Weakfish meeting

[Jim Hutchinson- Jr.]

According to the 2009 report of the 48th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, natural mortality on weakfish has risen substantially in the past four years, to the point where these same scientists say "at this higher level of natural mortality the stock is unlikely to recover in six years to any biomass reference level even under a scenario of no directed fishing."

 

In other words, while a complete moratorium sounds like a beautiful endeavor to protect the future of our weakfish, scientists would argue that a moratorium will not allow the stock to recover. The report states that the weakfish "stock is currently depleted," but it's not inches away from endangered species status as Benny's Landing has indicated in several posts on various websites (an ESA listing is officially designated by the federal government to protect critically imperiled species from becoming extinct; weakfish stocks are certainly low and in need of attention, but extinction is a bit of hyperbole.)

 

The report latest SAW report goes on to state "All models investigated indicate that weakfish spawning stock biomass is below the overfished biomass threshold. The analyses found that factors such as predation, competition and changes in the environment may have had a stronger influence on recent weakfish stock dynamics than fishing mortality."

 

Furthermore, the reports states "The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission describes the weakfish stock as 'depleted' because stock biomass is below the biomass threshold, and fishing mortality is not considered to be the primary cause."

 

While Jim Donofrio has a good friend in Jesus Christ, the son of God has not yet answered Jimmy's prayers to stop global warming and stem the proliferation of spiny dogs. We're working on it, but to infer the RFA has a responsibility in declining weakfish stocks is not something the Stock Assessment Workshop folks considered in their recent assessment.

 

This Benny's Landing character is leading an admirable charge to save weakfish, but by saying "my statements are true" while blaming RFA for the collapse in weakfish stocks is actually defamatory, borderline libel, and fairly moronic.

 

There was a joint hearing of the Senate/Assembly environmental committees in Lacey Township last week, not sure if anyone attended (I didn't seen anyone with a Benny's Landing t-shirt) but there was a lot of good information presented about the current state of the Barnegat Bay, with particular attention to the need for closed cycle cooling at Oyster Creek. RFA has been exhaustively looking to track down the stimulus package funds promised in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which would dedicate $20 billion to helping make plants like Salem and Oyster Creek more ecologically friendly (and perhaps save the future larva of weakfish, flounder, and other inshore estuarine species.)

 

Check out RFA Seeks Stimulus Funds for some more scientific analysis from RFA on where some of our weakfish have gone in the past.

 

By the way, environmental groups and commercial lobbying entities have been asking us to step aside for many years, we have been committed to representing our members since 1996, and we're not about to step aside for you or anyone else at this time. Good to see new folks coming into the fisheries management fight, but if you're going to carry a weapon into battle, I suggest you brush up on your rules of engagement first and figure out who's the enemy and who's a friend. C-Fish recommended you call the RFA office sometime, I'd be happy to discuss.

 

Big picture folks, there's more to this collapse in weakfish (and winter flounder for that matter) than can simply be blamed by saying that overfishing is the problem - this is the same argument preservationists are using to implement marine reserves. We need to start gathering the best science we can and start being the conservationists we've always been, and for folks like Bennys Landing (or John or Ken or whatever his name is), that means by working with the groups like RFA who have been fighting these battles, as opposed to trying to tear us down.

 

Jim Hutchinson (www.joinrfa.org)

[TimS]

This Benny's Landing character is leading an admirable charge to save weakfish, but by saying "my statements are true" while blaming RFA for the collapse in weakfish stocks is actually defamatory, borderline libel, and fairly moronic.

 

Psst....Jim...anyone capable of understanding the words used in these threads knows blaming the RFA for weakfish stock troubles is moronic

 

 

Problem is, don't we have a responsibility as stewards of the fish we target to recognize serious stock problems and do everything we can to eliminate as much angler (recreational and commercial) caused mortality as possible? I know that's not something anyone in any fishing industry wants to consider, not in these already suffocating economic times. For the assessment to suggest that (they used the word "may" - that means there's no proof, just theories where fishing wasn't to blame) that no amount of rec/commercial reduction in harvest is going to make any difference is insane. Every weakfish not killed by recs/comms is one less the stock has to replace. The more adults that spawn successfully, the more young get recruited. Etc, etc, etc. Global warming and dogfish probably have some impact but to suggest that a bottomless commercial quota and many years of a 14 fish recreational daily bag plus a substantial release mortality (weakfish are big babies once you unhook them ) - it seems absurd I can't imagine a scenario where killing less fish wouldn't help...and I'm trying.

 

 

If they are overfished as bad as it sounds, any rec or comm targeting of weakfish would be overfishing, right? I thought there were triggers and safeguards in place to prevent - or at the very least stop - overfishing? They didn't disappear overnight

 

 

Now I'm gonna have to buy Gary lunch so we can talk about weakfish

 

 

TimS

[C-Fish]

Hutch,

 

Bravo and well said. After spending 9 years on the Mid Atlantic Council representing the good folks from New Jersey I learned first hand the complexity of the issues we deal with and just how scant much of the science is that we were forced to base decisions that would effect the health of marine fisheries and millions of people. Some of the science is a little better todaym but as your post indicates, there is much more than fishing affecting fisheries. Unfortunately most of them are not being acted upon because the management system has been denied the ability to do anything more than managing fishing activities. The standing joke for years on the Council was "we don't manage fisheries, we manage fishermen!" It was all too true then and still is today and fishermen are only part of the equation necessary to build and maintain sustainable fisheries.

 

We debated many of these issues over and over in Council literally begging for the power to impact over-development, non-source point pollution, destructive fishing gears and other human activities that harm or destroy critical fish habitat because in many instances these things do more far reaching damage to fish stocks than recreational and commercial fishing combined. Especially if a stock is estuarine dependant like weakfish, winter flounder, summer flounder and so many other species around the country.

 

Power plants situated in coastal areas that pull water from coastal rivers and bays (Salem and Oyster Creek in New Jersey are prime examples, but certainly not the only ones) have had an enormous negative impact on fish stocks as larval and immature fish are sucked through the plants or die caught on intake grates by the BILLIONS! No millions, but BILLIONS! Imagine if just a small percentage of those fish had the opportunity to grow to spawning age. These plants impact weakfish particularly hard because they are both situated in estuaries where they spawn.

 

Can you image the improvement in spawning success weakfish and other species would see if these plants all went to closed cooling towers? There is no doubt it would be more beneficial to stock rebuilding than stopping all recreational fishing and banning the gillnetters. And these plants kill baitfish at an equally alarming rate, the forage so many of our favorite game fish need to grow and thrive.

 

Now before anyone goes running off half cocked over my comments I am not saying that commercial and recreational fishing does not play into the equation because it most certainly does. Fishing is a major source of mortality of fish once they make it through their juvenile life stages. So is natural mortality, which includes predation and disease. Fishing mortality, as estimated in management plans, includes the esimate of bycatch mortality in commercial fisheries and catch and release mortality by us. However, fishing mortality in total becomes more pronounced when there are so many other outside influences dragging down the stocks in their developmental stages. This is a big picture view of what we are facing and everyone has to become familiar with it. We cannot just keep managing fishermen if we are going to succeed.

 

The reason I have been involved with the RFA for so many years is because it is the one organization that balances the need for sustainable fisheries with working to protect recreational fishing while other organizations run around advocating "shut us down" before exploring the facts and the science behind the problem. It is far more difficult to demand tighter ahd tighter restrictions on anglers when an exploration of the evidence indicates that fishing is not the real culprit.

 

Weakfish are an enigma because the stocks seem so fragile and there are so many outside influences stacked against them. Honestly, I have no problem with fishing being curtailed if that is what is needed now, but that is not the sole answer to the problem and just shutting down fishing is NOT going to bring the stocks charging back to the way it was in the good old days. There are similar problems with recreationally popular fisheries around the country and the RFA has been trying to get the politicians and regulators to recognize and work on these outside problems, too. That is a good thing. A very good thing.

 

Weakfish aside there are fisheries that are rebuilding to a robust state that managers are still reducing fishing quotas on while it is not necessary. Summer flounder is a prime example. The stock assessment scientists have told us the stocks are at the highest level in over 30 years yet they wanted to reduce landings last year and this year until we stood up and said, "wait a minute, there is something wrong here." The RFA, along withs some other angler groups and folks from the retail tackle industry (the guys who have tackle stores that exist to provide goods and services to us and often fish alongside of us) got together and hired a leading scientist to review the NMFS data. He found numerous flaws and incorrect assumptions that proved to be so blatant that NMFS was forced to include his findings with that of their own scientists. Low and behold changes were made to the virtual population analysis (how's that for a confidence inspiring name for a stock assessment technique?) that clearly showed the stocks were in better shape and the assumptions they made were way off base. More over they were forced to admit that their assumption of the size of a totally rebuilt stock was just plan wrong and for all intents and purposes unattainable. As a result of all this work by an ad hoc group representing fishing (which cost a lot of money to pull off) the managers were allowed to make a small increase in the fluke quota last year instead of another major reduction and the NMFS scientists are now saying a larger quota increase is likely for 2010. None of that would not have happened without the RFA.

 

Fact of the matter is the plan has done a remarkable job of rebuilding the fluke population in the face of critical habitat losses over the past 30 years, but fluke are different from winter flounder and weakfish. They spawn offshore on the 50 fathom curve in the late fall and winter and the larvae drift inshore and into bays in the spring. Most species spawn in the bays, which means their larvae are more vulnerable to degraded habitat conditions from day one.

 

Nuff said for now. Just look at the big picture in these issues and lets try to find some common ground so we can bring constructive change to the process and allow managers to manage fisheries and not just fishermen.

[Artie Fishil]

Well said.

[C-Fish]

TimS wrote:

Problem is, don't we have a responsibility as stewards of the fish we target to recognize serious stock problems and do everything we can to eliminate as much angler (recreational and commercial) caused mortality as possible? I know that's not something anyone in any fishing industry wants to consider, not in these already suffocating economic times.

 

Hey Tim,

 

In case you haven't noticed you're part of the recreational fishing industry. You have a fishing website and sell fishing tackle through an on line store. You accept advertising from fishing companies and the site is a community (one which I like very much so don't get me wrong) that is based on sharing knowledge so we can all be better and more successful fishermen. Dare I say it might be part of the problem teaching all those goggans out there to catch more fish.

 

Now you're part of the recreational fishing industry and you are advocating reducing fishing in an effort to save weakfish. You are NOT the only one in the industry that is a conservationist nor that is willing to sacrifice today to rebuild for tomorrow. But we've been doing that for years and it has not been a the panacea that we'd been lead to believe, has it? And, if we stop all fishing and let the industry die, the ocean might or might not be teeming with fish, but one thing is for sure, there won't be any fishermen to fish for them, or tackle manufacturers to build the stuff we use to catch them, or tackle stores to stop off at to pick up some hooks and bait and shoot the shyte with other anglers, or websites devoted to fishing. Okay. Stopping recreational fishing for weakfish is a stop gap action, which I agree is probably warranted at this time and that might help in the short term, but is not the answer to the problem. If it was we wouldn't be where we are right now.

 

As for this:

a bottomless commercial quota and many years of a 14 fish recreational daily bag plus a substantial release mortality

 

One thing I learned at the Council was bag limits are a basically a joke. Remember the old saying that 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish"? Well it's not too far off the mark. So few anglers catch their bag limit that it is almost inconsequential in the overall management parameters. I always got a kick out of the fight over bag limits for fluke when I was there because the data compiled by the assessment scientists indicated that the average number of fluke kept by anglers when averaged out over all the trips taken was less than one fish per person. And surprisingly, even with the stocks at very high levels, that number hasn't changed much, just the number of anglers, which, not surprisingly, has been on the decline.

 

Now about lunch...you buying?

[MDC]

Weakfish are an enigma because the stocks seem so fragile and there are so many outside influences stacked against them. Honestly, I have no problem with fishing being curtailed if that is what is needed now, but that is not the sole answer to the problem and just shutting down fishing is NOT going to bring the stocks charging back to the way it was in the good old days.

Bingo! and while fishing isn't the problem you certainly don't want to exasperate the problem by fishing on a stock at such a low point. As always fishing less is inherently better for a stock in this sort of situation then to take still more out of the stock And if you look at those graphs you can see it.

 

But it's not the entire problem, and I'm sure it's not even a big or the biggest part.

 

I thought there were triggers and safeguards in place to prevent - or at the very least stop - overfishing? They didn't disappear overnight

Yes there are. But this is a new assessment that just came out in June. the problem has been that the assessment for weaks have failed to each and every single time it's gone up for review in the last 5 years. and we are talking literally like a peer review per year. One of the reasons the weakfish assessment has failed has been because of rotten input data. And that, my friends, is due in part because as state budgets have been slashed, so too has the sampling programs for weaks. So while it's all nice and rosy to blame the managers and the science, it comes back to underfuned sampling programs, bad or no data, and an unwillingness for those managers to do anything when lobbied to "just wait until we git more information "

[hengstthomas]

Well said.

 

? Exactly what are you referring to ? Your the guy who keeps tossing the "cycle" garbage out there and claims theres no shortage ? Just like all the rest , now you want another 10 years

[Kensdock]

According to the 2009 report of the 48th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, natural mortality on weakfish has risen substantially in the past four years, to the point where these same scientists say "at this higher level of natural mortality the stock is unlikely to recover in six years to any biomass reference level even under a scenario of no directed fishing."

 

In other words, while a complete moratorium sounds like a beautiful endeavor to protect the future of our weakfish, scientists would argue that a moratorium will not allow the stock to recover. The report states that the weakfish "stock is currently depleted," but it's not inches away from endangered species status as Benny's Landing has indicated in several posts on various websites (an ESA listing is officially designated by the federal government to protect critically imperiled species from becoming extinct; weakfish stocks are certainly low and in need of attention, but extinction is a bit of hyperbole.)

 

The report latest SAW report goes on to state "All models investigated indicate that weakfish spawning stock biomass is below the overfished biomass threshold. The analyses found that factors such as predation, competition and changes in the environment may have had a stronger influence on recent weakfish stock dynamics than fishing mortality."

 

Furthermore, the reports states "The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission describes the weakfish stock as 'depleted' because stock biomass is below the biomass threshold, and fishing mortality is not considered to be the primary cause."

 

While Jim Donofrio has a good friend in Jesus Christ, the son of God has not yet answered Jimmy's prayers to stop global warming and stem the proliferation of spiny dogs. We're working on it, but to infer the RFA has a responsibility in declining weakfish stocks is not something the Stock Assessment Workshop folks considered in their recent assessment.

 

This Benny's Landing character is leading an admirable charge to save weakfish, but by saying "my statements are true" while blaming RFA for the collapse in weakfish stocks is actually defamatory, borderline libel, and fairly moronic.

 

There was a joint hearing of the Senate/Assembly environmental committees in Lacey Township last week, not sure if anyone attended (I didn't seen anyone with a Benny's Landing t-shirt) but there was a lot of good information presented about the current state of the Barnegat Bay, with particular attention to the need for closed cycle cooling at Oyster Creek. RFA has been exhaustively looking to track down the stimulus package funds promised in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which would dedicate $20 billion to helping make plants like Salem and Oyster Creek more ecologically friendly (and perhaps save the future larva of weakfish, flounder, and other inshore estuarine species.)

 

Check out RFA Seeks Stimulus Funds for some more scientific analysis from RFA on where some of our weakfish have gone in the past.

 

By the way, environmental groups and commercial lobbying entities have been asking us to step aside for many years, we have been committed to representing our members since 1996, and we're not about to step aside for you or anyone else at this time. Good to see new folks coming into the fisheries management fight, but if you're going to carry a weapon into battle, I suggest you brush up on your rules of engagement first and figure out who's the enemy and who's a friend. C-Fish recommended you call the RFA office sometime, I'd be happy to discuss.

 

Big picture folks, there's more to this collapse in weakfish (and winter flounder for that matter) than can simply be blamed by saying that overfishing is the problem - this is the same argument preservationists are using to implement marine reserves. We need to start gathering the best science we can and start being the conservationists we've always been, and for folks like Bennys Landing (or John or Ken or whatever his name is), that means by working with the groups like RFA who have been fighting these battles, as opposed to trying to tear us down.

 

Jim Hutchinson (www.joinrfa.org)

 

Jim; Did you notice the spike increase in the weakfish stock after the ASMFC closed the wintering area off NC to commercial fly net fishing in 1995? Can you tell us when the ASMFC reopened the area to commercial fishing? I do not believe that natural mortality played a very big role at all in the decline of the weakfish stock! If you put stripers or flounder under the same pressure that the ASMFC allowed on the weakfish they would be in the same condition! The ASMFC has severely under estimated the proficiency of modern commercial fishing. It sounds like you are looking for an excuse not to support the obvious first step in helping the weakfish return. The moratorium that we should have pushed for years back. The weakfish stock should not have been allowed to decline to this point.

 

Your friend,

Ken

[MDC]

Jim; Did you notice the spike increase in the weakfish stock after the ASMFC closed the wintering area off NC to commercial fly net fishing in 1995? Can you tell us when the ASMFC reopened the area to commercial fishing?

 

Your friend,

Ken

 

It hasn't been reopened, much of the com catch is from gill nets inshore these days

[Mike_Z]

[quote=C-Fish;6285465] wrote:

 

And, if we stop all fishing and let the industry die, the ocean might or might not be teeming with fish, but one thing is for sure, there won't be any fishermen to fish for them, or tackle manufacturers to build the stuff we use to catch them, or tackle stores to stop off at to pick up some hooks and bait and shoot the shyte with other anglers, or websites devoted to fishing. Okay.

 

 

You see this is where I fundamentally disagree with you and I truly believe that this issue is actually hurting your organization and the industry you are trying to represent.

Let me assure you that if the ocean will be teeming with fish we will fish for them like there's no tomorrow, we will keep buying the equipment and keep telling the tales on web forums.

The industry is called a sport fishing industry because most of us are fishing for sport.

I take fish for the table from time to time and there is nothing wrong in my opinion in doing that if it doesn't hurt the fishery and ruin the sport. I'm not a C&R fundamentalist or a PITA member.

I work hard the whole week and when I go fishing I want to catch some fish... the bigger fish the better, the more the better and I assure you that I don't go fishing because I want to put a 24" bass on the table.

I'm not spending big $ on all the rods, plugs, reels etc. because I have to feed my hungry children.

Matter of fact this is exactly the reason why I stopped supporting your organization couple of years ago due to the whole bass fiasco.

I believe you are way out of touch with the community. Your goal is to maximize the catch of the recreational community by lowering the size limit, maximizing the bag limits etc. without any consideration to the fact that this increased pressure directly leads to having a smaller fish and in some cases collapsing fisheries.

Fight the comms, fight the polluters but at the same time try to maximize the size and numbers of fish swimming in the ocean so that the sport is worthwhile and enjoyable for us sport fishermen.

I truly believe that you are shooting yourself and your sponsors in the foot by the policy to put as many and as small fish as possible on the recreational fisherman's plate.

Just look what happened with weakfish, look what is happening with bass!

Look at the graph, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the right steps were taken 10 years ago we wouldn't have a collapse today. What were you advocating 10, 5 years ago?

Now you are saying the moratorium is the only option.

How much the collapse will cost your sponsors and the industry you represent? How much would they make if we had tons of weakfish around if you pushed for higher size limits or season closures when there still was some time to act?

For the record, do you still think that pushing for bigger bag limits and lower sizes for bass was such a great idea? How much will it cost the industry if we have another bass moratorium no doubt due to the "global warming, spiny dogfish and an old nuclear plant"?

[Kensdock]

Mike Z, You are right on target! I agree 100%.

[Artie Fishil]

? Exactly what are you referring to ? Your the guy who keeps tossing the "cycle" garbage out there and claims theres no shortage ? Just like all the rest , now you want another 10 years

 

What I'm talking about is not blaming the recreational fishermen for the shortage. As far as the "cycle" garbage goes, from what I read about the 1940's, heard about the 1950's and experienced since the 1960's, the weakfish are indeed cyclical. I never said there was no shortage and I believe the weakfish are heading to the low end of the cycle. What I meant regarding the ten years was if as stated it's already too late even with a stoppage of fishing, lets see if they are indeed cyclical by waiting for a decade.

[Shipwreck]

So one of the issues as I see it, is the fact that there are at least two ways to look at what caused the problem. Both lead to different remedies.

 

Is it big bag limits and low minimum sizes that Rec PACs demand?

 

Or is it commercial interests like comms gillnetting, nuke plants, and fertilizer effluviant that are doing the fishies in?

 

Us or them? Spy v. Spy.

 

I tend to agree that only a select few are catching limits of weaks and flatties (or anything else judging by 'skunked again' posts) If that is the case, how can it be the recs? One gillnet probably catches more weakfish that I and everyone I ever fished with ever will. Factor in a dangerous nursery know as the East Coast Estuarine System and I just dont see how the recs can be doing the type of damage we are seeing as plain as the screen in front of our faces.

[ChumSlickJon]

Shipwreck, I don't see the rec fishermen doing that much damage either. However, it's to the point that we all must do our part to fix it. total closure for recs and comms. It's not us vs. them, we're all in it together, and I wish everyone would think about that, if we don't all comply, weakfish might disappear for good.

 

Close it. Lets see what happens. I don't care what the experts chart says. My guess is that in 5 years we'll have weakfish all over. And if we don't see an increase, at least we tried something.

[Chief2]

Now first off I would like to say that my knowledge of this is EXTREMELY limited.

 

I tried to read a lot in the proposal, but as it is stupid science jargan, did dance around a BIT. But, Using what I read, they are saying that the "breeding stock" is very low, while the numbers of juveniles is fairly strong. Which is what lead them to the speculation/conclusion that there is a lot of predation and competition over land/breeding ground/food etc, had lead to the problem of fish living to the peak dreeding age and therefore replenishing the breeding stock.

 

What I would like to know if at what point do they call them juvenile, what point they call them breeding stock, the actual life-span of the fish at different sizes, and relative rec and comm limits.

 

Could it be that we(rec and comm.) are allowed to keep so many small fish this is impacting the fish?

 

Concerning Stripers, I knoe the BIG drive is to let the cows live so they can breed. I have heard in relation, a striper can be a "cow" breeder for MANY years. Can a weakfish only be in the "cow" stages of breeding for 2-3 years? If this is the case, we probably SHOULD keep the 12#+ group, NOT keep ANYTHING between 4# and 10# and severely LIMIT the 1-4# class. I don't know if I am way off base, but just trying to get a better handle on this.