NJ Fishing Advertise Here at New Jersey's Number 1 Fishing Website!


Message Board


Some Comments on Fluke - Page 7 - NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey


Message Board Registration       FAQ

Go Back   NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey > NJFishing.com Fisheries Management/Regulations
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

NJFishing.com Fisheries Management/Regulations This board is closed for posting but will serve as an archieve for all Fisheries Management and Regulations posts from other boards.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 03-03-2012, 07:03 PM
Jigsmith's Avatar
Jigsmith Jigsmith is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 469
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

Quote:
Originally Posted by broken bobber
Mick and Gerry.... i guess its me... but try and understand my thinking on this.....

Its NOT, oh 5 fish is enough for anyone why complain about not keeping 8....

Its about what this could lead to when the People in charge of decisions claim we have now over fished this season so next year we HAVE TO GO TO 3 or possibly 2 fish in 2013/2014.....yea yea it sounds crazy right..... tell the guys in NY that after looking at the past practices.....

Honestly... would you be happy keeping only 2 or 3 fish at 17.5 inches this year.... come on
This says it all for me. I truly feel we took a dangerous step backwards.
  #62  
Old 03-03-2012, 07:08 PM
Falcon's Avatar
Falcon Falcon is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 362
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

2 slot fish at 17-17.5....And maybe a bonus tag for other same size fish........ Been telling the CO at the dock for years...And I see them offen " In a good way" Hopefully this dosen't kill us this or next year....

I wish everyone a great season....
  #63  
Old 03-03-2012, 07:56 PM
River Rat's Avatar
River Rat River Rat is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 789
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

Regs suck azzz....getting my eye patch ready.
__________________
South River Boat Club
27' SR Amberjack
"Angry Beaver"
  #64  
Old 03-03-2012, 08:28 PM
buckfin732's Avatar
buckfin732 buckfin732 is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Franklin Park
Posts: 130
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

Mick i catch more then my share of limits a year.My point is why are we giving up 3 fish to a stock that is rebuilt.The more we give up the easier it is to take.Since so many people thimk its easyer to catch at 17.5 you dont think the powers that be will say we overfished this year.Then what for next year sorry you over fished the stock so now we are back at 18 and still at 5 fish or worst at 3.You have alot of faith in the powers that be,when have the Rec. guys not been screwed .
  #65  
Old 03-03-2012, 09:21 PM
captadamnj captadamnj is offline
Site Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 190
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

Quote:
My point is why are we giving up 3 fish to a stock that is rebuilt
That is a fair question. But first understand that to the vast majority of fishermen as evidenced by many of the posts in this thread, very few people are giving up anything. Again, I respect those that have been successful, but you (generally speaking) are in the vast minority of anglers. And if you were limiting out every time at 8 fish at 18", I hope that the 17.5" size limit allows you to capture your limit more quickly without traveling as far and allow you to make an extra couple of trips. That is a win for everyone and you still get your "meat".

I can give you the long winded technical reason for 8 vs. 5 fish bag limits that many would say isn't based in a ton of common sense to most anglers or I can give you the more practicable answer. Practically speaking - because we still have a long way to go in the work of SSFFF, RFA and all the groups working to improve science for Summer Flounder and other species. It becomes a mathematical exercise quite frankly. The mathematical exercise in reducing the size 1/2" and gaining five days of season required capping the limit at 5 fish. I'm not saying I agree with the system any more than the next guy, and am working hard to try to improve the systems to provide results for the better of as many as possible. We saw the bag limit go up from 6 to 8 not long ago, if everyone keeps working together to improve the science and the processes we can strive to get the bag up again from 5.

Here's another point to consider NO MATTER WHAT THE REGS. We may UNDERFISH our harvest target this year, and still have to be MORE RESTRICTIVE NEXT YEAR if the quota goes down. Another reason to continue to support the work that has been effective in supporting quota increases.

I know that many believe that the management process is some "black hole" with puppeteers working behind the scenes. By and large, our fisheries are managed by a lot of every day folks. Spend enough time and it becomes comprehendable. I don't know much about rocket science so I don't know if I would call it that, but just because it isn't understood by an individual(s) doesn't mean it's incomprehensible to all. There remains, comparatively speaking, so many unknowns in fisheries management. There are problems with becoming slaves to the process no doubt. But there are a lot of creative ideas bounced around aimed at improving the science and the process and we all need to continue to do our part to support those efforts.

Finally, since it was brought up in this thread, my decision to support option 5 had nothing to do with potential effect on my business considering fluke fishing accounts for about 5% of my trips. Such has been my business pretty much from day one, irregardless of what the regs have been over the past decade. It was based primarily on the belief based upon personal contact that many would benefit from the lower size. As for constraining the harvest to the target, I put forth the researchable reasons for supporting this path, but at the end of the day, MRFSS is still MRFSS (even behind the MRIP name), a recreational ESTIMATE that is simply incapable in its current form to support the management processes as they are currently implemented. What it spits out next year is truly anyone's guess, including mine. I am hoping for the best just like the rest of you.
__________________
Capt. Adam
  #66  
Old 03-03-2012, 09:25 PM
Chris G's Avatar
Chris G Chris G is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlantic Highlands
Posts: 1,129
Thumbs up Re: Some Comments on Fluke

Thanks Adam.
  #67  
Old 03-03-2012, 09:40 PM
buckfin732's Avatar
buckfin732 buckfin732 is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Franklin Park
Posts: 130
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

Capt Adam you still didnt answer the question.Why are we giving up 3 fish to a stock that even with the backwards thinking and flawed science says that its rebuilt.Most put money into SSSF and the RFA and came together and won some back for the little guy ie 6 fish to 8 fish then just hand it back like its no big deal.Makes you feel like we just pissed that money away giving up gains
  #68  
Old 03-03-2012, 10:09 PM
Pete's Avatar
Pete Pete is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 242
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoWorries
I was at the meeting and while I agree with this . I also believe that poor attendance on the part of local north Jersey fluke fishermen led to this . Next year lets hope for a better turnout !
Ha! While I wholeheartedly agree with you; a better turnout, indeed, could have made a difference. Remember, the northern guys got railroaded, two or three years ago when the season was front loaded in May and shut down very early September. Which definitely benefitted the southern part of the state. The northern guys lost out on some prime time especially on ambrose. Anyhow, when that happened, that very same battle cry you propose went out. How quick we forget.

Not trying to make this a North vs. South battle. But, you'd have to admit either side would take any advantage they could get, and run like a thief. Problem is, it ain't N vs. S. It's us against them. Unite to win. Or stay divided and in the long run we all lose.

17 1/2 or 18", 5 or 8. In reality that argument can no longer be made. The regs are set, and like it or not we all have to live with them. We need to figure a way to move forward in unison, instead of the splintered individuals we are fast becoming.

Divide and conquer is the oldest tactic in the book to achieve victory vs. an opponent. The folks at MRFSS are laughing seeing as they have us further divided than ever. Like all sharks they can smell the blood.

WE had better get OUR collective spit together.
  #69  
Old 03-03-2012, 10:22 PM
captadamnj captadamnj is offline
Site Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 190
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

I will try this another way.

Decrease in size limit = +x% harvest
Increase in size limit = -x% harvest

Decrease in bag limit = -y% harvest
Increase in bag limit = +y% harvest

Decrease in season length = -z% harvest
Increase in season length = +z% harvest

Add together x, y and z based on how to increase/decrease size, bag and season and it needs to cumulatively match the allowed increase/decrease in harvest in a given year.

Our 2011 harvest was less than our 2012 quota (forget about whether we overfished or underfished our 2011 harvest target or whether the 2012 quota went up or down from 2011 because neither matter, it only matters how last year's landings compares to this year's quota) allowing us to increase harvest by +38%. (If you must know we were over 50% below our target in 2011 but because the 2012 quota decreased from 2011, we are only allowed a 38% liberalization.)

The drop in size (+x%) combined with lengthened season (+z%) required a decrease in bag (-y%) to make x + y + z = +38%.

There are other factors but I am trying to keep it as simple as possible.

There are many, many, many combinations of x, y and z every year. The Bureau of Marine Fisheries staff works very hard to come up with a bunch of approved options, then a Committee of the Marine Fisheries Council meets with advisors to whittle down the options developed by staff to be presented to the full council at the public meeting every year.
__________________
Capt. Adam

Last edited by captadamnj; 03-03-2012 at 10:26 PM..
  #70  
Old 03-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Life's A Beach's Avatar
Life's A Beach Life's A Beach is offline
Site Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Point Pleasant
Posts: 5,670
Default Re: Some Comments on Fluke

It's all BS

The KEY is how they're getting the landing numbers. I fished on boats with over 70 fisherman where there were NO keepers, another trip where 50 fisherman caught 3 keepers and BOTH trips there was a survey person on board taking information. I also was called twice during the season and they NEVER asked how many keepers I caught on my last trip. ??????

Truth be told, I had a very successful fluke season, catching a limit most times (on private boat). We also had trips were WE caught an uncountable amount of short fish (not 17"+); SHORTS! (and every damn one of them bolted back to the bottom no worse for wear - mortality rate my azz) And this was in "big fish" areas. I speak with a lot of boats, anglers etc and 2011 was a banner year, from Manasquan River to Ambrose. A LOT of limits and a lot of big fish. But the season ENDED with Irene as it never shaped back up for a September/October fluke bite.

In my lifetime WE have lost whiting, weakfish is a shadow of a memory and What's a Flounder??? While striped bass has made a miraculous recovery and cod a nice showing the past couple years, it's been more lost than gained.

We GAVE up Fall flounder and will never get THAT back. With a 2 fish limit, we've essentially given up Spring flounder; DONE! Now they've dropped us by almost 50% on fluke...........?????????

What bothers me most is this. They've taken all the "best science available" and coupled that with input from other agencies (even taking input from the Fish Police) and came to the meeting prepared to give us Option #2. (they had it highlighted up on the screen) Then an articulate statement from someone during public input swayed enough Board members to change their minds???????????

Rambling but that's normal ....... one question in closing????

What is the Official Position of RFA on this subject? An answer with an explanation will decide my personal opinion the next time I write a check or decide if an njfishing.com trip that I put together makes a donation. The greater good that an organization does should represent it's members and be for the betterment of the entire fishery.
__________________
michael m wells
973.222.1172
mwells87@comcast.net
NJ DEVILS
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.