attempts to explain to 40% increase.

https://www.app.com/story/sports/out...rs/3153388002/

Two statements you should note:

The logic is recreational fishermen actually caught closer to 7.69 million pounds of fluke in 2018 than 4.4 million pounds because there are more fluke in the ocean than models used in past benchmark assessments reported.

AND

The reason for the disparity is because new data points were used in the 2018 benchmark stock assessment for summer flounder. Mail-in surveys were used to gather fishing effort from anglers in the Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP, instead of phone calls. The mail-ins "reported much higher catches of summer flounder than were estimated," said Kirby Rootes-Murdy, the senior Fishery Management Plan coordinator for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

So in other words more fish in the stock assessment but recreational quota remains status quo because historical recreational catch numbers which were based on "BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE" used by highly competent scientists with all that schooling, training and data collecting/modeling expertise are now saying they GROSSLY under-estimated recreational catch in previous models. That should give everyone an idea of what "best available science" actually means. It's an extremely relative term which is essentially a disclaimer that the data regulatory decisions are being based on could be materially wrong but it's best available. And this is all because recreational catch numbers based on MRIP are now being collected through mail in replies as opposed to phone calls. And I'm sure a 99% confidence level was assigned to that statement the same as the numbers used in previous models which by default NMFS is now saying are materially wrong.

Stock goes down, recreational anglers take a hit. Stock goes up, we still take a hit based on guesstimates just as speculative as the older version of MRIP while commercial operators received a 40% increase. An increase equivalent to in excess of $10,000,000 in incremental catch values subsidized by the harvest of larger fish recreational anglers are mandated to release. 14" - 17.99 for NJ, 14" to 18.99 for NY, Ct and RI.

But rest assured, this all passed Peer Review so our concerns should be put to rest. Only other industry which can be so far off with forecasts and models without question is the Weather Bureau. They report up under NOAA and the Department of Commerce as well so makes perfect sense.

I agree we need science, but accepting it face value when the fishery is in a prolonged 17 year decline in all aspects (recruitment, catch levels and the biomass in general) is as illogical as thinking we don't need science at all. But blind faith isn't the answer either. Unfortunately this is a David and Goliath situation and I doubt David is winning this one.

[unclegary47]

The most feared phrase on earth "We're the government and we're here to help"!!!!!!

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.