Understanding the Management Process

[CapBob]

Received this from Tom Fote of the JCAA should help with the understanding of the complicated process in fish management.


Last year that was much talk from anglers proposing many different options.  At this time the Division of Fish and Wildlife does not have the flexibility to implement those options.  If you want to submit a proposal then you need to submit it to Tom McCloy at the Division of Fish and Wild. Here is the process that the Division of Fish and Wildlife will go through to set the regulations for 2008. 

The Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) will be having a joint meeting in Port Jefferson, NY  on August 7-8 to set the total quotas for summer flounder, black seabass, scup and bluefish for 2008.  The ASMFC can delay it actions on setting quotas until another meeting and that is what they did last year.  The MAFMC and the ASMFC will them meet in December to set the recreational size and bag limits for 2008. If ASMFC  decides to allow conservation equivalence it will send out to tables to the states that will show different options that states can pick from. These table do not leave a lot of room for new ideas.  They will also know if NJ went over the quota for 2007.  If Marine Recreational Statistical Survey says NJ has gone over the recreational Total Allowable Catch (TAL) then the tables will reflect that extra reduction.  There are not going to be any good options for 2008 since it looks as if the quota is going to be smaller and we are catching a lot of legal fish so we are probably going over the small 2007 TAL. Sometime in early 2008 the NJ Marine Fisheries Council Committee for summer flounder will have a meeting with it advisors to look at options and try to come to consensus. After that meeting at the next NJMFC full meeting the full council will vote on recommends for the size and bag limits for 2008 and forward those recommendations to the Commissioner for approval.

I hope this helps you understand the process. If any state is proposing any deviation from the tables then that deviation will have to have the necessary scientific documentation and analysis to prove that it is conservation equivalent.  The Division of Fish and Wildlife does not really have the necessary data to do special management plans.  At this time Division of Fish and Wildlife does not have the money to gather that data.  We are pretty much stuck with what comes out in the tables.  It is also not going to help if we are over and next TAL is small.

[Capt. Ed]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the info ...

This will be bad ... AGAIN!

Best wishes,

Ed

[Ruger314]

I would like to know.. How do thw come upper the knowing what we caught as the recreational sector.. Know one comes or ask what I catch..??

Except for what we post here??


This all seems like someone picks a number and goes with it??

[IrishAyes]

I understand what they are TRYING to do.  What I don't understand is this.  They DO NOT know how many fish are caugh by the recs.  Their best clue is a guess.  THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  Money being an issue IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  If they are to provide a service for the people they MUST provide an affective service or get out of the business.
In my profession, if I were to guess if someone did something wrong or not and locked them up on a guess, I would be in deep doodoo.

Perhaps these people need to go into a new line of work, something where a guess will be meaningful.  Like a carnival act, let them guess your weight and if they are wrong they can hand out a Kewpee Doll.

CaptBob, This is in no way a slight on you or your post.  I have no intentions on killing the messanger and know that you are posting this to make people aware of what is happening.  But the powers that are out there are useless.  If they know something is wrong with their system, let them change their system.

Sorry for the bitterness toward the politically appointed commitees that don't have a clue, but this cuts deep.  As I said before, if they are to provide a service, provide a meaningful service and not guess work, at best.

Again, sorry for the rant.

[vespo]

I would think that the environmental impact of commercial fishing dwarfs that of recreational fishing to the point where it almost doesn't matter what the recreational limits are.

Basically it seems that the fishery management system is just letting the commercial fishery do whatever it wants, and is taking out their frustration on the recreational sector because we simply don't have the clout to influence legislation.

That basically means that the fishery management is NOT accomplishing it's goal of regulating species biomass, AND is just aggravating the recreational guys looking for a good time or some fresh fillets.

Has the system really failed that badly? I have a sinking feeling that it has.

[Capt. Ed]

Hi Vespo,

That is partially true.

The difference between the recs and comms is that comms HAVE to weigh in their catch. Therefore, except for the bitter "bycatch issue," the government knows what they are catching, unless someone is poaching.

Being that the comms get 60% of the quota, the recs catch DOES matter.

Now, the issue. The NMFS hires people to do surveys (intercepts) and trolls (whether they know how to use the equipment or not). SO they come up with a number from computer models and bad science. No one, no even the government, argues this. HOWEVER, it is "the best available science." Until the science improves (i.e. more money spent or private research, this will not be resolved).

Add to this that the biomass may not even be able to regenerate to "what MAY have been in the 1930s" and we have problems.

It is a mess ... funny, but it is the same mess every day for the last decade. I know folks in the business that do not even go to the meetings anymore because, nothing of what we have said has been listened to.

In this case folks, it is not a recs vs. comms issue. We are all getting the shaft!

Thanks,

Capt. Ed

[IrishAyes]

Capt Ed.  They say it is the 'best science' available.  They can call it what they want, but it is NOT science.  Science is based on hard facts.  What they are doing has nothing to do with fact.  It is all guess work. They guess how much we catch.  They guess that if they raise the size limit it will help. Well guess what.  None of their guesses have panned out.  And they never will.

[Capt. Ed]

Hi Irish Ayes,

That is why it is in double quotes and please don't shoot me.

I have sat in more meetings than anyone on this board and am tired of it myself.

After graduating from a top engineering school in the country, they insult me!

Unfortunately for all of us, if you do not understand their lingo, you cannot evn start to realize how much of a joke this is.

I am getting to a point where they make fluke a gamefish and shut the whole thing down!

Catch and release for the recs and comms ... that would be funny ...

Ed

[IrishAyes]

Capt Ed, I meant no disrespect to your or your post.  I was not questioning your stance on the issue.  I know your stance is similar to mine.

I was just wiping my nose on my sleeve with all the crap that the regulators come up with.  I understand your sense of helplessness when it comes to the management issue.  Everything that is brought up by the recs is ignored.  THEY know more than anyone and THEY have probably never seen a fish except for in the store or restaurant.

The issue of management just aggravates the crap out of me.

[Capt. Ed]

Hi Irish Ayes,

I absolutely understand. No explanation necessary.

I should have said what I meant better.

What I should say is that there are a lot of people that have been fighting the good fight the past 10 years and we are just about done. Once that happens, there will be no one minding the cookie jar and "checkmate."

NMFS kisses the feet of the Pew trust related enviros; they are scared of lawsuits (why? They are the government); they don't listen; and yes I am saying this, they don't care.

I will try one more time to invest my time and yes, money, and lots of it, to try to get some season.

I am telling everyone, don't be shocked if there is next to no "reasonable" season next year and until they change the biomass target.

Best wishes and catch 'em up while you can,

Ed

[ped579]

Not to add fuel to the fire but I just read in the Hook Line and Sinker that Delaware has just passed a saltwater license.  They will charge $8.50 to start.  They also tried to justify the tax by meagerly telling what the monies will be used for. The liberal way of tax and spend tax and spend.  They will be creating more gov. jobs that will have no direct bearing on the so called decline in the biomass.  It is a bunch of bull.

Look at what California is now facing a $60.00 saltwater tax (license).

They have lost over 200,000 rec. fishermen and their revenue is down to the point that they can not fund some programs.  This is what happens when a society relies solely on the taxation of its citizens.  It will collaps in on itself.

Here we go again...

Paul

[Capt. Ed]

Hi Paul,

Agreed ... I don't care about adding fuel to the fire. This is my pet project. If people are offended, good. I have tried everything in the past to get people interested in this. Now I want them mad. Even if we cannot change the direction of what is happening, we should vote these people out. If Rep. Saxton cannot deliver on his promises (which I am sure he will say he never made but he is on the record for some quota "observations") he made to us, as fisherman last year, we should get rid of him. There are way too many people in way too long and have been lobbied to death. BTW, Rep. Saxton is my local Representative.

What happens at work if you continually underachieve? You get fired! We need to apply that to people we vote for. Everyone gets a brain cramp when they get in that voting booth, if they even vote.

In California as a non-resident and with SOME of the species stamps (not all), I paid over $125 last year. Oh, btw, there are extensive, designated areas that are closed to fishing. I would pay attention to all that as NJ in headed that way.

In Florida, I paid $34.50 with the Snook stamp.

These "taxes" succeed in removing people from the fishing pool as Paul pointed out. The money will never be seen again. It has been demonstrated in Florida and California that it evaporates into "pork projects."

Why am I disturbed? It is a further erosion of our liberties.

WE LET BUSH TAKE AWAY, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS OR THE US SUMPREME COURT, HABEAS CORPUS.

IT IS AN EROSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS POLICIES RIGHT HERE IN THE USA ... shouldn't those that need to fish to eat have the right to do so, instead of just the privileged.

IT IS AN ERROSION OF PEER REVIEW ... as a country, we used to stand above all others and have to prove our points with good science and thought. The fisheries management has not only not done that, but there has never been an independent peer review of their work, even though Magnuson-Stevenson mandates it. I should file a lawsuit against the federal government.

IT IS NOT GOING TO INSURE THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO FISH ... the politicians and environmentalists say we have to protect the fish for our children and their children. That is nice. However, a flawed management policy and flawed coastline growth strategy have to be addressed for that to happen. It has nothing to do with how many fish I catch and keep. As others like Paul have stated, this is a lot about the destruction of the estuaries, one of the first things I ever wrote on a cold January back on this site.

IT IS ABOUT "REASONABLENESS and FAIRNESS ..."

We all work in jobs that are way too stressful. We need to address matters such as this for the guy/gal that gets out with their kids once or twice a Summer and wants to have a little fun. It makes no sense to me that I can take 8 fish a day, every day of the season, and it negatively affect a guy/gal that fishes once a year. You have to put plans in place that that are fair and reasonable.

WE CANNOT BUY INTO THE ARGUEMENT THAT COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN SERVE THE GOOD OF THE NON-FISHING PUBLIC ... I hear it all the time that people rationalize the inequity of the size limit, gross bycatch and inequity of the quota between comms and recs because the Commercial folks serve the need of the people that do not fish. If the stock is in so much trouble, we should stop Commercially catching them and sending them to Japan (a fact that a large percentage end up there) and we should not care that people want "cheap fish." Each fish I catch is probably $50 a lb. if not more. Why should someone walk into the supermarket and expect to pay $10 a lb. Too bad!

I want people engaged in discussion. I want people mad. I want people to think about this!

Capt. Ed

[CapBob]

Give you a prime example of where they get there data. One of the people they hire to do fish survey's (asking anglers about their catches) was at my dock a week ago. He was there at 10 AM to interview the anglers about their catches.

Owner of the dock told him that the rentals do not come back to between 4-5 PM and the charter at the dock between 130-230 PM so to get accurate information he should come back then.

The reply "I only work a half day and I will be off".  Guess this answers many questions about the information (or lack there of) Fisheries Management is using

[ped579]

Half a day help = Half A$$ results...

Paul

[CapBob]

  amen brother!!!!!!!!!!!