The House is about to pass a bill reducing the limit of “flounder” to 15 per person and 30 per boat. DNR presented evidence that the Inshore species (Southerns) are slightly declining, but evidence suggests that the 2 offshore/nearshore species (Summer and Gulf) are increasing. I tried to amend the bill to differentiate between the species, but DNR believed it would be too difficult to determine between the species. My argument is that we require anglers to know the difference between a gag and a scamp, a silk and a lane…and hunters to know the difference between the duck species IN FLIGHT! There is definitely a difference in these 3 species. One is declining, (supposidly) and 2 are increasing. If we’re going to use science to cut limits, we should be equally amenable to using science to increase limits. Tell your representatives that you want to distinguish between the more abundant and less abundant species of flounder.
I do not agree that the three species could be distinguished with any certainty by the fishing public or that there would be sufficent propoganda to educate the masses. Remember, 50% of the population are below average.
More important is the bag limit. Personally I think it is a rediculous amount currently. I would like to see the per person amount reduced even more, but the boat limit can remain high though. I would also like to see the minimum size go up to at least 15".
Iain Pelto
Sea Hunt Triton 160 w/ 90 ETEC “JB3”
Native Manta Ray 14
I never catch enough of em to impact it either way lol…but 15-20 a person does seem to be a lot…
“Fish On”
I agree with Hairball and StumpNocker.
Semper Fi
18’ Sterling
115 Yamaha
Big Ugly Homemade Blue Push Pole
quote:
Originally posted by HoofArdedI agree with Hairball and StumpNocker.
Semper Fi
18’ Sterling
115 Yamaha
Big Ugly Homemade Blue Push Pole
Me too.
Guys,
We all agree that this is a reasonable limit for recreational Southern flounder. The point is, that our government is willing to continually reduce our limits and access to fisheries, however, when the science says otherwise (a gain in population), the government doesn’t listen.
ps, this will substantially effect the 1500 people that have land-sell permits.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
Could the reason be that even though southern flounder have declined in abundance recently they still make up the large majority of the catch compared to the relatively small but increasing numbers of summer and gulf flounder most anglers encounter. They are probably just trying to keep it simple for a change. To most people a flounder is a flounder especially once they are on ice and the markings become less obvious.
quote:
Originally posted by hungryneckCould the reason be that even though southern flounder have declined in abundance recently they still make up the large majority of the catch compared to the relatively small but increasing numbers of summer and gulf flounder most anglers encounter. They are probably just trying to keep it simple for a change. To most people a flounder is a flounder especially once they are on ice and the markings become less obvious.
Yes. Correct. My point is that if we’re going to rely on science, it should be good science and we should listen. Cherry-picking is a dangerous slippery slope…as evidenced by the atrocious decisions of the SAFMC.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
Is there any info in the bill related to flounder and the commmercial impact? I’m fine with the reduction in the limit only if the commercial fisherman takes a hit in the process also. What is good the recreational fisherman is good for the commercial fisherman too.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
There are no differences between the two in the bill. It doesn’t mention the commercial fishery.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
quote:
Originally posted by yellabirdThe House is about to pass a bill reducing the limit of “flounder” to 15 per person and 30 per boat. DNR presented evidence that the Inshore species (Southerns) are slightly declining, but evidence suggests that the 2 offshore/nearshore species (Summer and Gulf) are increasing. There is definitely a difference in these 3 species. One is declining, (supposidly) and 2 are increasing. If we’re going to use science to cut limits, we should be equally amenable to using science to increase limits.
Just to play devils advocate, why increase limits? Why not tighten them up to improve the fishery as a whole? Why does every fish caught have to be stabbed with a filet knife?
15 flounder per angler daily is excessive. I’d argue that most rod/reel fishermen aren’t going to consistently catch 15 per person daily, a good gigger would have a better chance of hitting that number.
I’m all for eating fish, but too many people have the mindset that they have to fill the freezer or keep everything that they can stick a hook into. The population is growing, and pressure on our resources is only going to keep growing. To me it’s smart to head off a future crash in a fishery by tightening things up before numbers drop precipitously.
quote:
Originally posted by pitcherI’m all for eating fish, but too many people have the mindset that they have to fill the freezer or keep everything that they can stick a hook into. The population is growing, and pressure on our resources is only going to keep growing. To me it’s smart to head off a future crash in a fishery by tightening things up before numbers drop precipitously.
Nailed it.
Semper Fi
18’ Sterling
115 Yamaha
Big Ugly Homemade Blue Push Pole
I’m obviously not explaining myself very well based on the last few comments. I have no problem with reducing the limits of the fish that show a valid scientific basis for reducing. I do have a problem with reducing limits on fish that have shown an increase. Period.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
quote:
Originally posted by yellabirdI’m obviously not explaining myself very well based on the last few comments. I have no problem with reducing the limits of the fish that show a valid scientific basis for reducing. I do have a problem with reducing limits on fish that have shown an increase. Period.
</font id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”>My unscientific example is pictures of fish my father, uncles, and grandfather caught years ago. They used to haul in huge stringers on the regular. I think lower bag limits are fine. Apparently the rest of the House agrees.
I do appreciate you paying attention to these matters and keeping us informed. Thank you for the work you do.
Semper Fi
18’ Sterling
115 Yamaha
Big Ugly Homemade Blue Push Pole
quote:
Originally posted by yellabirdI’m obviously not explaining myself very well based on the last few comments. I have no problem with reducing the limits of the fish that show a valid scientific basis for reducing. I do have a problem with reducing limits on fish that have shown an increase. Period.
You originally posted that “evidence suggests” the numbers of Summer and Gulf flounder are increasing. That statement in itself shows that they aren’t entirely sure, just kind of sure.
That’s why I posted my devils advocate position…why increase the limits? 15 flounder per fisherman is excessive as it is. There’s no reason to automatically up the limit every time a species “might possibly” show an increase in numbers. The only reason to do that is to prevent overpopulation and resultant stunting.
Again, most rod/reel fishermen aren’t going to consistently catch 15 flounder per day. The best shot you have doing that is gigging inshore, or spearfishing offshore.
Why not tighten the numbers, and develop a better fishery? I appreciate your posting, I think it’s a worthwhile topic to discuss.
quote:
Originally posted by pitcherquote:
Originally posted by yellabirdI’m obviously not explaining myself very well based on the last few comments. I have no problem with reducing the limits of the fish that show a valid scientific basis for reducing. I do have a problem with reducing limits on fish that have shown an increase. Period.
You originally posted that “evidence suggests” the numbers of Summer and Gulf flounder are increasing. That statement in itself shows that they aren’t entirely sure, just kind of sure.
That’s why I posted my devils advocate position…why increase the limits? 15 flounder per fisherman is excessive as it is. There’s no reason to automatically up the limit every time a species “might possibly” show an increase in numbers. The only reason to do that is to prevent overpopulation and resultant stunting.
Again, most rod/reel fishermen aren’t going to consistently catch 15 flounder per day. The best shot you have doing that is gigging inshore, or spearfishing offshore.
Why not tighten the numbers, and develop a better fishery? I appreciate your posting, I think it’s a worthwhile topic to discuss.
My lack of clarity is the problem. DNR stated with the same certainty that the inshore species was slightly decreasing, and the offshore species was slightly increasing. The evidence is clear.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
I wonder what time frame they base their data on. Would you know by chance? You talk to the older fellas and they will say quantity and quality are down considerably from 20-30 years ago.
While increased regulation is a slippery slope sometimes, I agree with most that limits are quite high and even the reduction would be a significant amount of fish to keep.
Maybe they are being more PROactive than REactive. More fisherman every day on our waters.
Vinman
“Every saint has a past, every sinner a future”
www.summervillesaltwateranglers.com
2011 Carolina Skiff 178DLV
90 HP Honda
quote:
Originally posted by yellabirdquote:
Originally posted by pitcherquote:
Originally posted by yellabirdI’m obviously not explaining myself very well based on the last few comments. I have no problem with reducing the limits of the fish that show a valid scientific basis for reducing. I do have a problem with reducing limits on fish that have shown an increase. Period.
You originally posted that “evidence suggests” the numbers of Summer and Gulf flounder are increasing. That statement in itself shows that they aren’t entirely sure, just kind of sure.
That’s why I posted my devils advocate position…why increase the limits? 15 flounder per fisherman is excessive as it is. There’s no reason to automatically up the limit every time a species “might possibly” show an increase in numbers. The only reason to do that is to prevent overpopulation and resultant stunting.
Again, most rod/reel fishermen aren’t going to consistently catch 15 flounder per day. The best shot you have doing that is gigging inshore, or spearfishing offshore.
Why not tighten the numbers, and develop a better fishery? I appreciate your posting, I think it’s a worthwhile topic to discuss.
My lack of clarity is the problem. DNR stated with the same certainty that the inshore species was slightly decreasing, and the offshore species was slightly increasing. The evidence is clear.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
<
I wasn’t suggesting an increase…just that we don’t lump them all together.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
40 years ago I could fill a cooler full of big flounder, bull whiting, croaker and spotail every single time we went out, even just off of the surfs at Sullivans Folly or Breach Inlet… I could catch 20 trout on the top of a rising tide standing in waist high water at night under the Cosgrove Bridge… today, never happen and rarely do u find someone that remembers those days… the population has exploded here as has the amount of fishermen, but I really think the tons of shrimping and fishing boats we had off our coast in the 90’s was astounding and did more damage than a fleet of 18’ CC boats could even dream of doing… most of them have been gome for awhile, and the fish population is coming back IMO… maybe clamp down some more on the commercial and gigging and things will continue to improve… justa guess
Sea Hunt Triton 177
115 Yamaha