JCAA Fluke Tournament Results

[dales529]

Billfish
Here is another idea. Instead of being the question guy how about becoming the answer guy. You have knowledge and concern about the fishery. Enjoy your posts. There are ways to research the data you seem to crave albeit you may be frustrated like many before you that have done the work but at least you can know you tried rather than just ask.

[Billfish715]

As you know, information about the current season won't be known or evaluated until after the season is over. Data from previous years is available and I've used it to draw conclusions about what has been done in the past to affect conditions in the present. My conclusions are that the current system is not and has not been working based on the intentions that were professed by the scientists and data analyzers. My solution is radical and will be met with political and financial resistance from the commercial fishing lobby. It's the same solution that has been voiced by many of the fishermen on this board and from other fishing organizations. Close the offshore fishing/spawning grounds to commercial fishing during the spawning period and restrict commercial fishing in areas that are identified as spawning grounds.

As for the questions which I posed before, in order to better understand what is happening now and be able to evaluate data now, the questions that I asked were to search out current data. If indeed there is a feeling that tournament entries are affected by the perception that there are fewer fish to catch and fewer big fish to catch, then that is relevant. If the tournament winning fish are smaller than in previous years, then that is relevant as well. Perhaps it's a sign/validation that the fluke stock is in trouble.

I'm as curious and concerned as the next guy about the future of fluke fishing. I'm sure you are too. Answers have been suggested by too many fishermen to count and there's nothing much to show for it. Rallies and testimony before Congress, courting various state legislators, not to mention the monetary donations that have been made for representation have not changed things very much.

We've become conditioned to seek bigger and bigger fluke at a time when those breeders are being scooped up by the commercial fleets, placing the fluke stocks in serious jeopardy. We are becoming almost as greedy as the commercial fishermen. I'm old enough to remember when catching a couple of 14-15 inch fluke was quite enough for a dinner for two. Try now to convince fishermen that it's okay to keep fish that size. What has changed in the last 40 years? The regulations and scientific engineering of the fish stocks, that's what. Today's new anglers and even the old timers are made out to be criminals if they ( God forbid ) keep an undersized fluke.

You are correct. Questions are always going to be asked. Answers will always be discussed. There's a mind set that has to change among the legislators and a willingness to admit the errors of their ways. For me, yeah, I'm always curious and always questioning. I do remember how things used to be before government interference, and they were a helluva lot better than they are today.

Oh, as for the data.........I'll defer to Dakota and his research.

[Billfish715]

Originally Posted by dales529

Billfish
Here is another idea. Instead of being the question guy how about becoming the answer guy.

You and everyone else deserves answers. However, I’m not the one with the answers. I only have suggestions. The answers have to come from the fisheries’ management council. They need to explain why they won’t close the fishing during the spawn. They need to answer why not reduce the size limits in order to protect the larger spawners. They need to explain why their action plans have been changed so many times over the last thirty years especially if the plans are not working. They need to explain why they are ignoring the scientific data. Questions should be asked of each member of the council to answer if they believe the fluke stocks are declining and in danger from irreparable decimation. Then, ask them to explain the data they used to determine their decisions. They have to look at the “before” regulations numbers and the “after” regulation numbers and be able to explain why they think their actions are working.

Call “them” on the carpet and ask for answers. I can’t answer for them. If the RFA or other organizations can’t ask those questions, then demand that our legislators do the asking and demanding the answers. What was done is done. Where we go from here is what matters. Pissing off a council member won’t work. So chastising and blaming them will be counter productive. A simple acknowledgment of past failures should be sufficient. I doubt if any of the council members were even around thirty years ago when this all started. An answer to why they have continued those same failed techniques over so many years might give them and us a reason to reflect and change direction.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

You and everyone else deserves answers. However, I’m not the one with the answers. I only have suggestions. The answers have to come from the fisheries’ management council. They need to explain why they won’t close the fishing during the spawn. They need to answer why not reduce the size limits in order to protect the larger spawners. They need to explain why their action plans have been changed so many times over the last thirty years especially if the plans are not working. They need to explain why they are ignoring the scientific data. Questions should be asked of each member of the council to answer if they believe the fluke stocks are declining and in danger from irreparable decimation. Then, ask them to explain the data they used to determine their decisions. They have to look at the “before” regulations numbers and the “after” regulation numbers and be able to explain why they think their actions are working.

Call “them” on the carpet and ask for answers. I can’t answer for them. If the RFA or other organizations can’t ask those questions, then demand that our legislators do the asking and demanding the answers. What was done is done. Where we go from here is what matters. Pissing off a council member won’t work. So chastising and blaming them will be counter productive. A simple acknowledgment of past failures should be sufficient. I doubt if any of the council members were even around thirty years ago when this all started. An answer to why they have continued those same failed techniques over so many years might give them and us a reason to reflect and change direction.

Billfish715,
Well stated responses. As I said I enjoy your posts and not trying to break your balls here. To some of your points many groups some of which I am affiliated with have asked these questions for years with a lot of back breaking work as you stated. The responses vary from "why was recruitment UP in many years that commercial was able able to fish the spawn' to various other responses. I am sure are aware I collaborated with Tom Dakota during his research not so much on the research itself as that was ALL HIM but with who , when and how to deliver it. I am also sure you are aware that we didn't exactly get enough eyes / ears on it either due to procedural issues. Some believe recruitment is heading in an upward slope today.
I apologize if my statement came across as aggressive. Since you obviously care about and are knowledgeable in the fishery I would like to see more from you in the form of I emailed and /or phone called NOAA members, MAMFC members, NJMFC members with my questions and the response I got was "X". We always need new voices in the game that go that extra yard.
That was my reference to information that is available to anyone, emails, phone numbers etc and not all but some will respond. Dakota reached out to many and we all need to do the same. When / if you have those conversations you will realize other points of view and how hard it actually can be for us and them to effect change.

We agree on the issues and this years regs were not what a lot of us wanted but it was change and very experimental, hopefully it will be adjusted accordingly next year. Having said that we are still dealing with MRIP and it wouldnt suprise me if the landings and mortality numbers in OCT are insane compared to what we know is happening on the water.

Granted we are not seeing the volume of fluke in the "normal" areas and I agree its not like it was for our age group years ago but management will ask why are some boats (you probably know who I mean) are catching 30 to 50 combined slots/18" plus for 10 man plus charters everyday?

Management again will ask/ assess is it conditions, environmental where fluke have moved to new areas or lack of effort or stock related? As its far from an exact science opinions will vary and so will changes / reactions etc.
Your Fluke report post combines a lot of that.

Unfortunately Rec fishermen bear the brunt, are frustrated and mostly have given up on the process and the groups that are still trying so the cycle continues.

I really should have posted my response in your Fluke reports thread so as not to highjack JCAA Tournament thread. Sorry Paul. Maybe we can both copy and paste to a different thread and delete from this one?

Anyway much more to say here than I have time for but will send you a PM. keep up the fight.

[Billfish715]

Thanks for your comments. I don't take things personally about any comments. I'm too old to care. I'm also old enough to know how much fishing for fluke and bluefish and mackerel and flounder, and weakfish, and whiting and ling, even the lowly blowfish has changed. There is a current generation of fishermen who are now conditioned to only know how fishing is today with no knowledge of how it used to be. It is up to us old timers to link today to the past so the new anglers can keep up the fight. Mistakes from the past can be forgiven but not forgotten. If things are to change for the better, those mistakes have to be called out so they are not repeated.

[Capt John]

Way to go Billie...BRAVO. And to think, I've known you for so many years. Well said on all your posts. Hopefully the agencies that set these reg's read this entire thread. To Gerry...thanks for you comments too...well done.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Capt John

Way to go Billie...BRAVO. And to think, I've known you for so many years. Well said on all your posts. Hopefully the agencies that set these reg's read this entire thread. To Gerry...thanks for you comments too...well done.

Thanks John and I'd like to think the powers to be read these comments but not so sure and its too important to be left to chance. We all need to get up front, involved and contact them personally and not assume anything.

I've found for the most part when I've contacted them directly they're approachable, respectful and responsive. People just have to put the effort in to contact them. While they might not agree with you, they know you put in the effort and where you stand and you know where they stand too. That's not going to happen on this forum or other social media outlets.

[Capt John]

Something to always keep in mind....

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an agency of the United States government that was formed in 1970 within the Department of Commerce."


Using Google search, this was the answer to my question "what department is NOAA a part of" and here was its answer....