New York Summer Flounder

[Great American Fisherman]

All,

I am a subsciber to the New York Outdoor News publication.  In the latest issue they have a story on the New York Summer Flounder situation.  The link is below. 

http://www.nyoutdoornews.com/articles/2009/06/12/top_news/news03.txt

[Salty Dog]

This is BS.It's like a kid saying I had my fingers crossed,so it doesn't count.If the Govenor has a fishing contest in the fall,it doesn't count either.BS !

[Pfishingruven]

Good for the New Yorkers, but it just goes to show the NMFS and the ASMFC have no idea what they are doing.  There was a reason the season was closed and if they were so worried about a depletion of the fishery, then even a Federal study wouldn't be exempt.  This just proves to me that the Fluke Fishery is doing well and the Feds and Regs are completely messed up!

 

[IrishAyes]

 

Makes you wonder just who is running these agencies. Enviros? Or just those in bed with them? 

As was said, if the fluke industry was in such dire straits that the had to put the hammer down on the catch, why is it ok for those who pay for a 'research study' to catch fish?

[wb]

WTF, Over     

[CaptTB]

There was a reason the season was closed and if they were so worried about a depletion of the fishery, then even a Federal study wouldn't be exempt.  This just proves to me that the Fluke Fishery is doing well and the Feds and Regs are completely messed up!

As was said, if the fluke industry was in such dire straits that the had to put the hammer down on the catch, why is it ok for those who pay for a 'research study' to catch fish?

Stop the presses, you guys are mixing apples and oranges here and making some assumptions that are incorrect.

First, no one, not even the scientists, are saying the stock is in trouble or in dire straits. The catch was NOT reduced, it was INCREASED for EVERY STATE on the east coast. Difference is, states that landed more fish in 2008 than allotted in 2009 had to tighten their regs to stay within the quota allowed, just like NJ.

The fish being caught by RSA boats are PART OF THE ALLOWED QUOTA. They are not "above and beyond" the fish the science says can be caught, they are part of it. Up to 3% of the quota for most if not all of the species managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council is taken off the top BEFORE it is allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors (meaning it is taken equally from both)

Those fish (actually, those POUNDS of fish) are then sold by auction through NFI to fund research.

That research may involve the actual pounds of fish "set-aside" (hence Research Set Aside) Other times the research is not done on the actual fish caught, but the money raised from their sale is used to offset the costs of research. Sometimes it is for a different species. (example, 200,000lbs of Sea Bass set aside. Only 185,000 pounds allocated to research projects specifically for sea bass. The other 15k was given to a different project on surf clams since there was not enough poundage of clams to pay for the project... just an example)

Sometimes RSA projects are not completed or stopped mid-stream, in which case the poundage is returned to the general quota and fished.

In the past, only commercial boats were bidding on this portion of the quota. A couple years ago a boat from NY bought Scup quota, at considerable expense I might add, on the gamble that once the season was closed he could then fish on his small amount of fish and generate some profit. Based on the amount of money he spent, once it worked, once it did not. Commercial boats have always taken the same risk for years, betting that when the commercial season is closed they will get a price for their purchased poundage that is higher than what they paid.

The fact remains that unlike New England, the Mid-Atlantic does not get federal money earmarked for research beyond the normal budget for NMFS/MAFMC. As such, in order to try and fill some of the research gaps and to help fund privately funded research (which much of it is) the MAFMC started the RSA program. It is voted on every year, and it is not always allocated, depending on what projects are being proposed.

RSA quota helped pay for the United Boatmen/RFA/Rutgers slot limit study 2 years ago and will (hopefully) be paying for the next one.

[IrishAyes]

Thanks for the clarification on the subject Capt TB.

I do understand the concept, but do not 100% agree with it. I don't particularly care for anyone having to pay to get some of the quota. The money this country wastes in stupid ass projects should be spent on the needed research. How much was recently allocated to study why pig crap stinks? 

Just my opinion.

[Bucktail]

Thank you for your insight and keeping us informed on these issues Captain Tony.


BTW,
Why does pig crap stink? 

[wb]

because it MUST

[Pfishingruven]

I understand the RSA concept as well.  I also don't agree with having to pay to get fish.  Although, at least this money goes in the proper direction and not to lining politicians pockets. 

However, if I was the lonely, middle class Charter Captain who couldn't afford to pay for the RSA Quota and take my fares fluke fishing, I would be pretty pi$$ed off!  So, I think it is great that some of the New York Captains can go fishing during the split season and gamble on making some money, but it $ucks that the not so wealthy Captain is stuck in the dock or has to change species.  Regulations should be fair and for everyone, across the board.

I also understand that the fluke fishery is not in bad condition, but that this is the last leg of rebuilding the fishery and keeping it built up!  However, if the fishery was so good, there wouldn't be a need for the SSFFF and all of the hard work you are doing.

My dismay is directed to the Feds and their offices that back us fishermen into a corner.  Either vote on this really bad regulation or the not so bad regulation.  It's like voting for a president...you always have to pick the lesser of two evils!

I still can't understand how NJ was over their Quota in 2008.  Helen Keller could have made an educated guess and known that there was no way that the recreational fluke quota was over for NJ.  I bet NY wasn't even close either.

That's just my opinion and my unhappiness has never and is not directed at the SSFFF at all.  I really appreciate all you do.

BTW,
Why does pig crap stink? 

Because it doesn't smell like roses !

 

[CaptTB]

I also understand that the fluke fishery is not in bad condition, but that this is the last leg of rebuilding the fishery and keeping it built up!  However, if the fishery was so good, there wouldn't be a need for the SSFFF and all of the hard work you are doing.

That's where the common misconception is, and why the law must be changed. The fishery is "so good." As a matter of fact, it's the best it's been in nearly 40 years. It's the LAW combined with the science that has issues. 99.9% of rebuilt can STILL mean a closure of the fishery with the way the law is written.

Plus, if the science is bad or simply inaccurate, we can be restricted further even though in reality we may not need to be.

Lastly, how is a "wealthy" or "well off" charterboat buying RSA quota any different than one buying a bigger boat? Or having a lower price? or giving away free rods or whatever the "less wealthy" guy can't do.

It's competition, and as in all other things ion business it's the haves vs. the have nots. It's a potential (and I stress the potential part) business advantage for those who can afford it and are willing to take the personal financial risk. Same as it has been in commercial fishing for years.

Typically it is the guy who cannot afford the "upgrade" (whatever it may be)  that is bitching. Businesses take advantage of incentives and restricted opportunities all the time, this is one of them.

I do not see this as being any different than what the commercials have done for years with the RSA program. As a matter of fact, the RSA program WAS unfair until the for-hire fleet was allowed into it. OUR (meaning recreational) quota was being used but we were not able to fish on it. Now, recreational anglers that wish to partake of that portion of their quota can, whereas before they could not.

At the same time, the much needed research  has a funding source.  Those who do not like it can simply attend the council meeting each year, talk to their state reps/councilmen/women and the vote can go either way. It is NEVER a foregone conclusion and must be voted on every ear for every species. No one is "taking" anything away from anyone. It can be stopped for any fishery in any given year.

I personally know of half a dozen important projects that were done just in the past couple years that would not have happened if it were not for the RSA program.

[CaptTB]

I guess the way I look at it is like this:

Up until now, each year a few p[ercent of the fishable quota for recs and commercials is set aside to both fund and sometimes to be used in research. Sometimes it's the money generated from the sale of the fish, sometimes the actual poundage itself (or a portion of it) is physically used in the research.

This year, in addition to that normal routine, there is now the opportunity for recreational fishermen to actually catch some of that previously uncatchable quota, while STILL helping to pay for the same type of research it always has.

To me, that's a win win situation.
We could, however, stop taking part of the rec quota each year and put it into the fishery, which would mean a few days of extra fishing at best, or we could continue to take that portion of the quota for research and let only the commercial fishery fish on it.

Or, we could stop it altogether and watch NONE of that research get done, hoping against hope that somehow we will magically get more money from the federal government to do the research, even though we have never been able to get it before.

these are all viable options, one need only go to the MAFMC meeting each year where the decision on RSA quota is voted on and speak your mind. If enough people push for one option or another it WILL have a good chance of happening.

I will continue to support using our fish to do research to improve our fishery, along with supporting the process of allowing both commercials AND recreationals to fish on that quota.

[IrishAyes]

Good valid points for both sides of the issue.

Another question...Will the Federal Saltwater Fishery Registry have any effect on the research? If I am not mistaken, that is the 'reason' for the registry, to gather information from the people who actually fish the saltwater.

If so, will the RSA program still be a necessity and to what extent?

My biggest question is, Will any of this REALLY help the fishery or will it just add another bureaucratic level to the regs? That is yet to be seen...Hopefully, it will all work out for the benefit of the angler and the fishery.

Just for the record. I am all for any restrictions on keeping fish that are proven to be necessary. I am not for restrictions that are based on 'because the sky might fall so let's take shelter now'.

[Capt. Joe G]

So Capt Tb.. If the fishery is that could why did we have to loose a week and give up 2 fish??

I understand some of this.. but its pretty fustrating for to tell clients to release short fish while a dragger kills more in bycatch and has a shorter size limit??

Something just don't make sense.

thanks for the help

Capt. JoeG

[CaptTB]

Another question...Will the Federal Saltwater Fishery Registry have any effect on the research? If I am not mistaken, that is the 'reason' for the registry, to gather information from the people who actually fish the saltwater.

If so, will the RSA program still be a necessity and to what extent?

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Specifically the data that is to be generated from the registry is a phone book of anglers, period. The MRFSS survey (soon to be the MRIP survey) will continue to be the method by which recreational effort, participation, catch and landings data will be collected. However, the registry will provide a known universe of anglers from which to sample. Here, this is from NOAA's proposed rule: 

For the last 28 years, NOAA’s Fisheries Service has conducted recreational fishing
surveys through random telephone interviews with residents living in coastal counties. NOAA
and its regional and state partners conduct an extensive program of dockside interviews of
anglers to obtain data on their catch.
The national saltwater registry will enable surveyors to interview only those people who
fish, and will reach all anglers, not only those who live near the coast.

Or, you can gor to this link for more info: NOAA Saltwater Registry Info

The research done in all fisheries goes way beyond simple landings information, which is what the registry is a small part of. Gear testing, bycatch studies, stock size, make up, etc., Habitat studies, C&R studies, Slot limit studies. on and on and on are the kinds of things that have been funded with RSA money, Federal earmarks etc. Typically things that NMFS cannot afford within it's own budget or things that perhaps NMFS does not see as a priority (within their limited budget) but would like to see done anyway.

My biggest question is, Will any of this REALLY help the fishery or will it just add another bureaucratic level to the regs? That is yet to be seen...Hopefully, it will all work out for the benefit of the angler and the fishery.

The only way to answer that is to do it.

[CaptTB]

So Capt Tb.. If the fishery is that could why did we have to loose a week and give up 2 fish??

If I understand the question, you are wondering why we had to make our regs stricter even though the fishery is doing well?

Short answer I already gave:  If you caught more fish in 2008 than your are allocated in 2009, keeping the same regs will not restrict you to the 2009 landings any better than they did the year before. Regardless of the health of the fishery, be it rebuilt or failing or anything in between, the regs have NOTHING to do with the health of the stock other than this:  The QUOTA is what is supposed to help the stock, by restricting catch to a sustainable level. The regs are designed to keep you within that quota, so that is the only thing they have to do with the stock health. They are a means to keep your landings at a certain level, period.

If you catch 1000 fish in 2008, and you were only allocated 800, you caught too many. If in 2009 the quota allows you to catch 100 fish, things can stay the same. If the quota for 2009 only allows 900 fish and you caught 1000 in 2008, you will still have to restrict your landings further. Yes, the stock grew and so did the quota, but not enough to match your landings from the previous year.

That is exactly what happened this past year. The quota for 2009 went up 3 million pounds from the year before. However, certain states (NY and NJ two of them) supposedly caught more fish in 2008 than allocated for 2009, hence the further tightening of our regs.

I understand some of this.. but its pretty fustrating for to tell clients to release short fish while a dragger kills more in bycatch and has a shorter size limit??

Something just don't make sense.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Currently, NMFS estimates that our discards are HIGHER than the commercial sector (have been for several years) as are the number of DEAD discards, and if you are familiar with commercial fishing you know that increasing their size limit will only serve to increase their discards, just like ours. Difference is, our release mortality rate is only figured at 10%, while theirs is around 60-90%. So, the logic all along has been to set a size limit that allows the fish they catch to spawn at least once before they are removed from the stock (which a 14" fish has) and to try and keep their discards to a minimum. Raising the size limit does to them what it does to us, makes you throw back more fish.

[IrishAyes]

A lot of guys have opinions on why things are done and what can be done different. We all know what 'opinions' are like. 
Capt TB, thanks for the answers to this sometimes perplexing delemna we have.

From all that I have seen and heard, the bottom line to all of this is that the MS Act must be changed. There should not be an fixed date as to when we reach their unrealistic 100% recovery goal. We need flexibility added to the Act.

Thanks go out to every one and every organization who is fighting for this.

[wb]

yes please, change MS  Act change it now base it on facts

as i said before, i will keep the fishing registry, it will be kept with low overhead and little or no recurring costs, something no govt agency or ad hoc knows anything about. hell i even promise not to sell it and back it up regularly. just pay me $5 and yer in. PM me for address to send payment.

DONT TRUST THE feds ALL THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IS bilk us FOR QUESTIONABLE BENEFIT all those blow hards do is live off our taxes

yes i do accept paypal i won't even deduct their fee

[Pfishingruven]

Yes, that all makes sense CaptTB!  I understand your points and I can see both sides of them.  Having the RSA is certainly better than not having it at all.  Sort of like the ever looming debate of the Striper Bonus Tag.

We certainly do need to get the law changed to help out our cause.

Short answer I already gave:  If you caught more fish in 2008 than your are allocated in 2009, keeping the same regs will not restrict you to the 2009 landings any better than they did the year before. Regardless of the health of the fishery, be it rebuilt or failing or anything in between, the regs have NOTHING to do with the health of the stock other than this:  The QUOTA is what is supposed to help the stock, by restricting catch to a sustainable level. The regs are designed to keep you within that quota, so that is the only thing they have to do with the stock health. They are a means to keep your landings at a certain level, period.

If you catch 1000 fish in 2008, and you were only allocated 800, you caught too many. If in 2009 the quota allows you to catch 100 fish, things can stay the same. If the quota for 2009 only allows 900 fish and you caught 1000 in 2008, you will still have to restrict your landings further. Yes, the stock grew and so did the quota, but not enough to match your landings from the previous year.

That is exactly what happened this past year. The quota for 2009 went up 3 million pounds from the year before. However, certain states (NY and NJ two of them) supposedly caught more fish in 2008 than allocated for 2009, hence the further tightening of our regs.

This is where I have a big problem with the Quota and Regs.  How do they determine and sample the amount of fish caught?  Right now, it is basically a guestimate, of which they don't ever seem to get right.  I certainly understand there is no good way and it is virtually impossible to get real time numbers of catches.  It has to be a statistical or educated guess.  However, whom ever is their actuary or statistician, obviously does not know how to do their job too well.  It seems as though, they can't even add 1+1=2.

I am still perplexed at how NJ went over the Recreational Quota in 2008.  It was my first year back in almost 10 years saltwater fishing and I have never seen such poor fluke catching and keeping from the beach/shore as I had last year.  It was extremely surprising for me.  10 years ago, every trip, I managed a keeper for a nice dinner...last year, I didn't take 1 fish!  Not 1 keeper fluke for me all year.  So, I certainly did not add to that quota!