[619627]

Our moderator Mako Mike gave a excellent explaination on what the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COUNCIL, intends to do on this issue. I got a few moments to take a look at a couple of things, and this is what i understand so far, and i will try to make this as clear as possible on this complex issue......

First:
Its a fact that the recreational community has exceeded the quota alloted since 1996.

Second:
The quota has been exceeded by as much as 67% in the years 1996-1999, and doubled the harvest limit in 2000! It seems that our (recreational) average overtake of the summer flounder quota is 60%, since this was the level measured in 2001.

Third:
Their are forces for the commercial sector such as the NORTH CAROLINA FISHERIES ASSOCIATION that asked the Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council for a IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY COASTWIDE SHUTDOWN of the recreational fluke fishery as far back as 1998!!!!!
Of course it was never imposed by the council.

Fourth:
The statistical stock measurement tools used by the various NMFS/ASFMC etc., have been proven to be EXTREMELY inaccurate. Till this day, no one can even ACCURATELY GUESS how many fish are taken by the recreational sector.

Fifth:
REPAYMENT in terms of correcting overharvesting has been used in other fisheries, and against some states already. It is nothing new in fishery management, and many feel that it is the fairest way to correct/punish either the commercial or recreational sector when they exceed a quota.

Sixth:
The commercial fishery sector has called the recreational take of summer flounder 'out of control', and want a fair balance of the allocation of the resource.

These are all facts. Their is no hiding the fact that the recreational sector is exceeding the quota. Next to striped bass, the summer flounder fishery is the mainstay of the east coast inshore fishing fleet and that the stakes are extremely high with managing this fishery.

Right now this is at the public review and hearing stage. All management options are being layed out, arguements, scientific evidence, and economic impacts to both industries are being debated.

The question remains, that beyond scientific measurements and samplings, have we seen (observations) a noticeable increase:
1)in fluke stocks?
2)in average size of fish being landed?
3)amount of trophy fish?
4)ease at catching a limit?
5)distribution of fish in our area?

Baywatch gave us some information on when hearings are being held. I can only tell you, that if you are not heard, and recognized as a force, you have nothing to complain about when stricter limits are put in place.

Do i feel that the regulations are fair at this time? NO. And i do see the tipping of the scales towards the commercial interests, gaining a greater quota alloted to them at the expense of recreational sector. But, i do understand the commercial sectors arguements on their share of the summer flounder allocation when trips limits over the years have ranged from 60-100 lbs. No one with a vessel can make a living catching that small amount of fish.

I just want to know how many fishermen here on Long Island or in Jersey reguarly caught their limit of 7 keepers while fishing on a party boat? Is fishing for fluke easier now, then say 5 years ago. Have you the general fishing public seen more fluke being landed?

Lets hear your thoughts now.

By the way, here is the site for the ASFMC:

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

Their is something interesting reading here, if you have the time, and some no-doze.

Also their is some more information on this issue in Aprils, COMMERCIAL FISHING NEWS. This is where i obtained my information.

EC NEWELL MAN*

(This post edited by EC NEWELL MAN on 04/15/2003)

 

[Leprechaun]

I just want to know how many fishermen here on Long Island or in Jersey reguarly caught their limit of 7 keepers while fishing on a party boat? Is fishing for fluke easier now, then say 5 years ago?

Can't answer the first question except to say that the private boats had to work harder and go much further offshore than ever before in order to catch keeper-sized fish. I would assume that the Partyboats had the same quandry, stay in the Bay and pull shorts all day long or go way off, spend much of the 1/2-day trip travelling, thereby limiting time and hence catches.

The second question is deceptively easy to answer. With the bogus size increases they keep sticking us with, of course its more difficult to catch a limit, not more difficult to catch a fluke, albeit a shortie.

rgds, Leprechaun

 

[LkyLindy]

Fluke Up

Lep-
I have to disagree at least speaking for the North Shore-The last 5 years have seen a definite increase in the size and amount of fluke caught .Limits out have been very frequent(if you actually wanted to keep the limit) and the fish have been bigger-Last season there was a definite move to deeper water action after July but still decent fishing.No problem with the 17 in size,in fact that was not even worth keeping because of the abundance of fish

(This post edited by LkyLindy on 04/15/2003)

 

[baywatch]

Good Point

The N/S fluking is a bit different the the S/S.

I am not that familiar with the N/S and I am sure that the bottom has a lot to do with the draggers working certain areas. If there is a lot of rocks, which the N/S has it seems it wouldn't be as productive as the S/S.

In the last few days I have had to use Ocean Parkway a few times. When I got towards Jones Beach there where quite a number of boats working the bottom in what seemed to be about 60 ft of water. The S/S provides excellent conditions for draggers as there are long areas that will provide them will great bottom for miles.

The end result is that the S/S guy has to travel a bit further to get the fluke or as they do in Montauk go to the new grounds which is packed with lobster traps. The draggers can not get in there and it results in more fish being taken in that area.

 

[MakoMike]

E.C.
Good summary! There is a problem with Recs exceeding the quota, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good solution.
Bill,
This time of year most of the boats working close to the beach are dragging for squid.

 

[baywatch]

Not now

Heard reports of fluke in 60 ft off the beach west of JI and the pavillion.

Hey Lep thats your turf out there.

If the squid are there I bet some fluke are mixed in also.

(This post edited by baywatch on 04/16/2003)

 

[625041]

MRFSS

The bottom line is the NMFS has flat out stated that the MRFSS study was never intended to be used for this sort of thing. It's way too inaccurate. The MRFSS was designed and intended to be used to show trends in the fishery so we can adjust next years regs based on those trends.

Don't be fooled by the non sense ASMFC is putting out on this. We do not have the data for rec fishing that they do on the commercial side. Have any of you ever been surveyed? Mass numbers are based on just 20 intercepts for last year. Is that something we should based a payback system on?

If we weren't getting screwed by the 60/40 split this wouldn't be an issue anyway.

 

[624445]

Fluke Math

quote:
If we weren't getting screwed by the 60/40 split this wouldn't be an issue anyway.

If the recreational sector has been over the limit by an average of 60%,
then the recreational take would work out to about 65% of the total quota.

SO EVEN IF WE HAD A 50/50 SPLIT AS YOU SUGGEST, RECREATIONAL SECTOR WOULD STILL BE OVER THEIR LIMIT BY ABOUT 25% ON A YEARLY BASIS.

In the year 2000 we exceeded our limit by 100%,
that year we took 80% of the total quota !

As for the accuracy of the NMFS/ASFMC surveys,
why do you assume that since they are inaccurate, they are wrong in our favor ?
It is highly probable that they are still underestimating the recreational fluke catch with their inaccurate surveys.
I am not sure why people assume that they are overestimating the recreational catch because the surveys are inaccurate ?
I think that is a very fatal assumption for the recreational sector to make.

A more accurate survey of the recreational Fluke fishery could yield some very surprising results which would not favor the recreational sector.

 

[baywatch]

Estimates

Hi T/H...I was wondering how you came to these conclusions. After all the commercial guys gets em all year round. In the last 2 years the rec has been limited to a season of may till October and most fish are off shore about 3-5 miles where alot of recs can not get to.

The real problem is that ther is no way that they can realy get an accurate count of what the rec. guys do.
I have not talked to many people that limited out with fluke last year. Maybe a few in the sping run up in the Greenport area but in general not to many had that pleasure of filling the cooler with the maximun.
Just recently they opened it up with no season on them.

Just wondering where you got this info.

You wouldn't be a comm. guy by chance?

(This post edited by baywatch on 04/16/2003)

 

[624445]

"I was wondering how you came to these conclusions"

SIMPLE MATH thats how.

If the rec sector gets 40% of the pie, and we exceeded our 40% piece by an average of 60% as reported above by EC NEWELL MAN, then 60% overage of a 40% quota works out to 24% of the total. So 40% allotment and a 24% overage works out to about 65% of the TOTAL QUOTA.

In the year we caught DOUBLE our 40% quota, so that works out to 80% of the total quota.
No funny math here, just some simple calculations show the results.

quote:
You wouldn't be a comm. guy by chance?

If you read my previous post you will see I use the word WE when I describe the recreational sector,
this would put me in the rec group,
NOT THE COMMERCIAL GROUP.

I am sorry if my comments make it seem like I am recreational bashing, I am not.

The title of this thread is
"UNDERSTANDING THE RECREATIONAL FLUKE OVERAGE ISSUE-"
I am just pointing out some interesting things to consider and understand about what is going on in our fishery.

I personally think it is a big mistake on OUR part, the recreational sector to ASSUME the surveys are flawed in our favor. They could just as easily or more likely be flawed against us.
That is the point I am trying to make.

An accurate count of what is caught by the recreational sector could yield some very restrictive fishing regulations due to the overage of fish taken every year.

Do you agree ?

 

[baywatch]

Flawed

I am still reading the report and trying to figure out where they get there numbers.

Comm are on the money but how can they really tell what the rec does.

Exactly my point how do they get the right weights. ESTIAMTE?

I guess going to these meeting is going to open up some eyes and ears for sure.
Just being able to speak and listen to the DEC on this should prove interesting enough.

I aggree with your finding but plugging in th real nembers are the only way to find out.

Thanks for you info and insight.

 

[625041]

Year 2000 was a one year wonder as far as the survey's go. In other years we were very close to the limit and for many, many years we were way under the limit. Nobody want to give us a surplus for the 80's and early 90's do they? 2001 was only 13% over and 2002 is supposed to be below our limit.

Comm numbers are based on actual landings (though we all know alot slips through cracks). So we know theirs is at least the minimum.

Ours is based on a tiny sample. Is it fair to base Mass numbers for the season on just twenty data intecepts?

Considering 10% of the people catch 90% of the fish if you get just one good fluke fisherman in there it will throw the survey way, way off.

If it happens it will likely be a multi-year averaging. By the time it's in place, 2000 will be beyond the averaging period (hopefully). If we get the 50/50 split it will likely cover the overage plus some.

(This post edited by BobECT on 04/16/2003)

 

[624445]

Back to Math Class

quote:
Year 2000 was a one year wonder as far as the survey's go.

Why should it be a one year wonder ?
If we AVERAGED 60% overage from 1996-2000, why is it so hard to believe we fished at 100% overage in 2000 ?
Let's look at it in laymans terms.
If the AVERAGE fisherman caught 3 keeper fish per outing, catching a 4th keeper per outing in 2000 would produce the additonal catch rate to make the overage at the 100% that is stated.
Ok, so you might think that 3 fish per outing is too generous of a figure,
let's go with 2 fish per outing as the average for the 60% overage, now lets increase the catch rate to 3 fish per outing, we have now overfished our quota by 120% .
Point is to assume that they year 2000 was a blimp on the radar screen is to ignore the numbers. You assume it is an anomily in the figures, more likely it is just the results of a good year of fluking. If you recall, 2000 happened to be a good year for fluke for many fisherman.

quote:
Ours is based on a tiny sample. Is it far to base Mass numbers for the season based on just twenty data intecepts?
Considering 10% of the people catch 90% of the fish if you get just one good fluke fisherman in there it will throw the survey way, way off.

I agree it is not prudent or fair to base the Mass numbers on just 20 surveys.
But your 10%/90% analogy needs a little work.
To put it in laymans terms, out of 10 fisherman, 1 fisherman will catch 90% of the fish, and the remaining 9 fisherman will catch the remaining 10% of the fish.
So in the case of the MASS survey, interviewing 1 "sharpie" would have NOT had a negative effect on the survey.
Out of the 20 anglers surveyed, following the 90%/10% there should have been 2 sharpies interviewed.
Only if there would have been 3 or more sharpies interviewed would the results have skewed as you suggest.

quote:
If it happens it will likely be a multi-year averaging. By the time it's in place 2000 will be beyond the averaging period (hopefully).

Most likely it will be multi year averaging they use, but what makes you assume it will help us recreational fisherman ?
Considering that we have average a 60% overage in recent years, and there are more people entering the sport every year, and taking into consideration the effective "closure" of black fish, most people gravitate towards fluke.
If anything, our overages would most likely increase as the years go on if the fishery remains as is.

quote:
If we get the 50/50 split it will likely cover the overage plus some.
Time for more math.
We currently get 40%, if we got te 50% as you hope and propose, that would effectively allow us to fish at a 25% overage of our current limit.
Considering the fact that we are averaging 60% over our limit, the increase to a 50/50 split would not help solve our overfishing problems under the current fishery statistics.

MY POINT

Many fisherman believe that securing a 50/50 split will be the panacia for our problems with the fluke fishery.
The rough guestimate numbers by the NMFS/ASFM show this is not true.

Also the belief that a MOE ACCURATE counting of the recreational catch will show that we are actually catching less, is based on hope, not any kind of reasoning.
If you logically look at the situation and cosnider it from a betting point of view, the odds show that there is a MORE LIKELY chance a accurate count of the recreation catch will show that
WE ARE CATCHING EVEN MORE FISH THAN THEY THOUGHT under the current survey methods.

Personally I think this is a no win situation for the recreational fisherman, wether current survey numbers are used or new survey methods are employed, the overages of the recreational fluke fishery will show through, and the resulting regulations will be very painful to deal with for all concerned (fisherman, bait shops, party boats, etc).

 

[MakoMike]

TH,
I agree with 90% of what you have said, especially the math But why do you think a remedy will be a "no win situation" for the recreational angler. Doesn't the recreational angler benefit when the stocks are properly managed?

 

[625041]

TH, if they impose a payback it will likely be a year or two before it's in place. 2002 would likely be the first year used. Years before that won't mean a thing. 2002 we're projected to be under for 2002. If we got 50% it would give us a 25% cushion. Instead of 9.32 this year we'd have 11.65 or a 25% increase. Based on recent surveys and stock spawning biomass the TAL is expected to go up. Giving us a bigger qouta each year. As long as Bass remain healthy there won't be a big increase in rec pressure on the fish, giving us a bigger cushion for the margin of error in the surveys.

The Bottomline of the whole mess is do you believe the arguement they're making. The whole premise of needing a rec payback is because our overages are supposedly hurting the recovery of the stocks. That would make sense if the numbers were correct.

Right now we're heading into year 6 of a 10 year rebuilding plan. The plan has be so successful the the overfished designation was removed last year. Now how exactly can we be hurting the stocks, yet the plan is working far beyond expectations??

Don't forget there is not only errors in the survey but also in the number of trips. Based on their 2000 numbers which was supposedly such a great season it still amounted to only one legal fluke per 3 trips. Do you think their effort numbers might be a little overstated?

If they want a payback system, then they also have to come up with the funding to provide REAL numbers.

 

[Gamakatsu]

Shouldn't the dead commercial by-catch be applied to their quota? After all, a dead fluke is a dead fluke, whether it gets eaten by humans or tossed overboard. Oops, I almost forgot, there is no way to get an accurate count on by-catch, so they don't count it...

Gamakatsu

 

[MakoMike]

Bob,
be careful what you wish for. NMFS might get the funds for better data through a fluke license, like they did with the tuna.

 

[LkyLindy]

Math Power

Unfortunately all of the Math and percentages being used are based on bogus numbers-Nobody really knows if the Recs were 60% over all those years or 100% over in 2000-just smoke and mirrors.I would also tend to believe that the average fisherman would tend to skew his numbers upwards if asked how he did(human nature)and this would tend to increase our catch numbers.Of course nobody knows for sure where things would fall out-but I'm beginning to be convinced that a salt water license and more accurate reporting would help us out in the long run-esp when it became obvious what an economic impact the Recs have on the economy and the clout that could be harnassed by the voting rec block.I never thought I would vote in favor of more government intrusion in our lives but there are too many people now and not enough good stuff to go around(read -fish).

Of course statistics can be made to support any position and we may be screwed by the NMFS regardless,but money and power talk in this country and we must strive to be heard,since our numbers and effect on the market place has got to be HUGE

 

[612219]

I have a hard time understanding how a fishery (fluke) went from being 80% Rec,20% Comm. to 60% Comm., 40% Rec. I really need someone to explain how that happened.
As far as numbers are concerned, I spend a lot of time at Captree, both as a fisherman and socializer. As a fisherman, I maxed out once and don't know too many other fishermen that did the same. More times than not, the common statement from those that frequent the boats is" Yea, I caught some fish, but I had to throw them back" Maybe someone should ask the Capts. how the fishing is or more accurately, how the keeping is.
As far as the numbers are concerned, how can anybody establish accurate percentages predicated on inaccurate numbers. A lot of games can be played with numbers. Using a hyperthetical number of 100 as the TAL, the R's get 40 and the C's get 60. If the R's exceeded there number by 40%, they would have 64, but the total catch is 124. That only represents 51% of the total catch. If you want to correct this overage take 12% away from the R's and the C's. That sound equitable. It's also number games. LOL
Bottom line: You have to take politic and $$ out of the equation.

 

[LkyLindy]

Math

Fluke-
Brush up on your math-Start with 40% of 40 is 16 and take it from there-Just for informational purposes