This is your chance to voice your opinion on the different options available for black sea bass directly to the DEC. I suggest taking a few minutes and letting them know your views.
Black Sea Bass Survey
Black Sea Bass Survey
NYSDEC website survey for Recreational Black Sea Bass Regulations
- Thread starter george
- Start date
How's about "None of the above - get your absurd numbers straight first."
I attended the NYSDEC meeting last night on the 3 bad options put in front of us for the 2023 Recreational Sea Bass regulations. As usual, it was both a learning experience for me, and a source of continued deep frustration and anger for myself and virtually everyone who attended.
First on the things I learned. I am far from an expert on fisheries management or the entire convoluted process. However, what seems obvious is that the changes made to our local regulations for any given species is a long one and we need to be involved at a much earlier stage than by the time it gets to our local DEC office sessions. It appears that most of the actual rule setting takes place months or even years earlier at the level of both ASFMC and NOAA. Had I known that I could have tried to give some input at a time when it might have made a difference.
On the negative side, it seems that although a species like Sea Bass is managed on a coastwise basis, we in NY are at a huge disadvantage due to our population, the number anglers residing here, and as a result of this, the fact that we consistently land more fish than our neighboring states of NJ and CT. Apparently, the managers use the typical BS computer model given to them by NOAA and then have to divide up the amount of allowable recreational harvest based upon prior landings by the pound of the states that are being governed under this system. Many in the room were far more knowledgeable than I about this process, stated that just due to the sheer number of anglers in NY we will never see the more liberal regulations afforded to our neighboring states. It seems incredible to me that no "normalization factor" can be applied when there are such large disparities between the amount of actual fishing effort that takes place. Basically, what the managers present told me after the meeting concluded was that we had to lobby the ASFMC much earlier in the processes to try and affect a more positive change for NY. I still feel our local managers still not do enough in our behalf as they have been hearing this same story from the folks like us for years. We who are on the water all the time see the enormous increases in the size of the Sea Bass population, not just some computer model estimate.
What seems even more incredulous is that the Managers "Scientific Data" seemed to match what everyone, including myself, who made a formal comment, noting the tremendous increase in the Sea Bass population. This included not only the overall size of the Biomass but also the number estimated for healthy spawning fish. So, once again everyone in the room is stunned that we can see such a large increase in the numbers of Sea Bass but are being told we are overfishing and need to reduce the harvest by 10%. I commented on how those of us on the water consistently, especially those in the For-Hire industry do keep very accurate statistics but they never seem to be utilized in their calculations used to set our limits. I even included my own statistical analysis of the landings on my vessel over the last 5 years which have essentially doubled both in total numbers caught as well as the average number of fish per trip. And that includes 2019 when I lost 6 weeks sailing time due to a lengthy engine repair and 2020 when Covid cost me and many others 2-3 months' time of normal fishing activity!!
As I have seen before there are always some very outspoken members of the Party Boat community that openly express their total disgust with this process, and how these seemingly arbitrary decisions are ruining their businesses. In fact, a couple were quite direct in telling everyone, including the armed local DEC officers present that they intend to abide by the 2022 regulations regardless of the pending new laws. They openly said they expect to receive a number of tickets this year!
So, the upshot of this event is that essentially, we will be saddled with one of the 3 nasty options for the reduction already mentioned in the recent DEC survey. Based upon what I saw and heard last night it looks like we will get the same bag limits and season as 2022 with an increase in minimum size to 16.5"
On the Scup front, although this meeting was not intended to address those changes, the question was asked, and the managers felt the most likely scenario for us in 2023 for Porgy will be:
-Season closed from Jan through the end of April.
-Minimum size raised from 10" to 10.5"
-Bag limit still at 30 for recreational anglers; Bonus season in the For-Hire industry starting on Sept. 1 will see the 50 fish bag limit reduced to 40 fish.
Nothing official yet but I'm sure the bad news will reach us within the next couple of months.
Capt. Mike
First on the things I learned. I am far from an expert on fisheries management or the entire convoluted process. However, what seems obvious is that the changes made to our local regulations for any given species is a long one and we need to be involved at a much earlier stage than by the time it gets to our local DEC office sessions. It appears that most of the actual rule setting takes place months or even years earlier at the level of both ASFMC and NOAA. Had I known that I could have tried to give some input at a time when it might have made a difference.
On the negative side, it seems that although a species like Sea Bass is managed on a coastwise basis, we in NY are at a huge disadvantage due to our population, the number anglers residing here, and as a result of this, the fact that we consistently land more fish than our neighboring states of NJ and CT. Apparently, the managers use the typical BS computer model given to them by NOAA and then have to divide up the amount of allowable recreational harvest based upon prior landings by the pound of the states that are being governed under this system. Many in the room were far more knowledgeable than I about this process, stated that just due to the sheer number of anglers in NY we will never see the more liberal regulations afforded to our neighboring states. It seems incredible to me that no "normalization factor" can be applied when there are such large disparities between the amount of actual fishing effort that takes place. Basically, what the managers present told me after the meeting concluded was that we had to lobby the ASFMC much earlier in the processes to try and affect a more positive change for NY. I still feel our local managers still not do enough in our behalf as they have been hearing this same story from the folks like us for years. We who are on the water all the time see the enormous increases in the size of the Sea Bass population, not just some computer model estimate.
What seems even more incredulous is that the Managers "Scientific Data" seemed to match what everyone, including myself, who made a formal comment, noting the tremendous increase in the Sea Bass population. This included not only the overall size of the Biomass but also the number estimated for healthy spawning fish. So, once again everyone in the room is stunned that we can see such a large increase in the numbers of Sea Bass but are being told we are overfishing and need to reduce the harvest by 10%. I commented on how those of us on the water consistently, especially those in the For-Hire industry do keep very accurate statistics but they never seem to be utilized in their calculations used to set our limits. I even included my own statistical analysis of the landings on my vessel over the last 5 years which have essentially doubled both in total numbers caught as well as the average number of fish per trip. And that includes 2019 when I lost 6 weeks sailing time due to a lengthy engine repair and 2020 when Covid cost me and many others 2-3 months' time of normal fishing activity!!
As I have seen before there are always some very outspoken members of the Party Boat community that openly express their total disgust with this process, and how these seemingly arbitrary decisions are ruining their businesses. In fact, a couple were quite direct in telling everyone, including the armed local DEC officers present that they intend to abide by the 2022 regulations regardless of the pending new laws. They openly said they expect to receive a number of tickets this year!
So, the upshot of this event is that essentially, we will be saddled with one of the 3 nasty options for the reduction already mentioned in the recent DEC survey. Based upon what I saw and heard last night it looks like we will get the same bag limits and season as 2022 with an increase in minimum size to 16.5"
On the Scup front, although this meeting was not intended to address those changes, the question was asked, and the managers felt the most likely scenario for us in 2023 for Porgy will be:
-Season closed from Jan through the end of April.
-Minimum size raised from 10" to 10.5"
-Bag limit still at 30 for recreational anglers; Bonus season in the For-Hire industry starting on Sept. 1 will see the 50 fish bag limit reduced to 40 fish.
Nothing official yet but I'm sure the bad news will reach us within the next couple of months.
Capt. Mike
You hit the nail on the head there Cap'n. Not much you can do with the "Pre-judgement" process. The state by state allocation is a different topic.
IMO what needs to be done is allocation by water bodies, not by states. How can LI Sound have 2 different sets of rules, Block Island Sound 3 sets and NY Bight 2 sets?
If they started setting regulations based on water bodies it would go a long way from states fighting each other for their "unfair share" of the fishery and the resentment of folks.
Just my 2¢...
I’d say I’m surprised but I’d be lying.
I guess the porgy guys are happy. I heard at one point they were talking about 7 fish per man.
I guess the porgy guys are happy. I heard at one point they were talking about 7 fish per man.
Capt Mike-
Thanks for the feedback and information, regardless of how sad and maddening it is.
What I find confusing is the the concept of dividing up the catch amongst neighboring states is based on population?
Do they take into account how many of us in NY actually abide by and play by the rules and get a saltwater license or just generically go by the overall general population? I know LOTS of people that are NYS residents who don't fish at all. Are those people being ridiculously counted as anglers who are taking fish?
I respect you for seeing and hearing all of that nonsense not being taken out of there in a straight jacket
Thanks for the feedback and information, regardless of how sad and maddening it is.
What I find confusing is the the concept of dividing up the catch amongst neighboring states is based on population?
Do they take into account how many of us in NY actually abide by and play by the rules and get a saltwater license or just generically go by the overall general population? I know LOTS of people that are NYS residents who don't fish at all. Are those people being ridiculously counted as anglers who are taking fish?
I respect you for seeing and hearing all of that nonsense not being taken out of there in a straight jacket
Hi Mitch,Capt Mike-
Thanks for the feedback and information, regardless of how sad and maddening it is.
What I find confusing is the the concept of dividing up the catch amongst neighboring states is based on population?
Do they take into account how many of us in NY actually abide by and play by the rules and get a saltwater license or just generically go by the overall general population? I know LOTS of people that are NYS residents who don't fish at all. Are those people being ridiculously counted as anglers who are taking fish?
I respect you for seeing and hearing all of that nonsense not being taken out of there in a straight jacket
Sorry if I did not explain the allocation process correctly as I heard it described.
It's not so much the actual population of a given state. However, just by sheer numbers because NY has so many more overall residents compared to NJ and CT we typically have a greater number of anglers. So, with more people fishing we land more fish, by weight, and hence it looks like we are overfishing compared to our neighbors. It is really a sick and totally unfair system, not only for the anglers but also the fish.
I like the idea Roccus put forth about managing by the body of water, not the individual lobbying ability or amount of fishing pressure in any given state. Of course, the challenge is trying to convince the fisheries managers that there is a better and more just way to do this.
No wonder people are leaving New York in record numbers. Small businesses are getting crushed. Next time there is an election vote these lunatics out of office. Until that happens this will continue to no end.
I have a few moments before I have a meeting, so here's just a few points for everyone to consider:
The biggest problem that NY has is that there are a lot of BSB and scup in and near to our state waters.
The next biggest problem NY has is that state allocations were made based on the distribution of fish landings (estimates) back in the eighties. Nobody thought that fish stocks would move.
Allocations and landings are not in any way based on populations of a state. They are based on MRIP, which is a poor method, but it is all that is available. The best way to improve the method is to put more money into surveys/intercepts. No government spends money on fish.
Now, some more things, not necessarily in order of importance or significance:
Fish stocks have shifted over the past forty years. Some places have the same amount of fish as they did while others have experienced a doubling or quadrupling of what they had. This has changed the relative distribution as based on the benchmark landings used to make up state shares. However, more states seem to have a smaller share of fishes than states that have gained relative shares. States that hold a larger percentage of allocation than is reflected in the current distribution are obviously not going to be open to re-allocation.
Having more fish available, but holding the old allocation percentage leaves you with the perception that the fishery is being mismanaged. And, to some extent (on a state-by-state level), it is. This is the political issue of fisheries management.
Our management system does a great job or rebuilding over-fished stocks, but is poor at managing rebuilt or "over" abundant stocks such as BSB and scup. In my opinion, just as a biomass has strict measures to build a stock that is below the threshold (50% target biomass), there should be measures to fish down a stock that is double the target biomass.
Fluke in NY is going to be status quo regs. Why is that? Because there aren't as many as there were ten years ago, we aren't landing as many as we used to, so we are not getting tougher regs. The same concept exists for states that are seeing less BSB in their area than they used to. Most of NJ does not catch BSB the way they used to, so they get better regs, which intends for them to keep up their historical landings.
The more fish of a species that are available and therefore landed/killed (release mortality) in and around a state, the tougher the regs will be.
It was mentioned about regs for BSB up north, and how they are almost self-regulated due to the availability of the fish. An open season when fish aren't available looks attractive to a different place that has the fish available.
Ct. vessels that fish in NY state waters on Ct. regs are violating regulations, clearly, not technically. This is a failure of enforcement.
Having regs for water bodies instead of states is a great concept, and it has been attempted. However, some states are not interested in having different sets of regs, which is disappointing. Also, it gets tricky with demarking boundaries. But I still endorse the concept over state lines and state territorial waters.
BSB is regulated on a coastwise basis, but the Commission ends up with state regs or regional regs, whatever they decide.
Some summations:
If you have more fish available to you that you remember from forty years ago, you cannot have the same, or even decent, regs unless you get a huge change in the management system. When you see a place with attractive regs, you will notice, if you look at their landings, they aren't catching what you think they would.
NYS DEC does not decide what NY gets as an annual allocation. They get a percentage of what the Council and Commission recommend to NMFS. That is not even a wide range. The SSC usually gives a very tight range to choose from. That decision was made in December. Nobody from NY made a comment. Comments can be made by email in advance, in person or by webinar at the meeting. All comments are recognized and recorded. If you were informed about the DEC meeting for BSB, then you were informed about a public comment meeting at DEC for setting measures for BSB, scup, and fluke. Your comments help the members of the Council and Commission that represent you to have something behind what they say during debate. It also influences the state employees that sit on them.
The biggest problem that NY has is that there are a lot of BSB and scup in and near to our state waters.
The next biggest problem NY has is that state allocations were made based on the distribution of fish landings (estimates) back in the eighties. Nobody thought that fish stocks would move.
Allocations and landings are not in any way based on populations of a state. They are based on MRIP, which is a poor method, but it is all that is available. The best way to improve the method is to put more money into surveys/intercepts. No government spends money on fish.
Now, some more things, not necessarily in order of importance or significance:
Fish stocks have shifted over the past forty years. Some places have the same amount of fish as they did while others have experienced a doubling or quadrupling of what they had. This has changed the relative distribution as based on the benchmark landings used to make up state shares. However, more states seem to have a smaller share of fishes than states that have gained relative shares. States that hold a larger percentage of allocation than is reflected in the current distribution are obviously not going to be open to re-allocation.
Having more fish available, but holding the old allocation percentage leaves you with the perception that the fishery is being mismanaged. And, to some extent (on a state-by-state level), it is. This is the political issue of fisheries management.
Our management system does a great job or rebuilding over-fished stocks, but is poor at managing rebuilt or "over" abundant stocks such as BSB and scup. In my opinion, just as a biomass has strict measures to build a stock that is below the threshold (50% target biomass), there should be measures to fish down a stock that is double the target biomass.
Fluke in NY is going to be status quo regs. Why is that? Because there aren't as many as there were ten years ago, we aren't landing as many as we used to, so we are not getting tougher regs. The same concept exists for states that are seeing less BSB in their area than they used to. Most of NJ does not catch BSB the way they used to, so they get better regs, which intends for them to keep up their historical landings.
The more fish of a species that are available and therefore landed/killed (release mortality) in and around a state, the tougher the regs will be.
It was mentioned about regs for BSB up north, and how they are almost self-regulated due to the availability of the fish. An open season when fish aren't available looks attractive to a different place that has the fish available.
Ct. vessels that fish in NY state waters on Ct. regs are violating regulations, clearly, not technically. This is a failure of enforcement.
Having regs for water bodies instead of states is a great concept, and it has been attempted. However, some states are not interested in having different sets of regs, which is disappointing. Also, it gets tricky with demarking boundaries. But I still endorse the concept over state lines and state territorial waters.
BSB is regulated on a coastwise basis, but the Commission ends up with state regs or regional regs, whatever they decide.
Some summations:
If you have more fish available to you that you remember from forty years ago, you cannot have the same, or even decent, regs unless you get a huge change in the management system. When you see a place with attractive regs, you will notice, if you look at their landings, they aren't catching what you think they would.
NYS DEC does not decide what NY gets as an annual allocation. They get a percentage of what the Council and Commission recommend to NMFS. That is not even a wide range. The SSC usually gives a very tight range to choose from. That decision was made in December. Nobody from NY made a comment. Comments can be made by email in advance, in person or by webinar at the meeting. All comments are recognized and recorded. If you were informed about the DEC meeting for BSB, then you were informed about a public comment meeting at DEC for setting measures for BSB, scup, and fluke. Your comments help the members of the Council and Commission that represent you to have something behind what they say during debate. It also influences the state employees that sit on them.
Great post PaulE & welcome to this friendly, helpful community.
I fish NJ and do not agree that "Most of NJ does not catch BSB the way they used to, so they get better regs". BSB are now more prolific in NJ than ever b4.
This war between neighboring fishing states is wrong; as wrong as the disparate regulations for folks who launch from 2 different states but fish the same waters.
Fed regulators should normalize the regs by region not state. This would be a major change to Magnuson-Stevens Act which established 8 regional fishery mgmt councils in 1976. Neighboring states in the same regional council should have the same regs!
I fish NJ and do not agree that "Most of NJ does not catch BSB the way they used to, so they get better regs". BSB are now more prolific in NJ than ever b4.
This war between neighboring fishing states is wrong; as wrong as the disparate regulations for folks who launch from 2 different states but fish the same waters.
Fed regulators should normalize the regs by region not state. This would be a major change to Magnuson-Stevens Act which established 8 regional fishery mgmt councils in 1976. Neighboring states in the same regional council should have the same regs!
When a party boat from NYC or a private vessel fishes in NJ must go by NY regs. And when a boat from NJ fishes in NY they go by NJ regs. There regs are 13 inch seabass and there season starts much earlier than NY May 17. 13 inches 10 fish. My question is could a NJ boat come into NY during there closed season and keep sea bass. Last year was the worst year of fishing I ever had in my life. No blues no striped bass and no keeper fluke. Hope this year is better
While fishing in a state's water, you must follow the state's rules, BUT when you get back to port, the kept fish must comply with that state's law.
So NO, a NJ boat cannot keep BSB while fishing in NY's closed season, even though they could if they were fishing in NJ waters.
That's easy, but with zero enforcement, it's meaningless...
Get in on the fishing talk and join now!
Continue with Google
