cashews121

Flounder?

Rate this topic

44 posts in this topic

7 mins ago, hydraman said:

I believe overfishing these spots is a much bigger problem than global warming. 

Agreed. The article mentions the flounders predators coming earlier in the season because of global warming. Nothing has changed in the arrival of these predator fish.Unless we have an unusually cold winter and spring it's like clockwork  year to year. Even then its only a difference of a week or 2 at most. Another problem not mentioned in article is predation by birds, specifically cormorants which I believe to be a major reason for the flounders downfall. Little pancakes for those SOB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a bit of the mindset that the offshore populations drives the inshore population.  The George’s bank population crashed a couple years back, likely from commercial overharvest.  The attached photo shows the reported landings.  Keep in mind, during those periods shown, there were a lot of falsified landing coming in through New Bedford.

 

it’s funny that the article states George’s bank is doing fine???

 

 

9F42537F-6F15-459C-AFB4-C45C059AA3A7.png

Edited by Fitzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got people that have absolutely no clue writing articles like this. People in general don’t know much about the ocean. I find fishermen are usually the most knowledgeable people on these subjects. Even the commercial guys know what’s up but they make a living from fishing. So you will never get reality from them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hydraman said:

I believe overfishing these spots is a much bigger problem than global warming. 

 

"Belief" is a funny state of being. The article states it's the combination of overfishing in the past and accelerated warming now that bodes ill for winter flounder. The inshore stock was decimated, draconian reductions put in place for decades...no recovery. Why? Warming. Same with GOM cod. 

 

Here's the abstract from the actual study; no surprises here, whatsoever. Every management scheme should include climate models...it would be incredibly myopic not to. 

 

ABSTRACT

Decadal-scale climate variability and change can cause trends in oceanographic conditions that impact demographic rates. Rebuilding scenarios, therefore, developed assuming constant demographic rates may not be realistic. Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) is an important commercial and recreational species that has declined in the southern portion of its range despite reduced exploitation. Laboratory and mesocosm studies suggest that stock productivity is reduced under warmer conditions and that rebuilding to historical levels may not be possible. Our goal was to examine the rebuilding potential of winter flounder in the face of regional warming. We integrated winter temperature into a population model to estimate environmentally driven stock–recruitment parameters and projected the stock into the future under different climate and fishing scenarios. The inclusion of winter temperature had minor impacts on the estimates of current abundance, but provided greater understanding of the drivers of recruitment. Projections that included the environment suggest that rebuilding the stock to historical levels is unlikely. The integration of both fishing and the environment has the potential to provide more realistic expectations of future stock status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m laughing out loud at the fact that there are still people that believe fisherman know more about the ocean than researchers. Nevermind being well educated on ocean dynamics and the ecology of the species being examined...many log tons of time on the water, time that most on here couldn’t dream of matching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientist still don’t know much about the ocean and cooling and warming trends have been going on for thousands of years. The difference is the population boom in the last century and the overfishing is truly the reason why fish stocks are what they are. You guys keep believing in the bull**** science and people telling you what to believe. Scientists have been wrong many many times what makes anyone so sure they are right about this. Yes fishermen spend countless hours on the water. Most times more than any scientist. To Laugh at that is being very close minded and shows very little real world experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 mins ago, buddha162 said:

 

The inshore stock was decimated, draconian reductions put in place for decades...no recovery. Why?  

Because the "draconian" reductions were never as severe as biologists recommended; instead, they were always halfway measures adopted after the fishing industry--recreational and commercial--complained that the needed rules would put them out of business.

 

The New England Fishery Management Council never adopted an annual catch limit until after the 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens required it.  Instead, they tried to control landings with Days at Sea limitations and similar measures that never got overfishing under control.

 

ASMFC was just as bad.  I've been on its winter flounder advisory panel since the late 1990s.  They were supposed to reduce landings in 1999, but when NMFS wasn't willing to reduce landings offshore, ASMFC refused to reduce the kill when the fish were on their inshore spawning grounds.  On the other hand, when NMFS briefly closed the fishery about 10 years ago, ASMFC refused to go along because people needed "a fish to take home."  And then, with the population effectively collapsed, they increased the recreational season (southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock) from 60 days to 10 months.  Just because.

 

NMFS tried to shut the fishery down for a while (again, SNEMA stock), but when the trawlers complained, Pat Kurkul, who was then the regional administrator, reduced the size of the no-trawl zone instituted to reduce flounder discard mortality.  Then John Bullard came in, cut down the cod quota, but increased the winter flounder quota, using the logic that the stock wouldn't be rebuilt by the deadline anyway.

 

Here in New York, the state tried to do the right thing in the late 1980s, but the party boats complained that customers had to have the "perception" that they could have a "big day," defined as a day when they killed a big bunch of fish.  So the state backed off on proposed regulations, and everything has been too little, too late since then.

 

The results speak for themselves.

 

Having said that, we can't completely discount warming waters, etc.  As a biologist I know, who does a lot of winter flounder work, once commented, "Overfishing is what got them to their current state, but it's not what's keeping them there."  But he also believes that if the stock was adequately protected, there is a fair chance that it could be rebuilt to levels much higher than what we see now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 mins ago, hydraman said:

Scientist still don’t know much about the ocean and cooling and warming trends have been going on for thousands of years. The difference is the population boom in the last century and the overfishing is truly the reason why fish stocks are what they are. You guys keep believing in the bull**** science and people telling you what to believe. Scientists have been wrong many many times what makes anyone so sure they are right about this. Yes fishermen spend countless hours on the water. Most times more than any scientist. To Laugh at that is being very close minded and shows very little real world experience. 

an amazing amount of fail in only a few sentences!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 mins ago, CWitek said:

Because the "draconian" reductions were never as severe as biologists recommended; instead, they were always halfway measures adopted after the fishing industry--recreational and commercial--complained that the needed rules would put them out of business.

 

The New England Fishery Management Council never adopted an annual catch limit until after the 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens required it.  Instead, they tried to control landings with Days at Sea limitations and similar measures that never got overfishing under control.

 

ASMFC was just as bad.  I've been on its winter flounder advisory panel since the late 1990s.  They were supposed to reduce landings in 1999, but when NMFS wasn't willing to reduce landings offshore, ASMFC refused to reduce the kill when the fish were on their inshore spawning grounds.  On the other hand, when NMFS briefly closed the fishery about 10 years ago, ASMFC refused to go along because people needed "a fish to take home."  And then, with the population effectively collapsed, they increased the recreational season (southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock) from 60 days to 10 months.  Just because.

 

NMFS tried to shut the fishery down for a while (again, SNEMA stock), but when the trawlers complained, Pat Kurkul, who was then the regional administrator, reduced the size of the no-trawl zone instituted to reduce flounder discard mortality.  Then John Bullard came in, cut down the cod quota, but increased the winter flounder quota, using the logic that the stock wouldn't be rebuilt by the deadline anyway.

 

Here in New York, the state tried to do the right thing in the late 1980s, but the party boats complained that customers had to have the "perception" that they could have a "big day," defined as a day when they killed a big bunch of fish.  So the state backed off on proposed regulations, and everything has been too little, too late since then.

 

The results speak for themselves.

 

Having said that, we can't completely discount warming waters, etc.  As a biologist I know, who does a lot of winter flounder work, once commented, "Overfishing is what got them to their current state, but it's not what's keeping them there."  But he also believes that if the stock was adequately protected, there is a fair chance that it could be rebuilt to levels much higher than what we see now.

 

Thank you, once again reality is worse than perception when it comes to fisheries (mis)management. I was under the impression that once the data showed how drastically the flounder population plummeted, every measure was taken to right the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt the scientists in charge of management have more knowledge than any of us in the science but sometimes it seems like they lack common sense. Take black sea bass in Massachusetts. 5 fish limit. Have they ever gone fishing in Massachusetts? Can't fish for other species without catching them. Guys that troll for bass catch them on 9er rigs and tubes to the point of annoyance. They also decimate the juvenile lobster population. Ask a lobsterman around here about them. They won't have kind words.Catch all my biggest every year right next to traps and find plenty of lobsters in stomachs as well as big claws ripped of keepers. Letting 1 species get so abundant so that it starts another's decline.  Seems like "genius" management to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.