30 Knot gusts tomorrow is not the only thing that Blows

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Capt. Debbie

I kinda doubt ex military is a PETA member. lol

I mean she's as centrist as they come, just a normie moderate dem that no one should get too excited about one way or another...but of course that's too much to ask of the current political climate.

The migratory NOAA stuff is all federal rules anyway. And we all know Donald has our backs LMAO

I wish all our species are managed at the federal level - no more "public input" bullshit or "economic interest" arguments just do what the data says. If anything more funding for more accurate surveys/models - we'd be in far better shape now. ASMFC has utterly failed because the science takes a back seat.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by reason162

I mean she's as centrist as they come, just a normie moderate dem that no one should get too excited about one way or another...but of course that's too much to ask of the current political climate.



I wish all our species are managed at the federal level - no more "public input" bullshit or "economic interest" arguments just do what the data says. If anything more funding for more accurate surveys/models - we'd be in far better shape now. ASMFC has utterly failed because the science takes a back seat.

While I typically agree with most of your posts having been involved in the past just wondering how you think species management at the federal level would change especially now? Secretary of Commerce gets the final information provided by NOAA/ MAMFC and ASMFC or in some cases flows up/down to SOC but always flows down then to the states. Not sure where you think more funding or science would enter that scenario but open to discussion

[dales529]

Originally Posted by togzilla

Spot on! NJ is such a corrupt state. We never had significant whales washing up dead on our beaches until they starting seismic testing the ocean floors for places to put the wind turbines. The "so called" govt. experts claimed it was due to speeding boats strikes. Why were there so many boat strikes during the years of the seismic testing? Many experts concluded that the seismic testing affected the inner sonar of the whales making them disoriented and unaware of passing ships. But that does not fit the narrative for the advocates of the offshore winds. It's all about money and the Gopher Shit Eating Grinning Murphy could care less just as long as his political interests are pushed forward and now we have his step sister running NJ. People are so stupid in this state!

Why the dissent? Its just a conversation not a hate debate. Too much of that going on, we USA are supposed to be better as a whole!

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dales529

While I typically agree with most of your posts having been involved in the past just wondering how you think species management at the federal level would change especially now? Secretary of Commerce gets the final information provided by NOAA/ MAMFC and ASMFC or in some cases flows up/down to SOC but always flows down then to the states. Not sure where you think more funding or science would enter that scenario but open to discussion

States have no say over bluefin tuna regs, it's mandated by federal law to follow best avail science - some room to tweak season/timing but that's about it.

ASMFC pitting science against economic impact and then soliciting public input to put political pressure on the vote...the whole process is rotten to the core.

[NoLimit]

Originally Posted by reason162

Still waiting on someone - anyone - to explain who is manipulating the fisheries science data and why.

Who cares? We only care about the fact that fluke, weakfish, ling, whiting stocks are disastrous, theres plenty of stripers but nearly impossible most weeks to land a keeper, and they purposely starve the party boats in between fluke and seabass so that more of them go out of business. There used to be a dozen party boats in Atlantic Highlands fishing year round. Thanks to the "science", a whole way of life is disappearing.

[NoLimit]

Originally Posted by reason162

This is so wrong it's laughable. You don't sample "where the fish are," you sample physical sites - and you repeatedly sample multiple sites over multiple years. Dipping your net where the fish are each year tells you nothing about how the population is trending over time.

Keep in mind that YoY and landings (among others) also factor into the models, so when multiple sources of population density agree, it's further evidence that the modeling is sound.

BWAHAHAHA- Imagine that - the BS sampling where there are never any fish and the commercial landings match. In other words, keep on with the junk science so commercial cashes in and party boats disappear.

[NoLimit]

Originally Posted by dales529

Ok so that didn't go well for the third time for Jack. Can't fiddle while Rome is burning I guess.
Trump no longer an asset but a liability apparently. Hope that NJ Fisheries management will now try to work with the new administration for enough is enough. Time will tell.

Actually there are some questions about the vote. Off year elections draw fewer voters because there are no presidential or congressional campaigns. Jack actually got more votes than the last time but the other candidate got more votes than Biden or Harris. Where did these votes come from? Everyone who felt so strong about getting more men in women’s locker rooms? https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/20...sults-n4945717

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by reason162

Still waiting on someone - anyone - to explain who is manipulating the fisheries science data and why.

Decisions are made, or are supposed to be made, based heavily on data provided by science. I think we can all agree on that. If the data is wrong, decisions are being based on bad data. Even if the data is directionally correct, I believe fisheries management makes decisions all too often on the results and agenda they want as opposed to what the data is suggesting. Call it manipulation, bad data, lack of accountability, it doesn't matter as they all lead to decisions not in the benefit of stocks. Government routinely manipulates data to paint the picture they want, why would anyone believe the Department of Commerce and NMFS are any different with the amount of money involved in this industry.

But you ask for examples of manipulation, that depends on your definition, but I'll provide examples of bad or questionable data having significant impact on fisheries and let each decide if it's willful manipulation, incompetence or just the results of the complexities involved managing the oceans resources. We each have to let our conscience be our guide.

I was told by someone extensively involved in the Summer Flounder management process years ago science has absolutely no clue what recruitment numbers are yet they're an integral part of the determination of stock size. Bears the questions are they manipulated or just wrong.

I asked the question a dozen times, including to Kiley Dancy, why weight values used for North Carolina and all other commercial states are significantly lower than those assigned to recreational catch. Her answer was she wasn't even aware they were. We all harvest from the same biomass. In most cases recreational has assigned age class weight values 40% - 60% greater than commercial. Those statistics come from science and make no sense whatsoever. Example, 2-3 year old fish caught recreationally have a weight factor assigned which is greater by 45% - 50% and 4 year old age class fish that disparity increases to almost 60% higher weight values. Those three age classes make up almost 75% of landings. North Carolina, which accounts for 50% of commercial landings from our waters, has it's own tables with the lowest catch weight assignments to age classes. Why since we're all fishing the same biomass. What that means in layman's terms is a significant amount of landings is transferred to commercial from recreational simply by assigning different weight values to similar age class fish as quotas, landings and catch statistics are all weight based. Because of this anomaly, commercial probably gets closer to a 75% - 80% share of total annual landings as their landing values are for no explainable reason valued at significantly lesser weights than recreational. Manipulation, incompetence or just bad data?

Science has no idea what impact commercial harvest during the spawn is having on recruitment, they've maintained that position for over a decade. Why? If they don't know or even conducted a study attempting to answer that question, how can you manage the stock? Mark Terceiro, lead scientists at NOAA fisheries, has repeatedly maintained recruitment has been inexplicably in a sharp decline for over a decade. Shouldn't the fishery be closed during the spawn based on that scientific data alone if we in fact don't know the consequences of netting during the spawn which is one of the most impactful attributes of any sustainable fishery. Or is the data so questionable, NMFS ignores it in their policy decisions?

In an earlier stock assessment, based on onboard federal observers (their own employees), commercial dead discard ran as high as 145% of landings relative to significantly lower numbers reported by commercial operators on the vessel trip reports. Lower numbers used by science to determine annual landings for those years averaged 30% and were used instead of empirical data from eyewitness accounts of federal onboard observers. The chart was removed from all subsequent stock assessment as it clearly showed a trend NMFS didn't want shown. Manipulation of the data, certainly appears to be. By whom is the question.

MRIP, no one can argue, is anything but a complete failure. Started in 2006 it's been modified twice and is still a complete guess used ONLY against the recreational sector. Almost 20 years of effort and worthless data. Manipulation, incompetency or in this case maybe a combination of both.

The Chesapeake disaster, science endorsed the release decades ago of blue catfish in the system failing to understand their ability to monopolize the bay. But it added hundreds of millions in economic benefit. We now are living the consequences. Manipulation, bad science or politicians ignoring scientific findings. We'll never know for sure but it doesn't change the damage that's been done.

Bunker stocks biomass overstated by 50% and reproductive capacity overstated by the same. Those statistics came from science. Again manipulation of the data to support a predetermined result or incompetence. Either way, we're living the damage done for decisions based on scientific data which was completely misrepresentative of the stock.

I agree with you about your comments regarding ASMFC and the entire process being rotten to the core (although for different reasons than you commented on), but like Dave I completely disagree that moving this entire process to the federal level and their science which has repeatedly proven to be inaccurate would change anything other than make matters worse. The problem starts at the federal level already. And while pubic comments seem to always fall on deaf ears, I believe the public deserves the right to voice their opinions when it comes to a public resource which has been essentially stolen from them by our own federal government.

Lastly, you've been the most vocal on this site about the impact of climate change and spatial displacement of fisheries being forced to move north yet you argue that trawl studies which absolutely impact the assessment of stock biomass should continue being conducted in the same areas they have been for years. Your argument would suggest for summer flounder NOAA should conduct their trawls off of Virginia and North Carolina in what was once know as the "Southern Chesapeake stock" which was wiped out single handedly years ago by North Carolina and Virginia commercials. Stock assessments and trawl studies should be conducted in areas where the results will be most representative of the stock's current population, not in areas where the stock used to be in past years.

Like I said you're obviously an intelligent person, great fisherman but I don't understand your positions or blind faith can do no wrong belief in fisheries management, science, Peer Review and the federal government. I'm not a blind faith guy and never will be. I'm sure you disagree with my views as much as I do with yours but you asked for examples so I provided just a few.

[FishingSinceIWasThree]

Originally Posted by NoLimit

Don’t complain about fluke or striper regs again if you don’t vote tomorrow. You have two choices tomorrow and only one has come out in support of our way of life. Watch the podcast that NJFishing linked last week and make up your own mind. Personally I am voting for the guy that says enough is enough. NJ has been getting ripped off by every other state. We pay the most to Washington and get the least and that includes recreational fish stocks. Our kids have to throw back fish that are bigger than what is sold in the store.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VPnPfbASYcc

How do I vote? Which post are you speaking about? I want to vote!!

[NoLimit]

Originally Posted by FishingSinceIWasThree

How do I vote? Which post are you speaking about? I want to vote!!

Jerry posted below about the podcast which is linked above.

To register to vote in NJ, you can do it online. https://voter.svrs.nj.gov/register/eligibility