[loligo]

Fluke season lasts one day in New Jersey

courierpostonline wrote:
"We're disappointed. For precautionary reasons, they should have adopted the recommendations" of advisers, said Lee Crockett, who heads federal fisheries reform efforts with the environmental arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

1 day?

 

[MakoMike]

You're suprised by that. IIRC the winter fluke season in MA is NO days?

 

[loligo]

MakoMike wrote:
You're suprised by that. IIRC the winter fluke season in MA is NO days?

No, I am not surprised that it's a one day season ,,more surprised they even bothered to open it at all.

Yeah, I know what our rules are , we don't catch our summer flounder in the winter.....

 

[flatts1b]

quote:

Loligo posted:

The New Jersey recreational anglers' arguments won over the International Game Fishing Association and American Sportfishing Association.

"Had we not been at the table, the network would have sent a letter to NMFS that reflected the positions of some of their members who don't fish and lack understanding about recreational issues," Fote wrote in his group's January newsletter. It's a prime example of why recreational groups should stay engaged with the environmental movement, even when the two sides disagree, he says.

I give a lot of credit to JCAA here for being open minded.

This post edited by flatts1b 08:18 PM 01/07/2008

 

[twofinbluna]

In the article loligo posted (starting this thread), it says this:

"Weeks of uncertainty ended New Year's Eve when the National Marine Fisheries Service published a final rule setting the 15.77 million-pound limit for commercial and recreational fluke catches."

It sounds like this was at least a partial victory, right? (In the article it has crockett saying he wanted a lot less, so I am assuming this is a good thing somehow)

I had not heard of this final rule NMFS put out until reading this, and dont know enough about fluke quotas to know how big of a win it is to have them go with the 15.77 instead of the 11 or so the enviros wanted. (If this is old news, please let me know.)

Nils, others: big victory? little victory? Neither? Was this the same as the proposed rule that NMFS put out (assuming it put out a PR?)?

Is the 15.77 enough or is that a cut from last year? What do the fluke fishermen (both rec and comm) think about this rule?

Any comments about this would be appreciated, I am constantly trying to catch up on knowing all the fluke goings-on!

 

[loligo]

i'd comment ...but i wouldn't want to sound like a hypocrite

 

[MakoMike]

Chris,
Its old news, NMFS published the proposed rule in NOvember. th 15.77 is stil a big cut from last year, Croocket just wanted an even bigger cut

 

[NilsS]

Chris -

It's a loss, but not as big a loss as it could have been. It's a loss because it's a reflection of the rigidity in the system - and it's also a reduction in the recreational and commercial TACs.

But it isn't a total loss because it's shown a bunch of people how ineffective the SFA amendments are, and if we do it right it could lead to a permanent fix.

Nils

ps - Ref the one day fluke "season," that's a reflection of a system the fluke guys have been working on with NJDEP and the NJ Marine Fisheries Council for years. It's an attempt to fairly split the NJ quota between the big boats catch a lot of fish per day and fish offshore in winter and the small boats that can't do either, and it seems to be working pretty well.

 

[flatts1b]

MakoMike wrote:
Chris,
Its old news, NMFS published the proposed rule in NOvember. th 15.77 is stil a big cut from last year, Croocket just wanted an even bigger cut

MakoMike,

Wasn't it actually the Mid-Atlantic Council's own scientists who recommended the bigger cut?

If this were any other species, like say herring, I don't think folks would be so happy about a regional council thumbing their nose at its own SSC.

Not that it hasn't happened before, but the law was changed this time around to have Councils adhere to the advice of the SSCs when setting TACs, right? I thought even the RFA was on board with that change to the law?



quote:

Feds Flunk First Test of New Fish Law
Posted Tue, 13 Nov 2007
by Pew Charitable Trusts

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), ignoring scientific advice and a mandate from Congress and President Bush to end overfishing, has recommended a quota of 15.77 million pounds for the 2008 summer flounder fishing season, endangering the recovery of this depleted population. Because the agency proposed an annual catch limit that exceeded scientists' recommendations, the federal government failed its first true test for complying with new conservation measures in the recently revised Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation's primary federal fisheries law.

For the past 20 years, summer flounder has been subject to overfishing. But, instead of conserving this species, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) has allowed overfishing to continue and has been slow to take meaningful action to rebuild it. The MAFMC's scientific advisors recommended that NMFS establish a 2008 summer flounder quota between 11.64 and 12.90 million pounds. The council ignored its own scientists and instead recommended that NMFS set a 2008 quota of 15.77 million pounds.

"These demands for a higher quota are understandable from a short-term economic perspective, but they'll undermine the long-term health of summer flounder," said Lee Crockett, who directs the Federal Fisheries Policy Reform Project at The Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group. "This is a classic case of short-term economics beating out sound science."

The MAFMC and the NMFS are not the only groups seeking a higher catch
limit. New Jersey anglers, led by the Recreational Fishing Alliance
(RFA), wanted to increase the 2008 summer flounder fishing quota. They have been lobbying Congress and Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) specifically, to amend the 10-year rebuilding requirement in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to create some "flexibility" in the law. While not endorsing additional flexibility, Congressman Pallone has advocated increasing the quota to 17.5 million pounds. Additionally, U.S. Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) last week introduced the "Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2007" to weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act's rebuilding requirements.

"With the updated Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress and the Bush
administration made a commitment across the board to end overfishing," said Joshua Reichert, managing director of The Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group. "Quite simply, the agency responsible for following through on this commitment has failed to the ultimate detriment of fish, fishermen and the public."

NMFS will accept public comments through December 3, 2007. To submit an official comment, go to http://www.regulations.gov/. After all the
comments have been collected and evaluated, NMFS will publish its final rule in December, and it will take effect on January 1, 2008.

Editor's Note:

To listen to a press briefing on the 2008 summer flounder quota and to view fact sheets about summer flounder management, go to:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid31124.aspx

To view NMFS' press release about the 2008 summer flounder quota, visit:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/docs/proposed_summer_flounder_catch_limit
s_FINAL.pdf

To view a copy of H.R. 4087, the "Flexibility in Rebuilding American
Fisheries Act of 2007," visit: http://thomas.loc.gov/

This post edited by flatts1b 12:25 PM 01/08/2008

 

[MakoMike]

The MAFMC doesn't hve a SSC for fluke. The "scientific" advice was from the technical committee, which is an unimpressive body at best.

 

[NYBightEditor]

Mr. Crockett conveniently leaves out a great deal of mitigating information in his press release. The ssb has been rebuilding since 1989, and according to the same "sound science" he refers to, the ssb is double what it was in 1982 - but only halfway to a ridiculous target.

If a fishery is on a growing trend as far as ssb is concerned, and is not overfished - there is absolutely no logic to support shutting it down to the point where it is no longer a viable pursuit. This is not brain surgery.

To quote asmfc, ".....is not overfished, but overfishing is occuring."

 

[flatts1b]

MakoMike wrote:
The MAFMC doesn't hve a SSC for fluke. The "scientific" advice was from the technical committee, which is an unimpressive body at best.


They dont??

Mike, I'm still trying to reconcile with how the Mid Atlantic operates as compared to New England.

Please clarify.

I thought that SSCs were Council specific and not species specific. In other words, all councils "shall" have one. (see below)

Is it perhaps that the MAFMC uses a different name for its SSC. Is there a difference between what MAFMC calls their "Technical Committee" and what they call their "Monitoring Committee". Perhaps analogous to NEFMC's "Plan Development Team" and their "Science and Statistical Committee" respectively?


Regardless, wether or not you are impressed with the staff folks working on Summer Flounder, would you agree that Lee Crockett was simply supporting the findings of the Council's own staff?

Also, that staff is not funded by Pew, are they?

Thanks,
Mike F.

quote:

From MSA...

101-627, 109-479
(g) COMMITTEES AND ADVISORY PANELS.?
(1)(A) Each Council shall establish, maintain, and appoint the members of a scientific
and statistical committee to assist it in the development, collection, evaluation, and peer
review of such statistical, biological, economic, social, and other scientific information as
is relevant to such Council?s development and amendment of any fishery management
plan.
(B) Each scientific and statistical committee shall provide its Council ongoing
scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for
acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and
achieving rebuilding targets, and reports on stock status and health, bycatch, habitat
status, social and economic impacts of management measures, and sustainability of
fishing practices.
(C) Members appointed by the Councils to the scientific and statistical committees
shall be Federal employees, State employees, academicians, or independent experts and
shall have strong scientific or technical credentials and experience.
(D) Each member of a scientific and statistical committee shall be treated as an
affected individual for purposes of paragraphs (2), (3)(B), (4), and (5)(A) of subsection
(j). The Secretary shall keep disclosures made pursuant to this subparagraph on file.
(E) The Secretary and each Council may establish a peer review process for that
Council for scientific information used to advise the Council about the conservation and
management of the fishery. The review process, which may include existing committees
or panels, is deemed to satisfy the requirements of the guidelines issued pursuant to
section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal year
2001 (Public Law 106?554?Appendix C; 114 Stat. 2763A?153).
(F) In addition to the provisions of section 302(f)(7), the Secretary shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations, pay a stipend to members of the scientific and statistical
committees or advisory panels who are not employed by the Federal Government or a
State marine fisheries agency.
(G) A science and statistical committee shall hold its meetings in conjunction with the
meeting of the Council, to the extent practicable.

 

[MakoMike]

flatts1b wrote:
[They dont??

Mike, I'm still trying to reconcile with how the Mid Atlantic operates as compared to New England.

Please clarify.

I thought that SSCs were Council specific and not species specific. In other words, all councils "shall" have one. (see below)

Is it perhaps that the MAFMC uses a different name for its SSC. Is there a difference between what MAFMC calls their "Technical Committee" and what they call their "Monitoring Committee". Perhaps analogous to NEFMC's "Plan Development Team" and their "Science and Statistical Committee" respectively?

Regardless, wether or not you are impressed with the staff folks working on Summer Flounder, would you agree that Lee Crockett was simply supporting the findings of the Council's own staff?

Also, that staff is not funded by Pew, are they?

Thanks,
Mike F.

quote:

From MSA...

101-627, 109-479
(g) COMMITTEES AND ADVISORY PANELS.?
(1)(A) Each Council shall establish, maintain, and appoint the members of a scientific
and statistical committee to assist it in the development, collection, evaluation, and peer
review of such statistical, biological, economic, social, and other scientific information as
is relevant to such Council?s development and amendment of any fishery management
plan.
(B) Each scientific and statistical committee shall provide its Council ongoing
scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for
acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and
achieving rebuilding targets, and reports on stock status and health, bycatch, habitat
status, social and economic impacts of management measures, and sustainability of
fishing practices.
(C) Members appointed by the Councils to the scientific and statistical committees
shall be Federal employees, State employees, academicians, or independent experts and
shall have strong scientific or technical credentials and experience.
(D) Each member of a scientific and statistical committee shall be treated as an
affected individual for purposes of paragraphs (2), (3)(B), (4), and (5)(A) of subsection
(j). The Secretary shall keep disclosures made pursuant to this subparagraph on file.
(E) The Secretary and each Council may establish a peer review process for that
Council for scientific information used to advise the Council about the conservation and
management of the fishery. The review process, which may include existing committees
or panels, is deemed to satisfy the requirements of the guidelines issued pursuant to
section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal year
2001 (Public Law 106?554?Appendix C; 114 Stat. 2763A?153).
(F) In addition to the provisions of section 302(f)(7), the Secretary shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations, pay a stipend to members of the scientific and statistical
committees or advisory panels who are not employed by the Federal Government or a
State marine fisheries agency.
(G) A science and statistical committee shall hold its meetings in conjunction with the
meeting of the Council, to the extent practicable.

No they don't, they are still struggling to come up with a definition of what will be their "scientific panel". The texhncial committee is NOT made up of MAFMC staff. It's made up of advisors from the various states, IMHO most of whom don't have a clue as to what they are talking about ( I attended the last Tech committee meeting.)

 

[flatts1b]

When in doubt, just ask.

quote:

MakoMike wrote:

The MAFMC doesn't hve a SSC for fluke.

Not true.

Mike, I spoke to someone presumably in-the-know regarding this. The MAFMC does indeed have a SSC. And again, it is not specific for Fluke, but rather it serves at the descretion of the Council proper.

You can find their information, here:
http://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/committees/science.htm

You can also see where they have done some recent work specific to summer flounder, here:

quote:

The MAFMC Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) conducted a peer review of the summer flounder Overfishing Definition in concert with the 2001 assessment update (MAFMC 2001a, b). The SSC reviewed six analyses to estimate biological reference points for summer flounder conducted by members of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Summer Flounder Biological Reference Point Working Group. After considerable discussion, the SSC decided that although the new analyses conducted by the ASMFC Working Group had resulted in a wide range of estimates, they did not provide a reliable alternative set of reference points for summer flounder. The SSC therefore recommended that Ftarget remain Fmax = 0.263 because a better estimate had not been established by any of the new analyses. The SSC also reviewed the biomass target (BMSY) and threshold (one-half BMSY) components of the Overfishing Definition and concluded that the new analyses did not justify an alternative estimate of BMSY.

The SSC endorsed the recommendations of SAW 31 which stated that Athe use of Fmax as a proxy for FMSY should be reconsidered as more information on the dynamics of growth in relation to biomass and the shape of the stock recruitment function become [email protected] (NEFSC 2000). The SSC agreed that additional years of stock and recruitment data should be collected and encouraged further model development, including model evaluation through simulation studies.

Source:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/saw/2006FlukeReview/BRP2006_5.pdf

To clarify though, the "Technical Committee" is appearently an ASMFC entity that works closely with the "Monitoring Committee", which is a Council entity. In many cases, the scientsts are the same for both and they work in the same room (sort of like when NEFMC/ASMFC herring advisors meet).

The closest thing that the MAFMC has to the NEFMC's PDTs are their Fishery Management Action Teams (FMATs).

Anyway, thought you and others might like to know.

This post edited by flatts1b 12:12 PM 01/09/2008

 

[MakoMike]

Mike,
Thanks for that. I could have sworn I recently received something about the council needing to define and staff a SSC because they currently didn't have one. Now I can't find it. I guess the memory is really going south!

 

[twofinbluna]

Nils/MM

Thanks for that explanation...IMO its a victory, even if a small one (given that some wanted it to be down near 11!).