Summer Flounder, Seabass and Scup Update and Action Items

[Gerry Zagorski]

A quick update here.... As you all know the ASMFC meeting which approves the options/example the states have submitted is going to take place on 3/24.

I would encourage you to attend that webinar and use this link to register https://register.gotowebinar.com/reg...85664746620685

If you can't attend I would ask that you email the ASMFC comments@asmfc.org and encourage them to approve the NJ State Examples in their entirety, including the slot option for Summer Flounder This needs to be done by 3/16

See the attached for the options/example that state had submitted for Fluke and Seabass, all of which have passed technical approval but still need to be approved by the ASMFC at the meeting I mentioned above.

Even if these options are approved by the ASMFC it does not mean that these will be our final options. Our state committee and advisors will likely meet in a closed meeting the week of 3/28 and discuss the options they want to move forward with. The week of 4/4 the council will meet and vote on the option to adopt, this will be a public meeting which decides our regulations.

Note : The charts attached are a little confusing since they are organized by waves. Wave 3 is May/Jun, 4 is Jul//Aug, 5 is Sep/Oct and 6 is Nov/Dec.

Gerry thanks for the heads up. Reply submitted this morning if anyone else is planning on replying and interested in the talking points.

From 1989 to 2004, the summer flounder fishery experienced its most prolific growth in history adding 120 million fish to the population. Those increases were fueled by harvest of the correct age classes. Over 90% of the harvest consisted of age groups 1 thru 2 meaning we were harvesting a higher percentage of sexually immature fish and proportionately more males by a 3:1 to 4:1 margin (reference below graph). The breeding stock wasn’t being exploited, recruitment levels per the below chart from NEFSC we’re strong and the female population as well as the spawn itself were de-facto protected as younger age groups were being harvested.

In 1997 when MAFMC passed Amendment 10 mandating the increase in commercial mesh sizes to protect juvenile fish and target commercial harvest on older age classes, the gender balance in this fishery started what has evolved into a complete change. Just read the Section titled “Sex Ratio” on page 60 of the 66th Stock Assessment to see how substantially female proportions have declined to the male population over the years. Amendment 10 coupled with the use of elevated size minimums in the recreational fishery caused a seismic change in the gender composition of this stock and killed recruitment levels ever since. Reference the below chart prepared for the last 40 years which proves two things. First, recruitment strength relative to the breeding stock fell off the cliff flat-lining in 1997 never recovering through today and second, for all the “steepness prognosticators” in this fishery, this chart alone proves that theory wrong since the relationship of new recruits to a declining biomass would have increased if there were any merit to that theory. It hasn’t, it’s actually worsened as the regulations have caused serious declines in the mature female population of the fishery as well as substantial declines in the size of the spawning stock.

Until the regulations start addressing issues which are threatening the fishery as opposed to issues addressing everything else, the stock will remain at risk. Options 3 and 4 will never be chosen because of reductions in season lengths. Season lengths are mandated to be reduced as part of these options because NEFSC and SSC models don’t properly reflect the impacts of harvesting younger age classes as they relate to gender composition, the benefits of harvesting younger age classes before natural mortality consumes those age groups at 25% annually and most important the impact on protecting females, the spawning stock and bolstering recruitment through the harvest of more males and more sexually immature fish. While Option 5 is the best option of the five presented, a slot between 17 and 17.99” will continue removing all sexually mature fish primarily females from the population and have little impact on the issues hurting the stock. It is however the best option of the five options given, will reduce discard mortality in the recreational fishery, give anglers at least a chance of catching a keeper and is without doubt a step in the right direction. It’s a start of addressing the issues confronting this stock which would represent a step in the right direction for the first time in two decades.

We had successful regulation in place in the 90’s that worked to perfection. The sooner we acknowledge that fact and work our way back to those regulations thoughtfully without causing undue economic hardship in the process, the sooner we’ll nurse this fishery back to health and sustainability and insure the future of the fishery and the associated benefits to all its constituents and businesses dependent on its survival.

[frugalfisherman]

16% increase in harvest and you want to screw it up with a slot fish. Not just one slot fish but two! Oy VEY!!!!

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by frugalfisherman

16% increase in harvest and you want to screw it up with a slot fish. Not just one slot fish but two! Oy VEY!!!!

Guess you really don’t get it .

When you catch (10 ) 17 1/2” fish and throw them back . You get charged 40% mortality and get charged as IF you kept 4 fish .
So at years end they say you over fished (even while not boxing a fish )

Getting a slot fish allows you to actually keep a few of those fish .
And it takes some of the pressure of of the bigger female breeding fish .

Last year you were supposed to get a larger increase , instead because of overfishing they didn’t give us it .


.

[frugalfisherman]

[QUOTE=hammer4reel;567530]Guess you really don’t get it .

When you catch (10 ) 17 1/2” fish and throw them back . You get charged 40% mortality and get charged as IF you kept 4 fish .
So at years end they say you over fished (even while not boxing a fish )

How would anybody know if I caught 10 fish at 17 1/2 and threw them back? Or for that matter how many shorts were thrown back on any of the party boats, charters or any of the private boats fishing?

[bbfisherman]

@frugalfisherman. Surveys and inaccurate extrapolation is what they use.

[Dclark2]

Done

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by bbfisherman

@frugalfisherman. Surveys and inaccurate extrapolation is what they use.

EXACTLY
They talk to one person , and then count the number of guys getting off the boat

Originally Posted by frugalfisherman

16% increase in harvest and you want to screw it up with a slot fish. Not just one slot fish but two! Oy VEY!!!!

So instead you'd rather continue harvesting the breeding population and killing millions of smaller fish in the process while destroying the spawning stock and future recruitment of the stock.

That your opinion of what best benefits this fishery. And you're basically calling me an idiot.

Maybe you can explain one thing for me and others on the site in your infinite wisdom. Why then in the decade of the 90's when we were harvesting on average 14" fish at quotas almost twice todays did the stock increase in population by 70 million fish and for the years 2010 to 2017 when we were harvesting on average fish at 18.35" at half those quotas the stock declined by 67 million fish.

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain for the same periods why the spawning stock in the 90's increased by 29,000 metric tons (that's 2,204.62 lbs. per metric ton if you didn't know) and declined between 2010 and 2017 by 21,000 metric tons while the mature female population increased by 30 million in the 90's versus declining by 31 million between 2010 and 2017 and recruitment averaged 57 million new recruits a year in the 90's versus 38 million between 2010 and 2017.

Now tell us what option you think is best for the future of the fishery and back your opinion up with facts. If you can, I'll listen. If it's just your opinion with nothing to support it, then your perspectives are no better than those of fisheries management you so quickly and correctly criticize.

Originally Posted by bbfisherman

@frugalfisherman. Surveys and inaccurate extrapolation is what they use.

Three biggest issues with the data used to manage fisheries are the following:

New MRIP is calculated generally speaking by using catch rate--the average number of fish caught per angler trip—through in-person interviews, and fishing effort—the number of fishing trips anglers take—through mail and telephone surveys. There's no way of knowing if those numbers are close to reality or representative of recreational catch.

Dead discards, same problem in how many discards there are and what percentage actually die. Example, between 2009 and 2011, the recreational sector was charged with catching 165 million fish to harvest 11 million meaning 154 million fish were discarded. Who really knows if those numbers are remotely representative but think about how much of the recreational quota is exhausted with dead discard assumptions based on those statistics all because of the use of increased size minimums to constrain recreational landings and even worse MRIP phone interviews trying to quantify those numbers.

Third, it's a known fact based on marine fisheries own federal observers, commercial dead discards are substantially greater than what's reported on vessel trip reports by commercial operators but management opted to sweep that information under the carpet as opposed to using it in quantifying commercial catch. It's empirical data collected by their own on board federal observers ignored for the commercial sector while we use highly speculative data for the recreational sector provided by questionable phone interviews conducted weeks if not months after angler trips without any means of verifying the accuracy of the information.

So yes like everyone else I agree the data being used to manage the fishery is speculative at best. BUT numbers aside, I still challenge anyone to defend the benefits of targeting the harvest of exclusively breeders of any fishery, kill juvenile fish in the process, cause discard mortality rates of unprecedented levels while destroying the breeding stock and recruitment in the process. If that's your opinion of how this or any fishery should be managed than choose the option that involves the harvest of the largest fish possible because those are the results that option will cause.