 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by Gary Dickerson
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association January 1994 Newsletter)
Now that we have had a few months to reflect on the 1993 Fluke season, it's time to look ahead to 1994. Whatever you've read or heard, it must be understood that the fluke fishery is in the beginning stages of recovery, but it is certainly not a fully recovered fishery. More than 90% of the fluke in the ocean are under three years old , a precarious situation.
Since the implementation of Amendment 2 of the plan for fluke, four additional amendments have been made. Three of these have been made for the benefit of the commercial sector and will contribute to a larger portion of the fishery going to commercial interests.
Amendment 3 was the first of several soakings to water down the plan. It unjustifiably gave commercial fishermen an increase in their by-catch, doubling it from 100 pounds per trip to 200 pounds. It gave them an exempt area where they could use small mesh nets increasing the mortality (killing) of juvenile fluke. This amendment was a clear indication of the unbalanced influence that the commercial industry has on the Mid-Atlantic Council.
Amendment 4 addressed the fact that Connecticut exists and has a fluke fishery. Amendment 5 was the second soaking. This allowed commercial fishermen to land their fish in any state that would take them and have the landing counted against the quota of the state the vessel was registered in. The problem with this rule change is that North Carolina got the lion's share of the commercial quota. The inaccuracy in their allocation is created from historical landings which consisted of fish that were less than 13 inches. With the implementation of the 13 inch size limit and 5.5 inch mess size, North Carolina could not possibly catch their quota in their waters. This method of counting also created the inaccurate 60/40 ratio commercial vs. recreational allocation. When reviewing the historical recreational landings statistics versus the catch statistics, the numbers indicate an historical ratio of 49/51. The reason the allocations went to 60/40 is because the recreational fishermen was able to release small fish alive while the commercial sector either discarded or landed them. As you review table #5, note the asteric (*) by the word catch. Is one to believe that because we released small fish alive, the commercial sector was awarded 20% more fish, while they still kill the vast majority of the short fluke they catch in their nets?
Amendment 6 was another splash in the face. It allows the commercial fisherman the opportunity to carry a small mesh net on board along with the 5.5 inch mesh net. Amendment 2 stated only a 5.5 inch mesh net is allowed on board when in a directed fishery for fluke. The reason for this change is that if a commercial fisherman is offshore and can't find fluke, it enables him the opportunity to fish for another species and bring home a catch. We have commercial fishermen in New Jersey who think it is their God given right to trawl inshore waters and bays. Does any recreational fisherman feel confident that this rule change will not be abused?
The mid-Atlantic Council has four voting members from New Jersey. Not one is a true representative of the recreational fisherman. We will have an opportunity to change this situation this year. Stay tuned!
The 1994 fluke season will see a 28% increase over the 1993 catch (maybe?). This could mean an increase in the bag limit or an extended season. First, the National Marine Fisheries Service has to complete the recreational landings statistics. When the numbers are tabulated, we will provide you with the information and what to expect for his year. Let's hope the news is good.