ASMFC Schedules Conference Call today (9:30) to Declare NJ out-of-compliance 4 Fluke - NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey

Foul Hook · #1 06-01-2017, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frugalfisherman

Don't get mad. Get even.

Now this is a movement.

Duffman · #2 06-01-2017, 05:56 PM

So if NJ is eventually found out of compliance, that would mean we fished this entire fluke season out of compliance. What could this possibly mean for next years regs? I'm thinking completely screwed since they will base the fluke quota cuts on us fishing with unapproved regs?

.....if we are going to be found out of compliance anyway, why not just make the regs anything we want right now for the time being?

Irish Jigger · #3 06-01-2017, 11:59 PM

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/inde...obile_home_pop

SaltLife1980 · #4 06-02-2017, 12:04 AM

"The ASMFC has found states to be out of compliance 23 times in the past. The only previous time this process has resulted in a fishing moratorium was in 1990, when New Jersey was banned from striped bass fishing for six days before the state came back into compliance."

"Herrighty also said that New Jersey studies have found that about 10 percent of fish that are thrown back because they're too small die during the process anyways. A stricter size limit would make this mortality rate more significant."

Gerry Zagorski · #5 06-02-2017, 07:56 AM

So here are my thoughts on what happened here. Don't take this as fact as it my opinion based on what I've observed and heard...

NJDEP did an end around when they went directly to the federal government Secretary of Commerce instead of through the ASMFC with our appeal to stay at status quo. No one in the ASMFC was ever going to approve our status quo regulations. So, NJ was effectively on an island since all the other states in the commission had accepted one of the 5 options they were presented with. That's why the NJDEP went right to the top since this is where our appeal was going to wind up anyway.

At the same time the Secretary of Commerce offices were telling the NJDEP there was no way for them to approve status quo so lets do some bargaining here. That's when the 3 @ 18 with a shorter season idea came up and the back door deal was done.

Now as a formality 3 @ 18 goes to the ASMFC and they deny it like we knew they would so it gets escalated to the Secretary of Commerce.

Sec of Commerce can either side with us and give us the back door deal which was agreed upon or we go out of compliance and its back to the drawing board....

In the mean time we are at 3 @ 18 with a shortened season until our appeal is approved or denied.

As far as what this means next year? Not sure it matters since we are going to almost assuredly going to be faced with a quota reduction if we were at 3 @ 19 with a longer season or 3 @ 18. Bottom line is we will all be fighting over fewer scraps next year too...

It's a vicious circle here and the only way out of it is to get higher quotas. That will only happen if by some miracle, they deem the stocks are suddenly rebuilt and I doubt that will happen... Even if it does, look what happened to Sea Bass.... Totally rebuilt and yet no relief on the regulations???

There are much bigger issues that need to be addressed. If things don't change like the science and Magnuson, we're going to find ourselves in the same place every year and facing more cuts. It's as simple as that...

You either take on those fights long term or in the short term we'll continue to fight over scraps.

reason162 · #6 06-02-2017, 09:07 AM

NJ's lawless gamble might just pay off. If we get away with this (either with approval by Commerce Sec or a delayed decision to effectively grant us 3@18" for the majority of the season), the regional management system is in jeopardy. NY and CT will follow in our footsteps, everyone makes up their own regs in defiance of the best/only available science.

All this over 1" and a shorter season to boot. I'm still not clear who thought that 3@18 was a good compromise, I'm sure the charter/party boat captains are divided on whether this is a good idea. Losing days is guaranteed loss revenue vs. size limits.

If you're wrong, and the science is right (imo a reasonable assumption if you've actually looked at the data), then the fluke biomass is in serious trouble. In 10 years you can look back on this forum and read the mostly one-sided "debate" that precipitated the collapse of a fishery.

Joey Dah Fish · #7 06-02-2017, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reason162

NJ's lawless gamble might just pay off. If we get away with this (either with approval by Commerce Sec or a delayed decision to effectively grant us 3@18" for the majority of the season), the regional management system is in jeopardy. NY and CT will follow in our footsteps, everyone makes up their own regs in defiance of the best/only available science.

All this over 1" and a shorter season to boot. I'm still not clear who thought that 3@18 was a good compromise, I'm sure the charter/party boat captains are divided on whether this is a good idea. Losing days is guaranteed loss revenue vs. size limits.

If you're wrong, and the science is right (imo a reasonable assumption if you've actually looked at the data), then the fluke biomass is in serious trouble. In 10 years you can look back on this forum and read the mostly one-sided "debate" that precipitated the collapse of a fishery.

Well it seems that the Cape May guys were the ones In support of the 18" since they're the ones that stack the boards. Secondly fish at 19" have been proven to be 85% or higher females. In addition 95% of fish over 21" are female. So if you want to blame lowered stocks ( and that's not the case) blame it on the regs. Targeting females is no way to sustain or rebuild a stock. Add in their so called mortality rate and poof another reason the regs are wrong.

Gerry Zagorski · #8 06-02-2017, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reason162

NJ's lawless gamble might just pay off. If we get away with this (either with approval by Commerce Sec or a delayed decision to effectively grant us 3@18" for the majority of the season), the regional management system is in jeopardy. NY and CT will follow in our footsteps, everyone makes up their own regs in defiance of the best/only available science.

All this over 1" and a shorter season to boot. I'm still not clear who thought that 3@18 was a good compromise, I'm sure the charter/party boat captains are divided on whether this is a good idea. Losing days is guaranteed loss revenue vs. size limits.

If you're wrong, and the science is right (imo a reasonable assumption if you've actually looked at the data), then the fluke biomass is in serious trouble. In 10 years you can look back on this forum and read the mostly one-sided "debate" that precipitated the collapse of a fishery.

Hold on minute here.... We've followed their regs and science for 20 years now.... Pretty obvious to me it's got us no where. Time for a change here because forcing us to target larger fish each year is obviously not working...