NJ 2024 and 2025 Fluke Regulations Decided

[Gerry Zagorski]

On the Webinar right now and the councils preferred option was 32 which is 3 fish at 18 inches or better from 5/4 - 9/25 which affords us the longest season.

Most every public comment supported option 32 as well, both written and at the meeting/webinar.

Great to see so many people made comments, the council mentioned this was the most comments they ever received and appreciated the public input.

Job well done and option 32 was chosen

3 fish at 18 inches or better from 5/4 - 9/25

Interesting that there was a good bit of discussion of splitting the state regulations up between north and south... Something I fully support since they are 2 totally different fisheries and the closer decisions are made to people, the closer the regulations will be to what the people want.

Tip of the cap to Dr Pat who kept us all informed here and to the staff at the state for a well run meeting all their work gathering an accounting for public opinion.

[FASTEDDIE29]

Been paying close attention to this as I’m an avid shore Fluke angler from July through September! Usually miss most of the beginning of the season but that’s fine. Thank you to all that support the cause and keep us informed.

[Jigman13]

Just glad they did away w the slot. Shit was awful

[catsmeow]

Wow, i think this is the best option that slot limit was horrible. As pretty much 100 % fluke fisherman love the longer season. Really looking foward to this season with a renewed interest. Thanks to all those who hepled make this option the one chosen. Tight lines....walt

[frugalfisherman]

2021 it was 3 at 18 from May 22 until September 19. 2024 and 2025 sounds like an increase to me.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

On the Webinar right now and the councils preferred option was 32 which is 3 fish at 18 inches or better from 5/4 - 9/25 which affords us the longest season.

Most every public comment supported option 32 as well, both written and at the meeting/webinar.

Great to see so many people made comments, the council mentioned this was the most comments they ever received and appreciated the public input.

Job well done and option 32 was chosen

3 fish at 18 inches or better from 5/4 - 9/25

Interesting that there was a good bit of discussion of splitting the state regulations up between north and south... Something I fully support since they are 2 totally different fisheries and the closer decisions are made to people, the closer the regulations will be to what the people want.

Tip of the cap to Dr Pat who kept us all informed here and to the staff at the state for a well run meeting all their work gathering an accounting for public opinion.

IMO it’s a good thing there was so much public opinion for option 32 . As it was very apparent 3 council members did not want us to get 32.
Even stating that in record .
Without the over welming public comment it could have had different results .

Was great that everything was done early this year instead of last minute .

Best part is we get a break from the reg making process for fluke until 2026

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

IMO it’s a good thing there was so much public opinion for option 32 . As it was very apparent 3 council members did not want us to get 32.
Even stating that in record .
Without the over welming public comment it could have had different results .

Was great that everything was done early this year instead of last minute .

Best part is we get a break from the reg making process for fluke until 2026

For sure Dan, it was great to see that those who wanted to be heard were and that all the public input was accounted for. It certainly did make a huge difference.

I think it also forced more serious conversations about splitting the state. The council members that reluctantly went along with 32 but voiced their concerns now have of a vested interest in seeing that through.

[dales529]

Agreed the public comments worked this time for sure, The webinar worked very well this year too, I believe all of us that "raised their hand" virtually got to speak and were heard. Thanks to the council for jumping right to the chase as Dan mentioned so it wasnt dragged out!

There was representation from a few "divers" clubs that brought up some interesting points on the slot as its hard for an underwater fishermen to distinguish between a 17" and 17.99" fish. Doesn't matter with these new regs though. Also some discussion on a spear fishermen being land based angler? Not sure how that ended up.

Anyway Public comment mattered this year and it was easy to attend the meeting.

[Broad Bill]

I'm happy for the ones who feel good about the selection of option 32, 3 at 18" and a 145 days season. What I find ironic is many of the same people happy about that outcome I can go back and find posts where they've said asking for longer seasons and jacking the size minimum is at the heart of this stock's problems and the reason recruitment levels have tanked. These regulations mean the commercial sector will have complete exclusivity to the harvest of fish 14" to 18" which is an enormous benefit to the commercial sector and an outright injustice to the recreational angler. It also means the commercial sector will have a year round fishery while the recreational sector maybe squeezes out three months. It mean the commercial sector and recreational sector will be harvesting all sexually mature fish with an extremely high percentage of those fish being females. It means the spawn will continue being attacked in the fall and recruitment, the lifeblood of any fishery, will continue being at risk due to fishery management incompetence. If other fisheries have regulations to protect the primary spawn of the stock, why isn't summer flounder which based on their own data has had historically low recruitment classes for over a decade dating back to numbers in the eighties.

Short term crumbs causing long term continued erosion of the resource in my book isn't a reason to celebrate but as been said many times on this site which I completely agree with, these problems are at the federal level and until changes and restrictions are made to the commercial by NMFS this stock will struggle to sustain itself.

Changing the dynamics and fortunes of this fishery will require changes and sacrifices from both sectors. Recreational has already made more than their fare share of sacrifices, what has the commercial sector sacrificed?

[dales529]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

I'm happy for the ones who feel good about the selection of option 32, 3 at 18" and a 145 days season. What I find ironic is many of the same people happy about that outcome I can go back and find posts where they've said asking for longer seasons and jacking the size minimum is at the heart of this stock's problems and the reason recruitment levels have tanked. These regulations mean the commercial sector will have complete exclusivity to the harvest of fish 14" to 18" which is an enormous benefit to the commercial sector and an outright injustice to the recreational angler. It also means the commercial sector will have a year round fishery while the recreational sector maybe squeezes out three months. It mean the commercial sector and recreational sector will be harvesting all sexually mature fish with an extremely high percentage of those fish being females. It means the spawn will continue being attacked in the fall and recruitment, the lifeblood of any fishery, will continue being at risk due to fishery management incompetence. If other fisheries have regulations to protect the primary spawn of the stock, why isn't summer flounder which based on their own data has had historically low recruitment classes for over a decade dating back to numbers in the eighties.

Short term crumbs causing long term continued erosion of the resource in my book isn't a reason to celebrate but as been said many times on this site which I completely agree with, these problems are at the federal level and until changes and restrictions are made to the commercial by NMFS this stock will struggle to sustain itself.

Changing the dynamics and fortunes of this fishery will require changes and sacrifices from both sectors. Recreational has already made more than their fare share of sacrifices, what has the commercial sector sacrificed?

BB: Fair points and I wouldn't say most that advocate on behalf of the Fluke stock are celebrating. Just picking the battles as they come and what we can influence. In this case and just my opinion option 32 was what was best for NJ overall, the NJ for hire and related industries that can at least stay in business while the battles outside our NJ Fishery continue. NJ hands were tied on the federal level so this outcome while not a cause to "celebrate" was again in my opinion the best option available for this battle.

Capt Dan did in fact raise the issue on commercial take to the council so at least it was on record for future consideration but again on your data points on biomass / recruitment is as you stated a federal issue for NOAA, ASMFC, MAMFC and Sectretary of Commerce and we all know how thats gone

Again if MRIP acknowledges a 40% anomoly in fishing effort / harvest and again in my opinion I dont see how these recreational regulations destroy the stock. Yes taking breeders is not optimal but as you state often the correction for the stock is on the commercial side so leave recs out of it and lets fish with conservation as the goal .