BASS BARN banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Lets bring the discussion to a new thread, I dont need the thread with the running tally of the SSFFF donation to turn into a back and forth discussion or get locked up.

Ill start with two questions again to get us started:

1. Didnt the scallopers have to take the findings of their scientific study to Washington in order to change the regs, or did they just see there were scallops out there and decide they should start harvesting them again on their own? Was their plight not similar to the one that faces many tackle shops, boats and other businesses now?

3. If I am not going to support SSFFF, what do I do? Sit back and take this nonsense up the rear and feel good about myself for letting a moratorium happen on the most popular fish that is present at great levels?

RyanF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I can lead a horse to water....

Wow! I'm famous. Got my own thread named after me and everything.

In the other thread, Ryan F. wrote:
One other things, did the scallopers not take the findings of their scientific studies to Washington???? Of course they did in order to change the course of the management.

http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131806&page=4
No.

Where do you come up with this "of course they did" nonsense?

Nevermind.

The scallopers hired folks to do video surveys of the bottom. This method was more advanced than the traditional methods and provided a sample with better density.

The scallopers then took those findings and gave it to the Assessment Working Group that deals with scallops. Not Washington. These are the same folks who have always conducted the assessments of abundance and such. They took the science provided by the scallopers and incorporated it into the assessment as just another piece of information along with everything else - including the traditional methods of gathering data.

Mind you, the scientists hired by the scallopers made some wildly high claims of abundance based on their findings. Due to this and the fact that this was "outsider" info (for lack of a better word), there was considerable controversey on whether or not to accept it. But the long and short of it is that when the assessment working group was finished, they agreed that scallops were more abundant than previously thought but not as abundant as the scallopers thought. Nonetheless it made a big difference, and it payed off.

So to reiterate, the scallop solution was a privately funded scientific one - NOT A POLITICAL ONE!!!!!

Now lets look at what SSFFF is doing with regard to the summer flounder science.

SSFFF has hired Dr. Mark Maunder, a respected fishery scientist. As I understand it, Dr. Maunder's role is not to find some smoking-gun new information like the scallopers did. Rather he is going to be working side by side as part of the the Southern Demersal Working Group. This group has always been tasked with assessing Fluke. Jessica Coakley of the Mid Atlantic Council's staff is chairing this group of numerous scientists, of which Dr. Maunder is one of many. I believe that the commercial equivilent of SSFFF, called PMAS (or something) have also hired another scientist to assist the assessment working group.

So there are one or two (or more??) privately funded scientists that have been integrated into the assessment process via the Demersal Working Group that includes a bunch of government scientists.

Mind you that as far as I can tell ALL OF THIS IS WELCOME BY THE DEMERSAL GROUP. Because it keeps all folks engaged and working together. Not to mention that additional folks don't come cheap and the council doesn't have to pay for them because esomeone else is.

In other words, I give SSFFF credit for doing this part right.

Now when that working group finishes, they MAY change the mortality targets and thresholds and other biological reference points. In other words, right now, the fluke biomass target is 197 million pounds and we are only about 1/2 way there. Maybe the Demersal Working Group comes back with a lower number or a higher number or the same number. Whatever way, SSSFFF will be pretty much forced/hardwired into accepting the results because they have their own guy integrated into the very process that is setting/validating the biological reference points.

OK. Well. Actually it doesn't end with the Demeral Working Group. Once they are done (preumably in June 2008), they hand off their findings to the Stock Assessment Review Committee. This is a group of 4 internationally renowned scientists who will review the work of the Demersal group. Then it goes to the MAFMC stock monitoring committee. And then the MAFMC Science and statistical committee.

And if nothing gets held up, there will be a "final rule" from NMFS sometime during the last week of December 2008 to set the TACs and such for 2009 - FOR GOOD OR ILL.

All of this, by the way, I have no problem with whatsoever. This is actually a better approach than the scallopers because the scallopers were trying to rock the boat with new information. On the other hand SSFFF, via Dr. Maunder, is working from the start as part of the process.

But what you need to understand is that all this does is lend added credibility to whatever the Demersal Working group comes up with - for good or ill. This is NOT an effort to find more fish like the scallopers did with privately funded surveys with new methods. That said, there may be some wiggle room in the way the assesment is done with all of the data gathered in all the traditional ways for fluke. But I, like Egghead, doubt that wiggle room will exceed 30% because that is already the stated perent that the current assessment could be off. Remember, it could be DOWN by 30% too.

Anyway, I wish them all luck. Let's hope they do come back with some good news.

And let's say they do decide that they have been off 30% (but don't bank on it). That amount will be added to the current progress on rebuilding. So for argument's sake. let's say that gets us to 75% of the rebuilding goal of 197 million pounds. How are we going to get to the remaining 25% in order to fully rebuild fluke by 2013?

As we know recruitment has seemed to stall, so what has changed to help that?

- Have the outrageous recreational overages been controled? Nope.

- Have the outrageous discards of fluke been addressed in the commercial yellowtail fishery? Nope.

- Have the outrageous discards of fluke been addressed in the commercial skate fishery? Nope.

- And on and on.... Nope.

No one simply dares to "go there" when it comes to getting real with what needs to be done. Because, the demonstrable truth is that even the progress that has been made thus far wouldn't have occured if it weren't for the enviro orgs holding the MAFMC accountable - since the rec and comm fishing industry has gone kicking and screaming. And that, fundamentally, is the beef I have with all of this flexibility-bill-of-the-month club nonsense.

Because SSFFF, RFA, GSSA, you name em, they all know that the science end isn't going to bail them out of all the procrastenation and kicking-and -screaming and delays that got everyone into this predicament.

Ultimately, they are banking on the Jones or Pallone bill to ensure they never have to be accountable to a finite time to rebuld ever.

If you don't believe that then ask Tony Bogan to answer the question I posed to him on The Barn:

I asked of CaptTB:

But I'd be happy to know where I am wrong. Please, by all means, illuminate me and any one else as to where either of your "flexibility" bills provides for any meaningful consequence for not staying on target?
I'm tired and I need to head to bed. I would like to address more of your questions. I'll try to get to them tomorrow but don't hold it against me if I get to it later than that.


Hope this helps,
Mike F.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,940 Posts
flatts1 said:
Wow! I'm famous. Got my own thread named after me and everything.



No.

Where do you come up with this "of course they did" nonsense?

Nevermind.

The scallopers hired folks to do video surveys of the bottom. This method was more advanced than the traditional methods and provided a sample with better density.

The scallopers then took those findings and gave it to the Assessment Working Group that deals with scallops. Not Washington. These are the same folks who have always conducted the assessments of abundance and such. They took the science provided by the scallopers and incorporated it into the assessment as just another piece of information along with everything else - including the traditional methods of gathering data.

Mind you, the scientists hired by the scallopers made some wildly high claims of abundance based on their findings. Due to this and the fact that this was "outsider" info (for lack of a better word), there was considerable controversey on whether or not to accept it. But the long and short of it is that when the assessment working group was finished, they agreed that scallops were more abundant than previously thought but not as abundant as the scallopers thought. Nonetheless it made a big difference, and it payed off.

So to reiterate, the scallop solution was a privately funded scientific one - NOT A POLITICAL ONE!!!!!

Now lets look at what SSFFF is doing with regard to the summer flounder science.

SSFFF has hired Dr. Mark Maunder, a respected fishery scientist. As I understand it, Dr. Maunder's role is not to find some smoking-gun new information like the scallopers did. Rather he is going to be working side by side as part of the the Southern Demersal Working Group. This group has always been tasked with assessing Fluke. Jessica Coakley of the Mid Atlantic Council's staff is chairing this group of numerous scientists, of which Dr. Maunder is one of many. I believe that the commercial equivilent of SSFFF, called PMAS (or something) have also hired another scientist to assist the assessment working group.

So there are one or two (or more??) privately funded scientists that have been integrated into the assessment process via the Demersal Working Group that includes a bunch of government scientists.

Mind you that as far as I can tell ALL OF THIS IS WELCOME BY THE DEMERSAL GROUP. Because it keeps all folks engaged and working together. Not to mention that additional folks don't come cheap and the council doesn't have to pay for them because esomeone else is.

In other words, I give SSFFF credit for doing this part right.

Now when that working group finishes, they MAY change the mortality targets and thresholds and other biological reference points. In other words, right now, the fluke biomass target is 197 million pounds and we are only about 1/2 way there. Maybe the Demersal Working Group comes back with a lower number or a higher number or the same number. Whatever way, SSSFFF will be pretty much forced/hardwired into accepting the results because they have their own guy integrated into the very process that is setting/validating the biological reference points.

OK. Well. Actually it doesn't end with the Demeral Working Group. Once they are done (preumably in June 2008), they hand off their findings to the Stock Assessment Review Committee. This is a group of 4 internationally renowned scientists who will review the work of the Demersal group. Then it goes to the MAFMC stock monitoring committee. And then the MAFMC Science and statistical committee.

And if nothing gets held up, there will be a "final rule" from NMFS sometime during the last week of December 2008 to set the TACs and such for 2009 - FOR GOOD OR ILL.

All of this, by the way, I have no problem with whatsoever. This is actually a better approach than the scallopers because the scallopers were trying to rock the boat with new information. On the other hand SSFFF, via Dr. Maunder, is working from the start as part of the process.

But what you need to understand is that all this does is lend added credibility to whatever the Demersal Working group comes up with - for good or ill. This is NOT an effort to find more fish like the scallopers did with privately funded surveys with new methods. That said, there may be some wiggle room in the way the assesment is done with all of the data gathered in all the traditional ways for fluke. But I, like Egghead, doubt that wiggle room will exceed 30% because that is already the stated perent that the current assessment could be off. Remember, it could be DOWN by 30% too.

Anyway, I wish them all luck. Let's hope they do come back with some good news.

And let's say they do decide that they have been off 30% (but don't bank on it). That amount will be added to the current progress on rebuilding. So for argument's sake. let's say that gets us to 75% of the rebuilding goal of 197 million pounds. How are we going to get to the remaining 25% in order to fully rebuild fluke by 2013?

As we know recruitment has seemed to stall, so what has changed to help that?

- Have the outrageous recreational overages been controled? Nope.

- Have the outrageous discards of fluke been addressed in the commercial yellowtail fishery? Nope.

- Have the outrageous discards of fluke been addressed in the commercial skate fishery? Nope.

- And on and on.... Nope.

No one simply dares to "go there" when it comes to getting real with what needs to be done. Because, the demonstrable truth is that even the progress that has been made thus far wouldn't have occured if it weren't for the enviro orgs holding the MAFMC accountable - since the rec and comm fishing industry has gone kicking and screaming. And that, fundamentally, is the beef I have with all of this flexibility-bill-of-the-month club nonsense.

Because SSFFF, RFA, GSSA, you name em, they all know that the science end isn't going to bail them out of all the procrastenation and kicking-and -screaming and delays that got everyone into this predicament.

Ultimately, they are banking on the Jones or Pallone bill to ensure they never have to be accountable to a finite time to rebuld ever.

If you don't believe that then ask Tony Bogan to answer the question I posed to him on The Barn:



I'm tired and I need to head to bed. I would like to address more of your questions. I'll try to get to them tomorrow but don't hold it against me if I get to it later than that.


Hope this helps,
Mike F.
I could be wrong here but I want to try to clarify/expand on the comment I put in bold an italics.

I think CCA (the biggest rec group in the country) has also 'held the feet to the fire'. Also, ASA is a rec industry group. Despite the (my words) recent statements of empathy ASA has steadfastly defended the current MSA and is not supporting the Pallone bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,158 Posts
Ryan, pack your gear, take a drive, and get the winter rust off. I can tell by your topics lately you are either going stir-crazy due to lack of fishing or you just like to stir the pot, but regardless, GET OUT AND GO FISHING!!!! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,378 Posts
egghead said:
I think CCA (the biggest rec group in the country) has also 'held the feet to the fire'.
It's a fish very few of their members have any concern with. They come off looking very pro conservation while not effecting the catch of their members.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
flatts, nice post and it clarified a lot of things, but I am still confused as to how the scallopers got their regs, quota, whatever changed if the information wasnt presented to anyone in Washington?

With the flexibility-of-the-month nonsense, you seem to agree with the 10 year time limit for rebuilding a stock? A random number that is universally applied to all species of fish with complete disregard to the differences between fish species that affect their stock sizes? Fish seem to get classified as a whole entity under the 10 year plan.

RyanF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
egghead said:
I could be wrong here but I want to try to clarify/expand on the comment I put in bold an italics.

I think CCA (the biggest rec group in the country) has also 'held the feet to the fire'. Also, ASA is a rec industry group. Despite the (my words) recent statements of empathy ASA has steadfastly defended the current MSA and is not supporting the Pallone bill.
Yes.

Those groups have been critical of the predictable nonsense that lead us to where we are today. Especially CCA.

As you know Egghead, I have had some hard feelings of my own toward CCA and how they operated here in Mass. That said, I have to give CCA major kudos for their position and helping to bring some sanity to the Fluke mess.

But back to holding the Mid Atlantic Council accountable. While it is great to have mainstream fishermen groups and publishers like CCA and SportFishing magazine speaking out against industry attempts at weakening MSA, what I was refering to with "the progress that has been made thus far wouldn't have occured if it weren't for the enviro orgs" remark is based on where the RESULTS have actually been made.

As you know, so often it takes a single judge to actually do the job of entire federal and psuedo-federal agencies that are unwilling to do their job.

The demonstrable truth is that it was the enviros who had to sue the MAFMC into compliance. It was that lawsuit from the Natural Resources Defence Council in 2000 that actually forced the Councils to put forth FMPs that had at least a 50% chance of meeting rebuilding goals. I don't think CCA or ASA were involved in that lawsuit (in favor of a better standard of success). But I would be glad if I was wrong.

Now 50% might not sound like much. And in fact it is often referred to as management decisions that are based on the "flip of a coin". However, before that lawsuit was initiated by the enviros, the folks at the MAFMC (many of whom have a financial conflict of interest) were putting forth a plan with an 18 percent chance of success in meeting the target mortality rates.

For those of you in Brielle New Jersey, that's an 82 percent chance of failure. Which anyone outside of NJ would consider a sad and pitiful joke. Or one might even say "ammo" for some orgs to point out how fishermen (rec and comm) need to be protected from themselves. Thanks guys! As if NE groundfish management wasn't enough ammo for that.

But, of course, it doesn't stop there. As mentioned in another thread in 2006 United Boatmen sued the secretary of Commerce to put forth a plan for Fluke that the President of United Boatmen himself conceeded had only a 25 percent chance of success, at least in its first year of implementation.

For those of you in Breille New Jersey, that is a 75 percent chance of failure. And again, just more "ammo".

I don't think that CCA or ASA were involved in that 2006 lawsuit (against UB). I would be glad if I was wrong.

Best,
Mike F.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Maybe there is just too much being tossed around this spring, but by mortality rates do you mean fish culled and fish released that dont survive? If you arent in compliance, does that mean that more fish are being killed through harvesting and catch and release than the allowable overfishing number?

Where are all these small fish coming from if that has been the problem? How is the biomass chart climbing steadily since 1980 if that is the case?

I think we are running around in circles here. We all want healthy fish stocks, but its hard to agree with the increased size limits, decreased bag limits, decreased seasons and all that when we seem to be on the right track???? I am no genius, but I am no dumba$$ either, and the current course of fisheries management just doesnt seem to add up to me.

I dont think that the enviros goal is to create healthy fish stocks in order for fisherman to have a great resource at their hands. Fisheries management is just a platform where they can push their agenda, and probably the best forum for them to do so. If they can convince the common people and the law-making bodies that there is a problem, the initial reaction is always to help save the fish. And it should be, but where this push is coming from should be evaluated.

RyanF
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top