2007 Fluke Reductions Talk Already??

[RJ]

I just received this note from a party boat captain.

MRAC Report: Gordon Colvin provided a 'heads up' about future directions of summer flounder management. Gordon participated in a resource managers' conference call in which the results of the most recent summer flounder stock assessment were discussed.

From what we gather, the analysis includes data up to 2005, and the results indicate a precipitous increase in fishing mortality (more than double the target), lowest recruitment rate in recorded history, and flat line in the standing biomass, accompanied by a reduced growth rate.

Based upon these observations/results, Pat Kurkall, NMFS Regional Administrator thinks the stock rebuilding plan will not be on target for the 2010 deadline, and, the NMFS may recommend that the fisheries councils prohibit all directed summer flounder fisheries. This implies that the by-catch/incidential fishery could be permitted if this recommendation is adopted, and it certainly would have a significant impact on anglers, 'for hire' operations, and bait & tackle trades.

Although a final decision has not been made up to this point in time , Gordon thinks the situation warrants concern, and, the prognosis for the 2007 summer flounder season doesn't appear to be good.

The TAL is to be set at the council meeting in August. Bad news a 40% reduction at 14 million lbs is recommended by the technical committee. However, the NMFS is recommending a 6 Million lb TAL. This is a virtual closure of the fishery in 2007.

Any ideas ???

[Bassman525]

:!: :!: :!:

[RJ]

Letter from A party Boat Captain to DEC:

Dear Gordon,
I would personally like to thank the state of NEW YORK, MID-ATLANDTIC FISHERY COUNCIL, ASMFC, NMFS, and MRFSS for totally destroying the recreational fishery in New York. As everyone knows Fluke fishing is our number one fishery and the effect of increasing the size limit to 18 inches has now made the word FLUKE into a 4 letter word.

With the ever increasing size limit over the last few years and most people going home with nothing we have finally seen the Fluke fishing full apart. Besides the North shore where the Huntington area has a large body of fish the rest of the boats hardly gets enough people to sail. The 18 inch size limit has shut out 80% of Long Island from keeping anything and has really shut down the fishery.

Most boats are almost out of business and for what reason. We all know that MRFSS is very suspect and the science we use is not much better. When this whole process stated many years ago we were told if we bite the bullet now, down the line there would be more fish then we knew what to do with. How have much more do we have to give.

Either we were lied to many years ago, which I don't think was the case or the fish have been totally mismanaged. I think this is more of what has happened. So please tell me what is going to happen now. Are the manages going to admitted they made mistakes and fix them or is industry going to have to take it on the chin like in the past for the Councils mistakes.

How can the FLUKE quota go from 33 million pounds for 2007 to maybe 6 million lbs. The same goes for Sea Bass and Scup. The same science that show these fish and not expanding is the same science that shows that the dogfish are in trouble. Is this the same dogfish population the keeps most New York and Jersey boats from fishing deeper then 30 feet of water all spring long till mid July the last few years.

We must start using some common sense in this management and not only the bad science and data. Gordon please tell me where we are going next. Is there going to be a shut down of the fishery or a very limited fishery so the manages can feel good about not shutting it down but really it is a shut down. If there was never a more pressing time to meet with industry now is the time. Hope to hear from you soon

Dennis Kanyuk (516) 909-5699

[RJ]

From: Furlong, Daniel T. Direcor of the MAMFC

Gentlemen:

In my opinion, summer flounder (SF) will be an absolute disaster in 2007. Here are the facts:

1. - Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) says rebuild managed stocks ASAP not to exceed 10 years; for SF that means 1/1/2010

2. - Our biological reference point (BRP) for SF's maximum sustainable biomass is 204 million pounds (the BPR was vetted in 2004)

3. - The stock is currently at about 112 million pounds

4. - The issue is how do we increase the stock size by 90+ million pounds in the next three years?

Tuesday this week we held our monitoring committee meeting, and whatever quota is ultimately established for SF in 2007 (quotas that were discussed ranged from 5.2 to 19.9 million pounds, with 13.9 million being adopted by the MC), it needs to be set in the context of the above facts. The annual SF quota has never been lower than 17.9 million pounds and during that period of quota management (1993 to present) the stock's biomass has more than doubled and the spawning stock biomass (SSB) has nearly tripled.

Notwithstanding, these successes, the box that we (Council, Commission, NMFS) are in is the ten year rebuilding requirement. Staff recommended 19.9 million pounds as the TAL for 2007 based on our Plan's target F rate of 0.276. This has a 50% probability that we will meet our Plan's rebuilding schedule. It also means there's a 50% chance it won't. That empty side of the glass, together with just three years to go to get to 204 million pounds of SF has NMFS panicked into recommending a TAL of 5.2 million pounds.

In my conversations with Joel MacDonald, NOAA General Counsel, he doesn't see a way out.

So . . . back to the subject - an Act of Congress. Below is an exchange I had with Andy Oliver of Jim Saxton's staff. It is a way out, and time is of the essence as next week the House Bill to reauthorize MSA goes to the floor. We need to eliminate the ten year rebuilding requirement that was introduced by the environmentalists in the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act that reauthorized the MSA that year.


Andy's incoming:
From: Oliver, Andy [mailto:Andy.Oliver@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Furlong, Daniel T.
Subject: Overfishing and Rebuilding provisions_GSSA-RFA_071306.doc

Dan - Would this language provide flexibility to extend a rebuilding timeframe by a few years in the midst of a 10-year rebuilding plan (e.g., monkfish)?

Thanks...andy

M-S A DRAFT OVERFISHING AND REBUILDING PROVISIONS FOR H.R.5018

************************************************** ********************

STOPPING OVERFISHING

(15) provide a mechanism for specifying the total allowable catch or another catch limit under the plan (including for a multi-year plan) for each fishery for which an annual catch limit can be established, excluding species considered by the Secretary to exhibit an annual life cycle; that -



(A) is based on the best scientific information available; and



(B) does not exceed the acceptable biological catch level recommended by the science and statistical committee of the council of jurisdiction; and



(C) in the case of a fishery identified as being subject to overfishing, specify management measures, which may include effort controls or other measures already relied upon in the plan, that are designed to end overfishing in a period of time that shall be as short as practicable but not to exceed three years, taking into account the status and biology of the stocks of fish, environmental or ecological conditions, and the needs of fishing communities; provided that a time period need not be specified where adequate measures are in place to end overfishing within the applicable time period, or where otherwise provided for under and international agreement in which the United States participates.



REBUILDING DIMINISHED FISHERIES

(b) Duration of measures to rebuild diminished fisheries. - Section 304(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4)(A)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:



(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where -



(I) the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates dictates otherwise;



(II) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended because the cause of the fishery decline is outside the jurisdiction of the Council or rebuilding program cannot be effective only by limiting fishing activities;



(III) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended for one or more diminished components of a multi-species fishery;



(IV) the Secretary makes substantial changes to the biomass rebuilding targets after the rebuilding plan has been put in place.



(iii) Any extension granted by the Secretary under (III) or (IV) may not exceed the expected time to rebuild absent any fishing mortality under prevailing ecological and environmental conditions, plus the generation time of the stock of fish.



************************************************** ************************************************** **********************



My response (July 14):



My first recommendation would be to amend the language in MSA, Section 304 (e), (4), (A) by striking subparagraph (ii), and then seamlessly incorporating subparagraph (i) into paragraph (A).



By having mandated a fixed period of recovery in the SFA (10 years or less) all Congress has done is create an artificial time constraint. There's no real basis for it, it just happens to now be the law. What difference does it make if you're on a steep curve (quick recovery), or shallow curve (protracted recovery) so long as you get to your target biomass? Should we fail to recover summer flounder (SF) to its maximum sustainable biomass by 2010, what happens? What would happen in NJ if the recreational fishery for SF was closed in 2010? Other than massive civil disobedience, what would your Congressman's fishing public do? If you stop overfishing, then the stock will recover eventually . . . it's just a question of when.



I digress -



As to your question:



STOPPING OVERFISHING



Provisions read well and should do the job.



I would include in paragraph (15), (B) " . . . by the science and statistical committee, or other appropriate scientific body, of the Council . . ."



In paragraph (C), why three years? Just leave it at ". . . as short as practicable, [strike: "but not to exceed three years"] taking into account . . . " That's the flexibility you're after.



REBUILDING DIMINISHED FISHERIES



(I) - Fine; that's the language that's in the Act now.



(II) - I like this language - it seems a bit wordy, but it addresses two important issues, i.e., fishery declines are not caused exclusively by fishing, and the corollary thereto - the stopping of fishing activities is no guarantee that stocks will recover in a specified timeframe.



(III) - O.K.



(IV) - Excellent. This is what happened in Amendment 13 to the New England Groundfish FMP. After the plan was approved, the agency (NMFS) unilaterally moved the goal posts.



(iii) - O.K. I guess, but why? If overfishing is stopped, then the stocks will eventually recover. Why place constraints as to when that recovery must be in place? So long as recovery is occurring what's so important about when it happens?



My two cents, thanks for asking!!



************************************************** ************************************************** **********************



If you gotten this far in this email, then I know how concerned and committed you are to not having our fisheries collapse owing to some bogus, unscientific timeline. However, that's what's going to take us all down unless Congress acts to remove it. If you have the juice with Mr. Saxton, or other members, give it your best shot.

Good luck and I'll likely see you in Philly for our August meeting.

P.S. - Assume 5.2 million is the 2007 quota. 60/40 means the recreational sector gets 2.08 million pounds. Assume further that conservation equivalency is adopted and NJ gets its sub-allocation of 46% (I'm not sure that's correct, but it's close). That means you get about 960,000 pounds, or 455,600 fish (using 2.1 pounds as average weight). Hence, for the 2007 season, NJ's anglers (800,000 of them) can catch 0.57 of a summer flounder for the entire year!! Need I say more?

[SI Cruiser]

What the Feds need to do is unify the regulations for the northeast coast. Even though I have struggled all season in meeting the New Jersey regulation of 16.5 inches, I have still managed to take home 2 to 3 fluke at 16.75 to 17.5 inches each trip while releasing 10 to 20 shorts. How many New York anglers can say that.

I would recommend that they give NY a break and penalize NJ more by making the reg's 17 or 17.5 across the board. Do this for a year or two while continuing to monitor the overall population.

Although we complained last year about the pending reg changes, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of fluke being harvested this year and maybe the Feds are right that this fishery is in danger. The only productive area I have heard of is the North Shore of Long Island. New Jersey, from Raritan Bay south to Barnegat Bay has not seen the keeper ratio of last year. Last year at this time I was limiting out every trip. I know water temperatures are a lot lower this summer but where are the fluke. They are not offshore on the lumps and bumps or in between the channels while up along the beaches we have tons of shorts that need to mature. You also have to ask how many of those 15" fish that we release will survive.

We were successful in saving and rebuilding the striped bass fishery and maybe we need to do the same for fluke. I know that fluking means a lot to the recreational fishing industry but one thing for sure is that the current regulations and conservation efforts are not making a difference. Changes have to take place.

[basssman]

[i]

Any ideas ??? [/B]

Hate to say it, but I think it's time to find a new summer hobby.:!: :!:

[Bassman525]

By me, (Merrick Bay, Haunts Creek, the Wantagh Bridges, even in the ocean,) there are all the short fluke you want. You can catch 50 in a day and not get one keeper. Gotta throw back 17, 17 and a half inch fish all day. Guess 18's just a little too big.

[cool hand fluke]

Same story almost everywhere. Maybe a slot limit would work, 2 fluke at 17 and one or two Fluke over 18.:confused: :confused:

[zimno1]

you can view the passed bill in length and see the language/ http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/MSAasPassed.pdf

[aerostern]

So are the commercial guys still going to be able to take 14 inch fluke and us recreational folks none at all? Is that what we are talking about?

[COD FISH CARL]

I give up. I think its time to learn how to play golf.

[SI Cruiser]

Fisheries officials reject 10 million pound cut in summer flounder catch
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/2/06
BY KIRK MOORE
STAFF WRITER

PHILADELPHIA — Mid-Atlantic fisheries regulators today refused to approve a 10 million pound cut in the East Coast catch of summer flounder, setting the stage for a confrontation
later this year with federal officials who want severe fishing cutbacks.

The Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council set a 19.9 million pound catch limit for summer flounder in 2007, a drop from this year's quota of 23.59 million pounds.

But that is far more than a 13.9 million pound limit recommended by scientific advisers. Biologists say the flounder population is growing too slowly to meet management goals, and a fishing cutback is needed.

Recreational fishing advocates appealed to the council, saying the harsh cutback would devastate the recreational fishing businesses of Shore party boats and bait and tackle shops. Industry spokespersons say flounder is worth $173 million a year in New Jersey and helps provide 4,000 jobs at the Shore.

"My personal feeling is the fishery is recovering and that will continue,'' said council
chairman Ron Smith. Cutbacks proposed to meet population growth goals "are not worth the pain it will inflict on society,'' he said.

[suilleabhain]

I just heard today, for NY expect a shortened season, 4 @ 19. That's one of two proposals and more favored. RJ you hear anything receent?

[SI Cruiser]

The inside word in N.J. is 8 fluke at 17", May 26 - Sept. 10th. It just doesn't make any sense that NY continues to get screwed year after year.

[RJ]

The two scenarios I heard were four @ 19 May 15 to Aug. 31 and two at 19 with no closed season

[suilleabhain]

RJ, that's what I heard too. With that I here Speedy is planning to stay in Fla & I expect to see bluefishing make a come back