Fluke Season 2026 Analysis

MakoMatt said:

....
Maybe the regulations need to be changed, but I think the first and easiest thing to do would be to enforce the regulations. And how do you know Virginia and North Carolina breaking the law???...

Click to expand...

Let me repeat this factoid from above :
North Carolina holds a massive share of the coastwide commercial quota (often around 20–24% of the entire East Coast allowance).
Because North Carolina boats hold these highly valuable state permits, they are legally!!!! allowed to harvest huge quantities of fluke, even if they have to steam hundreds of miles north to where the fish actually live. [1, 2, 3]

Baseline State Allocation Percentages

• • North Carolina: 27.44584%
  • Virginia: 21.31676%
  • New Jersey: 16.72499%
  • Rhode Island: 15.68298%
  • New York: 7.64699%
  • Massachusetts: 6.82046%
  • Connecticut: 2.25708%
  • Maryland: 2.03910%
  • Delaware: 0.01779%
  • Maine: 0.04756%
  • New Hampshire: 0.00046%
  • Total: 100%

hartattack said:

Let me repeat this factoid from above :
North Carolina holds a massive share of the coastwide commercial quota (often around 20–24% of the entire East Coast allowance).
Because North Carolina boats hold these highly valuable state permits, they are legally!!!! allowed to harvest huge quantities of fluke, even if they have to steam hundreds of miles north to where the fish actually live. [1, 2, 3]

Click to expand...

And they spend their summers dragging the Nantucket shoals! That fishery has already become a shell of what it was even 10 yrs ago.

please realize you all are running from the fact all your fluke by govt regulations are going to catch and releas mortality thats why they are not in you coolers and that is what has to change blame the govt not the comm fisherme this science has failed

Failed science, out of date data and a THRIVING winter trawl fishery.

I would wager that the 46% number is even higher given a large draggers ability to hide a few extra cartons of jumbos!

So many examples of mismanagement and failures along with exponentially more excuses from the Herring to cod to menhaden.......and on and on.

Jeeez, talk about someone having a 1/2 empty glass………. Happy to report mine’s 1/2 full.

It seems to me a simple solution to the “hiding fish” issue is to have observers on ALL boats, not just some.

NOAA has had many more success's that failures. It’s not a 100% understood fishery but they have made tremendous progress. Again, without NOAA, and the regulations they have implemented most local species we fish for would be near extinction.

NOAA has been in existence since 1970. They've made great progress in preserving and growing the commercial fishing industry while contracting the recreational sector.

This year's fluke season is just one example of recs getting the crumbs left at the table.

MakoMatt said:

So you would prefer they drag the bottom inshore in the Spring, or Summer, or Fall?

Click to expand...

MakoMatt said:

Baseline State Allocation Percentages

• • North Carolina: 27.44584%
  • Virginia: 21.31676%
  • New Jersey: 16.72499%
  • Rhode Island: 15.68298%
  • New York: 7.64699%
  • Massachusetts: 6.82046%
  • Connecticut: 2.25708%
  • Maryland: 2.03910%
  • Delaware: 0.01779%
  • Maine: 0.04756%
  • New Hampshire: 0.00046%
  • Total: 100%

Click to expand...

Correct, Va and NC make up almost 50% of the commercial harvest and NC, more than Va., harvests a majority of their quota in the winter up north. That wasn't the case years ago before they single handedly destroyed the southern most Chesapeake stock. Then they targeted the Mid-Atlantic biomass and now they're focused on the southern GOM biomass. Almost 50% of the entire commercial quota is taken between January through March. Why? Market demand and wholesale ex vessel prices with Christmas and New Years AND the fish are in very concentrated schools offshore. It's also the time of year the stock is furthest offshore which means commercials have to burn more fuel getting to them. That's exactly why they target the largest specimens to get 2 - 4 ex vessel catch values and kill all the juvenile and or younger age fluke caught in the process. The dead discard levels are enormous and is the primary reason we never see last year's shorts return as next years keepers. Dead discard levels are off the charts as illustrated by the chart from 2011 Larry was good enough to post. Believe me, if they were that high from federal observers 15 years ago, based on todays market prices and regulations they're substantially higher today yet NMFS allows commercials to self report 16.1% dead discard percentages on their vessel trip reports. It's completely asinine but it's how the system works. Massive amounts of waste caused by ineffective regulations and NMFS allowing the resource to be wasted and ultimately destroyed which it will be as long as commercial catch values are maximized.

BroadBill said:

Correct, Va and NC make up almost 50% of the commercial harvest and NC, more than Va., harvests a majority of their quota in the winter up north. That wasn't the case years ago before they single handedly destroyed the southern most Chesapeake stock. Then they targeted the Mid-Atlantic biomass and now they're focused on the southern GOM biomass. Almost 50% of the entire commercial quota is taken between January through March. Why? Market demand and wholesale ex vessel prices with Christmas and New Years AND the fish are in very concentrated schools offshore. It's also the time of year the stock is furthest offshore which means commercials have to burn more fuel getting to them. That's exactly why they target the largest specimens to get 2 - 4 ex vessel catch values and kill all the juvenile and or younger age fluke caught in the process. The dead discard levels are enormous and is the primary reason we never see last year's shorts return as next years keepers. Dead discard levels are off the charts as illustrated by the chart from 2011 Larry was good enough to post. Believe me, if they were that high from federal observers 15 years ago, based on todays market prices and regulations they're substantially higher today yet NMFS allows commercials to self report 16.1% dead discard percentages on their vessel trip reports. It's completely asinine but it's how the system works. Massive amounts of waste caused by ineffective regulations and NMFS allowing the resource to be wasted and ultimately destroyed which it will be as long as commercial catch values are maximized.

Click to expand...

The total estimated biomass of Fluke for 2025 from Maine to North Carolina was 89.32 million pounds. This indicates that the stock is healthy, and not overfished, and is growing. The target level NOAA is aiming for is 107.08 million pounds.

Commercial interests have been allocated 12.78 million pounds per year, roughly 59%
Recreational interests allocated 8.79 million pounds, roughly 41%

The fishing has been very good in recent years. This year was an exception. There could be many reasons for this. I know of a scientist that specifically studies Fluke. I’ll reach out to her, and see if I can get her here to answer some questions. It won’t be as entertaining as when I got Frank Mundus, but we may all learn something.

So what’s the problem?? One slow year of fishing? NOAA’s assessment of the biomass is that it’s healthy, not overfished, growing, and nearing the targeted biomass.

MakoMatt said:

The total estimated biomass of Fluke for 2025 from Maine to North Carolina was 89.32 million pounds. This indicates that the stock is healthy, and not overfished, and is growing. The target level NOAA is aiming for is 107.08 million pounds.

Commercial interests have been allocated 12.78 million pounds per year, roughly 59%
Recreational interests allocated 8.79 million pounds, roughly 41%

The fishing has been very good in recent years. This year was an exception. There could be many reasons for this. I know of a scientist that specifically studies Fluke. I’ll reach out to her, and see if I can get her here to answer some questions. It won’t be as entertaining as when I got Frank Mundus, but we may all learn something.

So what’s the problem?? One slow year of fishing? NOAA’s assessment of the biomass is that it’s healthy, not overfished, growing, and nearing the targeted biomass.

Click to expand...

Then I would ask the same question that precipitated my original post which is why do tens of millions of almost keepers EVERY year never come back as keepers the following season? And how can targeting the harvest of any stock's primary spawners AND not protecting the spawn from commercial onslaught during their offshore migration ever result in a healthy and sustainable fishery. Asking NOAA to assess the stock's health is commensurate with asking commercials to report their own dead discard percentages. The large breeders are being removed from the fishery by commercials and juveniles are being killed by the millions in that process. In 3-5 years, you'll see where this fishery is. In the late 70's, NOAA and NMFS we're saying the fluke fishery was not over fished and by 1981 the fishery collapsed which caused substantial reductions in quotas by almost 50%. As a result commercials were forced to start targeting other stocks including winter flounder which within a few years destroyed the winter flounder stock. It's never come back. We're in the process of reliving history and NOAA and NMFS will be the last to admit to it.

BroadBill said:

Then I would ask the same question that precipitated my original post which is why do tens of millions of almost keepers EVERY year never come back as keepers the following season? And how can targeting the harvest of any stock's primary spawners AND not protecting the spawn from commercial onslaught during their offshore migration ever result in a healthy and sustainable fishery. Asking NOAA to assess the stock's health is commensurate with asking commercials to report their own dead discard percentages. The large breeders are being removed from the fishery by commercials and juveniles are being killed by the millions in that process. In 3-5 years, you'll see where this fishery is. In the late 70's, NOAA and NMFS we're saying the fluke fishery was not over fished and by 1981 the fishery collapsed which caused substantial reductions in quotas by almost 50%. As a result commercials were forced to start targeting other stocks including winter flounder which within a few years destroyed the winter flounder stock. It's never come back. We're in the process of reliving history and NOAA and NMFS will be the last to admit to it.

Click to expand...

Still trying to figure out the functionality of the site so please bear with me. I posted my above reply to MakoMatt as I was running out the door yesterday and had the years wrong when the fluke stock actually collapsed in the 80's. Tried editing it but couldn't figure out how, maybe someone can provide me with some guidance.

BUT NOAA and NMFS said the fluke stock was not overfished in the early to mid 80's and was healthy. So people have the data from the assessment and for your perspective, between 1982 and 1988 commercial landings per the 66th SAW by number of fish were (and these are all in thousands) 19.768, 23.708, 32.098, 25.342, 20.554, 21.629 and 26.437 for an average of fish landed commercially for that seven year period of 24.219 million! Over those same years, 91% of age classes harvested were 2-yr old or less, 9% were 3-yr old fish and above. We weren't targeting the spawning stock and mega breeders, were leaving the spawning stock alone as a majority of the fish harvested were just reaching sexual maturity. A year later in 1989, the fishery was declared grossly overfished and commercial landings in 1989 plummeted to 11,514 and then again in 1999 to 5,159! The problems was the right size fish were being harvested, quotas were set insanely high causing the collapse.

I want to share statistics from 2017 (last year covered by the 66th SAW) to show just how bad this fishery has been managed since and still is today. In 2017, commercial landings declined to 2.454 million fish. The average age of fish harvested changed dramatically to 13% 2-yr and younger and 87% 3-yr and older, a complete reversal from the 90's into 2000 when the stock was completely rebuilt. Those statistics are based on fish landed, now add ACCURATE dead discards. Insane number of 1 - 2 year old age class fish are being killed by commercials in the process of harvesting more valuable older age class breeders which the regulation are directly responsible for. Today's fishery is not only not in good health it will never recover until the regulations are changed to protect the breeding population, protect the spawn and address the massive amounts of dead discards associated with the commercial fishery, the primary reason we never see last season's almost keepers come back the following year as keepers. The regulations went from harvesting younger age classes before they died of natural mortality at an estimated rate of 25% a year (which personally I believe to be overstated) and protecting the mega breeders to regulations incentivizing the harvest of older age classes, decimating the spawning stock and driving up commercial dead discard levels. NMFS introduced size minimums as a means to shift almost 90% of the biomass to the exclusive harvest of commercials, incentivized targeting the breeding population, allowed netting during the primary spawn which when I asked Kiley Dancy if they ever conducted a study to understand the impact of that decision on the spawn's efficacy her answer was incredibly no. Moving to size minimums sent commercial dead discard levels through the roof which will always happen when selective harvest is introduced into a fishery. For 10 years, the lead scientist for NEFSC Mark Terceiro said recruitment was down from historical levels and NMFS / NEFSC had no idea why. A 3-yr. old could figure it out. Every year size minimums increased recruitment as a percentage of SSB declined. Kill the breeders, kill the juvenile age classes in the process, kill recruitment, kill the stock. The stock since the turn of the century when size minimums and daily possession limits were mandated to the recreational sector has been de facto committed to the commercial fishery as it's year round and commercial catch values are being managed as opposed to the health of the stock itself. 1-2 year old age class fish are collateral damage in the harvest of older age classes by commercials with market values 2-4 times greater than juvenile. The fishery is dying and has been for the last two decades. If commercials are targeting the breeding population and juveniles are being killed by the millions in the process, how does this or any fishery survive. It won't and NMFS from experience will NEVER admit it because it's all about managing commercial catch values to their highest and managing the recreational sector based on trip effort or spending money. No one's managing the fishery itself.

I believe that you only have 15 mins to edit.

WhatKnot said:

I believe that you only have 15 mins to edit.

Click to expand...

Appears to be the case, thanks so much!

Don't worry. MakoMatt will continue to insist that NOAA is doing a good job and that we should all appreciate the crumbs we are being left with. RLMAO!

Good morning BroardBill. Sorry for the delay in responding but I‘be, been busy trying to tie up a lot of lose ends before heading to California next week and Florida after that for the winter season.

I started to answer you yesterday, before your editing. Here is what you said prior to that. I’m only including it here to illustrate how much time and effort it would take to run down all of the information you have posted. I am a two finger hunt and peck typist.

“Then I would ask the same question that precipitated my original post which is why do tens of millions of almost keepers EVERY year never come back as keepers the following season?”

Where can I find this information on “tens of millions of almost keepers” that are killed every year. Assuming that NOAA’s estimate of the biomass, 89.32 million pounds, is in a range of say plus or minus 10%, then I believe that the “tens of millions killed” would certainly be devastating to the biomass.

“Tens of millions of almost keepers”.

One tens of millions would be 10 million fish. You implied multiple 10 of millions, and not a couple of 10’s of millions which would be 20 million fish. So I take it that multiple tens of millions of fish would be 30 million.

An almost keeper Fluke could be about 18”.
An 18” Fluke weighs approx 2 1/2 pounds
30,000,000, Fluke weighing approximately 2 1/2 pounds would be about 75,000,000#, 75 million pounds

And that’s just the kill discard you claim commercials are doing, not including the recreational kill rate. How is that possible given NOAA’s assessment that the biomass is about 89 million pounds? All the fish would be fished out in 1 year.

Are you implying they are high grading?

Where do you think the biomass stands at today?

That’s where I left yesterday in responding.

I have no interest in going down this rabbit hole of responding to the endless “facts” you have posted. I’m not saying a lot of what you poster is incorrect, you may be right on many things but it seems to me you give all responsibility for a declining fishery, (and that is highly questionable) all to commercials. No mention of climate change, and fish seeking colder waters as one example.

So let me ask you a question, and I ask it with respect. What is your background and education in this field?

I have great respect for the thousands of scientists, employed by NOAA, and the many leading Universities that study this. I have two close family members that are scientists. They are not in this field but I have a bit of an understanding of how diligent their work is and the process of having it peer reviewed, tested, etc., etc., etc.

When I have medical issue I seek out a professional doctor who specializes in the field I need, or if I need a lawyer I get one who practices in what my need is, etc., etc. So when I want information about fisheries I look to NOAA, and the many University’s.

And you may be right on many things you posted. It might be more digestible knowing if you have any professional or educational ties in this field.

MakoMatt said:

Good morning BroardBill. Sorry for the delay in responding but I‘be, been busy trying to tie up a lot of lose ends before heading to California next week and Florida after that for the winter season.

I started to answer you yesterday, before your editing. Here is what you said prior to that. I’m only including it here to illustrate how much time and effort it would take to run down all of the information you have posted. I am a two finger hunt and peck typist.

“Then I would ask the same question that precipitated my original post which is why do tens of millions of almost keepers EVERY year never come back as keepers the following season?”

Where can I find this information on “tens of millions of almost keepers” that are killed every year. Assuming that NOAA’s estimate of the biomass, 89.32 million pounds, is in a range of say plus or minus 10%, then I believe that the “tens of millions killed” would certainly be devastating to the biomass.

“Tens of millions of almost keepers”.

One tens of millions would be 10 million fish. You implied multiple 10 of millions, and not a couple of 10’s of millions which would be 20 million fish. So I take it that multiple tens of millions of fish would be 30 million.

An almost keeper Fluke could be about 18”.
An 18” Fluke weighs approx 2 1/2 pounds
30,000,000, Fluke weighing approximately 2 1/2 pounds would be about 75,000,000#, 75 million pounds

And that’s just the kill discard you claim commercials are doing, not including the recreational kill rate. How is that possible given NOAA’s assessment that the biomass is about 89 million pounds? All the fish would be fished out in 1 year.

Are you implying they are high grading?

Where do you think the biomass stands at today?

That’s where I left yesterday in responding.

I have no interest in going down this rabbit hole of responding to the endless “facts” you have posted. I’m not saying a lot of what you poster is incorrect, you may be right on many things but it seems to me you give all responsibility for a declining fishery, (and that is highly questionable) all to commercials. No mention of climate change, and fish seeking colder waters as one example.

So let me ask you a question, and I ask it with respect. What is your background and education in this field?

I have great respect for the thousands of scientists, employed by NOAA, and the many leading Universities that study this. I have two close family members that are scientists. They are not in this field but I have a bit of an understanding of how diligent their work is and the process of having it peer reviewed, tested, etc., etc., etc.

When I have medical issue I seek out a professional doctor who specializes in the field I need, or if I need a lawyer I get one who practices in what my need is, etc., etc. So when I want information about fisheries I look to NOAA, and the many University’s.

And you may be right on many things you posted. It might be more digestible knowing if you have any professional or educational ties in this field.

Click to expand...

MM, no need for an apology about timing of your reply. I'll need time to give you and everyone else a thoughtful reply to your questions which I'll post within a week or thereabouts. As far as my resume, I won't post personal information on a public website and wouldn't recommend anyone doing the same. I will tell you my analysis spans almost 10 years, involves more hours than I care to admit and uses data from stock assessments which involves protocols which have passed peer review. I take that data and look at it from every possible angle for trends such as recruitment to SSB, historical trends of size minimums to recruitment statistics, landings and biomass size, historical trend of landed weight analysis to size minimum regulations, mean length sex and age charts to landings just to mention a few but all my analysis is based on data developed, right or wrong, from NMFS and NEFSC science.

I'll leave it at that for now and reply with a more comprehensive response later this week or at latest by early next week as I have a busy week ahead of me.

PS.....I'm happy to hear you don't have your teeth cleaned by your ophthalmologist or your eyes checked by your dentist!

One last thought to leave you and everyone here with. Billy Beane (Moneyball) didn't invent the analytical methods used by every pro sport today, he applied statistical concepts—known as sabermetrics—developed by baseball historian and statistician Bill James. Bill James had zero baseball or sports background of any kind but his analytical evaluations and concepts changed how every major sport is played today. Think of me, but to a lesser degree, as the Billy James of the summer flounder fishery with the exception I've been an avid recreational fisherman my entire life. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about nature and the social world with on-going evidence based processes of discovery and development of data. In this case, how the summer flounder stock is being managed, or mismanaged. I don't draw this analogy for accolades, I mention it because as with Billy James, science creates data, and that data needs to be analyzed and interpreted correctly in the hopes that effective decisions will be made which result in this case in the improved health and sustainability of the stock. Not decisions which benefit one sector at the expense of another. My work has been performed with that goal in mind.

Analytics matter, especially when the underlying numbers used are directly from the federal regulators .....

BroadBill said:

MM, no need for an apology about timing of your reply. I'll need time to give you and everyone else a thoughtful reply to your questions which I'll post within a week or thereabouts. As far as my resume, I won't post personal information on a public website and wouldn't recommend anyone doing the same. I will tell you my analysis spans almost 10 years, involves more hours than I care to admit and uses data from stock assessments which involves protocols which have passed peer review. I take that data and look at it from every possible angle for trends such as recruitment to SSB, historical trends of size minimums to recruitment statistics, landings and biomass size, historical trend of landed weight analysis to size minimum regulations, mean length sex and age charts to landings just to mention a few but all my analysis is based on data developed, right or wrong, from NMFS and NEFSC science.

I'll leave it at that for now and reply with a more comprehensive response later this week or at latest by early next week as I have a busy week ahead of me.

PS.....I'm happy to hear you don't have your teeth cleaned by your ophthalmologist or your eyes checked by your dentist!

One last thought to leave you and everyone here with. Billy Beane (Moneyball) didn't invent the analytical methods used by every pro sport today, he applied statistical concepts—known as sabermetrics—developed by baseball historian and statistician Bill James. Bill James had zero baseball or sports background of any kind but his analytical evaluations and concepts changed how every major sport is played today. Think of me, but to a lesser degree, as the Billy James of the summer flounder fishery with the exception I've been an avid recreational fisherman my entire life. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about nature and the social world with on-going evidence based processes of discovery and development of data. In this case, how the summer flounder stock is being managed, or mismanaged. I don't draw this analogy for accolades, I mention it because as with Billy James, science creates data, and that data needs to be analyzed and interpreted correctly in the hopes that effective decisions will be made which result in this case in the improved health and sustainability of the stock. Not decisions which benefit one sector at the expense of another. My work has been performed with that goal in mind.

Click to expand...

Looking forward to reading your point of view.

hartattack said:

Analytics matter, especially when the underlying numbers used are directly from the federal regulators .....

Click to expand...

Agreed, but let’s remember who is putting together the numbers. It’s very highly educated people, many with PhD’s in various marine related areas. Very often working in under paid government jobs. They are dedicated professionals, and they collaborate with many of our other top universities that have specialized focus in the same areas. I seriously doubt these people have any dog in the fight, and go about their work in a non-political manner.

That said, I feel confident in saying that politics do enter the discussions of those setting policy. And some of the politics are good, and some are not so good.