[619619]

Read in the fisherman about commerants eating flounder. Now people are blaming them for the flounder decline.
People are blaming seals, striped bass and birds for the decline.
All these theories are made up by commercials so they won't be blamed for the decline.
In the old days there were zillions of striped bass and other fishes that could eat flounder, yet flounder were extremely abundant ? And I don't think seals are eating flounder because the flounder leave the bays in late fall before the seals arrive. Seals are in the bay feeding on the schools of herring.
The only ones harvesting flounder in the winter are the commercials. Don't believe all those rediculous theories.
Since the early 1980's flounder have been declining. They declined because people wanted healthy fish to eat.
Think of it another way, are we going to blame the decline of the other fishes on these theories too ?

 

[Scratcher]

Sunnyday; Well said! In Oregon/Washington they blame the sea lions for the decline of salmon, in Alaska its the seals and sealions that get blamed, in the Great Lakes its the Cormorants that get blamed for eating the smallmouth bass, in New England its the seals that are said to be eating the cod...and now up and down the coast stripers are being blamed for the decline of everything from shad to flounder. But, as you already said, there were plenty of flounder around when striped bass populations were even higher than they are today!

 

[mojoe]

><)))):> FLOUNDERS <(((><

i agree with you too sunnyday now i dont think its THE CORN!! (-:... MOJOE ><)))):> ~~~~ ><)))):>

 

[616787]

Interesting observation, SUNNYDAY. It would be even more interesting to backtrack these reports to confirm where their source of information comes from.

Can anyone provide a link to these articles? Maybe we can investigate the source.

Did I hear someone say Megalodon?

 

[MakoMike]

Guys,
The source of the information was an editorial in the "other" weekly fishing magazine. It cited sources within the NYS DEC. Personally, I think it has some merit. I know guys who fish upstate, and to a man they swear the big black birds are decimating the fish populations. Personally I've stood on the dock in Montauk and watched one after the other come up with small flounder in their beaks and swallow them. May not be the main cause of the flounder scarcity, but it certainly isn't helping.

 

[614048]

I have seen huge flocks of the resident geese in our area (who weren't here 25 years ago) feeding in tidal areas. My guess is that they are feeding on the same types of salt water food as do flounders.

 

[seaslug44]

It will be very interesting to see if this nice cold winter we're having brings a surge of flounder into the waters in the Middle and Western part of the Island this year. I have a hunch that the water temps in the bays have just been too high the past three or four winters (excluding this winter of course). This is the first winter in over a decade where so many harbors and bays have completely frozen over. Give us a couple more winters in a row like this one and I predict that we'll see a rebound in the flounder, codfish, pollack and other winter populations.

As far as birds, seals or any other predators eating the fish, they merely follow the food supply. If they are eating more flounder this year that's only because there are more flounder in the water this year for them to eat. The comerants especially can easily relocate to another area if their food supply is low.

Of all the fish in the sea they could eat, you've got to think that finding a stray flounder in the mud has got to be harder than let's say, picking off a few herring or shad from the massive schools of thousands.

(This post edited by DoctorFish on 02/24/2003)

 

[Capt. Bill]

Folks,
Predator/prey relationships tend to self regulate - that is when the prey numbers increase, so do the predator numbers, and when the prey numbers drop, so do the predators.
Populations are, by nature, cyclical.
Factors influencing these cycles are almost too numberous to discuss, but it is safe to say that the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT factor influencing population numbers of ANY species today is environmental decline and habitat loss.
Even these factors are not lineal in their effect - that is, species and populations will tend to adjust to environmental influences over time. So, when you notice the next trend in fish numbers or species availability, ask yourself:
Has water quality been affected?
Has habitat changed, been poluted or made unavailable?
Even environmental effects that do not produce an immediate impact to a specific population can effect population change. For example, an abnormally cold and wet spring can dramatically reduce the number of Merganser and Cormorant chicks, thereby influencing their prey numbers (positively).

 

[MakoMike]

Bill,
right, that's part of the problem. Development has have an extremely favorable impact on the environment that cormorants need. That's why their mubers are greatly increasing around the world, not just in our neck of the woods. Of course increased cormorant numbers means greater mortality on all kinds of fish. But flounder have been especially hard hit, since cormorants do most of their fishing in the shallower bays, where juvenial flounder tend to congregate.

 

[616787]

It would be interesting to see if there are historical figures on the cormorant population, It would provide much better insight to the argument.

DOCTORFISH brought up a point I never even considered. Thinking back, the flounder catches COULD coincide, at least roughly, with the winter temperature variations!

It would be a good topic to look up, there should be some hard data to review, somewhere.

 

[seaslug44]

quote:
it is safe to say that the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT factor influencing population numbers of ANY species today is environmental decline and habitat loss.

quote:
the flounder catches COULD coincide, at least roughly, with the winter temperature variations!
My concern is that the water temps around most of the South Shore from the Great South Bay WEST have been increasing due to human influences such as sewer run-offs, etc... Anyone who fishes for winter flounder from Moriches on East where the land is less populated will tell you that the flounder populations have been holding their own (we had one of the best years ever last year in a few East End honey holes). I feel that the human influences combined with the unusually warm winters have kept the bulk of the flounder population away these past few years. I'm not saying that the commercial industry or the commerants don't also have an effect (they can't help). I just feel that there's more to the "big picture" to blame for the lack of winter flounder than one specific species of bird.

 

[Scratcher]

MakoMike; I'd be interested in knowing more about the development/cormorant increase link.

 

[620193]

Sunny, commercial fisherman do not catch winter flounder off shore..Their are 10 times the number of cormorants than their were 20 years ago...I suppose you never harvested this resource, then you must have no blame

 

[615965]

Commerants eatin flounder, Bass eating flounder, Seals Eatin Flounder... is all just nature taking it's course ala natural selection recreational fishing is not so much nature taking it's course but with good practices (catch and release size and creel limits) does not put a detrimental dent in the overall population of the species simular to sport hunting..

on the other hand we have...

Commercial Fisherman have the ability to fit jumbo jets wing to wing tip inside the mouth of these nets sweeping the bottom and raping the oceans bounty for personal gain (money) just like the market hunters of yesteryear wiping out animals in pursuit of furs for money not sport.. what do u think is wiping out the Giant Bluefins, catch and release? or sushi resturants who turn to commercial fisherman for product to sell

COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN ARE MARKET HUNTERS ALWAYS WHERE ALWAYS WILL BE AND THEY ARE RAPING THE OCEANS FOR MONITARY GAIN. period now if you happen to be a Comm. fisherman and are offended by my statement oh well i could care less just be aware that it is u with you big nets and your fancy equipment that are wiping the oceans clean... oh sorry u guys and the commerants

(CATCH, ADMIRE, RESPECT AND RELEASE)

FISH ON!!!!!

 

[HungryJack]

Are you SURE they are FLOUNDER ?

I do not believe you are seeing FLOUNDER being eaten by the Commerants.

From the middle of November till the end of January I work with a haul seine crew that fishes for SPEARING.
We fish the south shore from Jamaica Bay to Shinne****, mainly from Freeport and to the east.
We fish the bays and shoreline,
as this fishery is done with a skiff and pulling the nets by hand from the beach,
not a boat pulling the net through the water like a dragger.

During this time period we have a bycatch of 3 different flatfish;
Flounder, Fluke and Hogchokers.

By far the largest percentage of the bycatch is FLUKE ,
these are all JUVENILE FISH,
from 1/2 inch to about 6 inches in size.

In a average haul, there will be 0-20 flatfish,
98% of them will be FLUKE.
It is VERY RARE for us to net a baby Flounder. More common than a baby Flounder would be a legal size fish in the net, and even those are rare.
The other flat fish caught is the HOGCHOKER, we catch almost as many of these as we do baby Flounder.

To repeat, I highly doubt the fish you are seeing consumed by the Commerants are Flounder,
they are FLUKE.

Haul Seine fishing for Spearing in January

(This post edited by HungryJack on 02/25/2003)

 

[Capt. Bill]

Jack,
What happens to your bycatch?

 

[MakoMike]

scratcher,
I haven't done any extensive reserach but I have seen statements by the NYS DEC and the equivalent agencies in PA, Canada and Europe to the effect that the populations of these birds is BOOMING!
Jack,
I don't know about back west but lake Montauk has resident flounder year round. Before the season was introduced small boats would flounder fish all year long on windy days.

 

[620193]

Sorry no fancy equipment here...

It must be nice to be so perfect Flee. You are painting in broad strokes, you never take anything? You never buy bait? Then don't cast stones my way, their is room for us all.

I am a fisherman because I choose to not because of lack of choices. I have as much right to exist as you do in your profession...

The fact is their are many pieces to this puzzle, and cormorants ARE part of it as well as you ,you,you recreational fisherman

(This post edited by baitman on 02/25/2003)

 

[fishman304]

I agree with baitman, everyone is entitled to EARN A LIVING, AND THAT OF A FISHERMAN IS NOT A EASY ONE . Do cormorant's eat sandflee's

 

[Scratcher]

I copied this from a NMFS site. It indicates that winter flounder in Southern NE/Mid Atlantic Region are not overfished. While the region may not be overfished, it appears that our local rec fishery is a shadow of its former self. Why, I don't know. I tend to think it is inshore trawlers netting the fish before they enter the bays. I have absolutely no data to back that up, it is nothing more than a guess.

Baitman has added some very good information to this discussion. There are very few young flounder in the south shore bays. To me that says there is no successful spawning occurring in our bays. Why? Again, I'm not sure. Fluke are obviously producing young (again, good info from Baitman).

I'm a rec (some would say "wreck") not a commercial. But I read National Fisherman and Commercial Fisheries News. In every issue are stories about conservation efforts by commercials. And there are also lists of violations. Rec and commercials,both groups have members that care about the fisheries and members that don't. Its best not to stereotype.

Southern New England-Middle Atlantic

Commercial landings from the Southern New England to Mid-Atlantic area increased from roughly 4,000 mt in the mid-1970s, to more than 11,000 mt in 1981. Commercial landings have since declined steadily, while recreational catches increased from 1981 to 1985, and then declined. Combined recreational and commercial landings decreased to 2,800 mt in 1994, the lowest in the 1979-1998 time series. Combined landings have since been relatively stable, averaging about 3,600 mt during 1995-1998. Total catch including estimated commercial and recreational discards declined from 15,800 mt in 1984 to 3,100 mt in 1994 and averaged 3,900 mt from 1995-1998.

The NEFSC spring bottom trawl survey biomass index shows trends similar to those for commercial landings since about 1975, increasing through 1981 and thereafter declining. The 1993 survey index value was the lowest in the 29-year time series. Since then, the survey index has increased.

Virtual population analyses indicate that mean stock biomass (age 1+) declined from 34,100 mt in 1983 to a record low level of 8,000 mt in 1992. During 1981-1993, fully-recruited fishing mortality was very high, varying between 0.5 and 1.4. Reductions in fishing mortality, and improved recruitment, have contributed to rebuilding of stock biomass to 22,300 mt in 1998, which is about 80% of BMSY = 27,800 mt. Fishing mortality has been at or below 0.5 since 1993. The biomass weighted F of 0.19 in 1998 was lower than FTHRESHOLD98 = 0.36. Thus, the stock was not in an overfished condition and overfishing was not occurring with reference to the Amendment 9 MSY-based harvest control rule.