[noreast]

I have read a lot recently on the condition and fate of winter flounder in our waters, and I agree with most of it. But no one will ever convince me that this is a recreational problem or that we should be the ones to take the brunt of severe measures to bring them back. Especially when you consider that we are currently fishing at about 26.5% of what we were back in 1990, while the commercial are about 50% over what they were the same year.

In 1990 recreational anglers in NY State took, 1,106,590 ? pounds of winter flounder while at the same time the commercial fishery took just 640,445 ? pounds, basically giving us about 65% of the catch. It is actually higher than that if you average from 1980-1990, but I didn?t want to go back too far and make this seem like ancient history.

Then just 10-years later in the year 2000 things made quite a turnaround! Commercials took 960,122 ? pounds while recreational anglers took a mere 293,472 pounds! That?s right we?re fishing at 26.5% of what we were in 1990 and the commercials are fishing at 150% of what they had in 1990. And people want to know where all the flounder are going? It?s not the cormorants or the seals or the bass, it?s the inshore and offshore draggers. They?ve gotten so good at what they do that they are now catching the flounder we use to catch before they even get in the bay. And those that they miss, they get them when the flounder head out to sea in the fall.

The numbers don?t lye and they speak for themselves, the problem with this fishery is the commercials and unless we do something to address it they will be the only ones catching them. I?d be the first one to say close it down for everybody, but the fact is we aren?t putting a nick in this fishery.

The series of events that led to this commercialization of the winter flounder have been played out over and over again. We need a commercial moratorium, just like we did when we needed to bring back the bass, but the truth is we will never see one. Do you know why? It?s simple, because the commercials are catching more today than they were before, so to them there really isn?t a problem.

Think about it, ? in those ten years we took recreational anglers from no-bag limit and no season ? I can still remember fishing on some January and February days for flounder ? to what is now essentially a 4- month season with minimum sizes and bag limits. While at the same time doing nothing to curtail the commercial catch.

So please folk?s don?t let anyone fool you, if you took every single recreational angler out of this fishery it would do nothing more than allow for more fish to be caught in the commercial fishery. Just as it has over the past decade.

Hook and Line Only!
George R. Scocca
Publisher

 

[noreast]

Bucktail,

I’m not really sure what restrictions on draggers you’re referring to regarding winter flounder. If any additional restrictions were added from 1990 until now, then they have had a negative effect as the commercial take has increased while the recreational take has all but disappeared. These numbers cannot be ignored. If fisheries managers were able to restrict us as well as they’ve done, then why not do the same to the draggers?

The one undeniable fact in all this is we have witnessed a recreational collapse in the winter flounder fishery and at the same time the commercial catch has gone up.

Sounddevil and the others,

The reason I don’t believe that recreational anglers should see any further reduction in the winter flounder fishery is simply because we have been nearly eliminated from the fishery as it stands, we’re catching just 26.5% of what we caught ten-years ago and the results have not been very encouraging. We need to let the fish get past the draggers and into the bays, and then we need to let them get out of the bays in the fall, and we need to shut down the spawning season entirely.

As for what we do next – I’m not really sure. Many people say “we brought back the bass why can’t we do it for flounder?” I’m afraid it’s not that simple.

As I stated in my earlier post, in the case of the striped bass we were dealing with a fishery that had affected both commercial and recreational interests. The problem here is that the commercial fishery is doing fine so the pressure isn’t there to do anything about it.

Hopefully something will be done soon, before it’s too late.

 

[noreast]

BD001,

NYSDEC and other interested parties are currently gathering data in order to help plan out the future of managing the winter flounder. There really isn?t going to be much movement until then.

greggie195

You make some excellent points, but I never said they were the only ones to blame for the decline. Many of the factors you mentioned may also have contributed to it, but the fact is that commercials are now taking the vast majority of winter flounder ? about 80% just last year. And I believe that needs to be addressed to bring back the winter flounder.

All is not lost however, and I believe this fishery will be the next rebuilding project for fisheries managers. We need to stay educated on the proceedings and to help out if called upon.

 

[noreast]

Bucktail,

I?m aware of the dragger line being moved, but I guess it wasn?t enough as evidenced by their numbers going up instead of down. As I mentioned in the last post, I agree with many of theories posted here and I?m not saying that commercial fishing is totally responsible for the decline. But what I am saying is that if you?re looking to reduce mortality in an effort to bring back the winter flounder you need to first identify whose catching all the fish, and it?s obvious that the draggers, both inshore and offshore, are now doing all the damage.

There?s absolutely no sense in reducing the recreational catch any further, because if we do there will no longer be a recreational fishery.

 

[noreast]

Do all the math, buckley

I apologize for the mix-up in my numbers and I?ve corrected it in my previous posts, but I?m not sure how that would fan anything. I did notice however that you missed my calculations on the commercial side. It seems I underestimated their increase over the past ten years, they?re not fishing at 140% they?re fishing at 150%.

So lets see, we?re now at 26.5% and they?re at 150% - hardly sounds fair to me.

 

[noreast]

SHUTUP&FISH

It was never my intention to criticize your work. My point is that in spite of the restrictions that you mentioned, commercial landings have increased, while recreational landings declined.

Fact is, draggers are currently landing the bulk of winter flounder in this state, while recreational anglers are slowly being eliminated from the fishery altogether.

 

[noreast]

Togmaster,

The commercial catch has gone up because they?ve gotten better at it over the years. They don?t have to be fishing in the bays because they?re catching them before they get a chance to get into the bay. And then they get them again as they leave the bays. Unless of course flounder don?t leave the bays, something I would find hard to believe.

And I don?t agree with the ?bass eating everything? theory. In past five or so years bass have been blamed for eating everything from all the blue claw crabs to bluefish to all the weakfish, menhaden, herring, mackerel and even all the little striped bass. The even ate all the shad; of course no one is really sure how that happened as the shad disappeared when the bass population was on the verge of collapse. Of course the commercial shad fishery had nothing to do with that, it was the bass.

I think the commercial fishery needs to be further restricted to allow the flounder in and out of the bays and to stop fishing them over the winter months. And if what you suggest is true, that the fish are being caught offshore, then there should be little resistance from the commercial fishery on such a proposal. But the sad truth is the last piece of dragger legislation was water down so bad at the end that it resulted in the commercial catch going up.

If they?re not catching them inshore then why not give it up?

 

[noreast]

Togmaster

I honestly appreciate your opinions but I?m a bit confused about the two stock theory. If there?s an inshore stock that migrates in and out of the bay, and an offshore stock that never goes into the bay, where is the line drawn between the two stocks? How deep do the inshore flounder migrate?

I was always under the impression that all the flounders intermingled, going off shore some years and not others.

I also agree that there?s many contributing factors to the poor response the biomass has had with the current regulations, and I?ll also agree that the commercial fishery wasn?t solely responsible for the decline and that recreational anglers probably played a major role in getting to where we are today. But if there is any chance of winter flounder returning to our bays like years of old, reductions will have to be made in the commercial sector as they are the only ones catching the fish.

Respectfully,
George R. Scocca
Publisher, www.noreast.com

 

[noreast]

Thanks Togmaster, but that really doesn?t answer my question . . .

From what I can see there is no distinction between inshore and offshore stocks, only regional, which is pretty much common knowledge.

And as for the Jersey study, I have a problem with commercial draggers reporting how many fish are in the ocean. Kind of like the fox watching the henhouse don?t you think?