Mr. Wise reviewed the history of the Council's Recreational Fluke Management Subcommittee, noting that the Council and DEC had labored through the winter of 2006/2007 to develop recreational fluke management measures for 2007, which eventually had to be passed through emergency rule-making.  Both the Council and the Department had felt it best to form a subcommittee that would make recommendations on how the Department might be more proactive and anticipatory in the formulation of management approaches and measures for the recreational fluke fishery, perhaps with the result that decisions on specific management measures to be enacted would be made well before the beginning of the fluke fishing season. This would benefit the recreational fluke fishery and fishing industry in many ways.  Mr. Wise stated that the Subcommittee had met briefly in September 2007.  However, because the 2007 catch information wasn’t complete at that time, the committee had to wait until that information was available to reconvene. 

The Subcommittee developed the following set of preliminary objectives that should characterize effective recreational fluke management measures in New York:

1. effectively constrain fishing mortality as required under the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Fluke.
2. be fair and equitable to the several sectors of the recreational fluke fishery; not all these sectors require/desire the same things
3. be readily enforceable
4. to the extent possible, be stable; perhaps involving multi-year regulations that need not be amended every year
5. be promulgated in a timely fashion so there is no need for emergency rule-making, which is disruptive to the fishing community
6. not have the effect (or at least minimize the effect) of driving fishing effort out of the fluke fishery onto other species that are equally or more vulnerable
7. minimize discard mortality
8. monitor the pace of the fishery and be aware of how each fishery is achieving their goals

Mr. Jim Gilmore, Director of Marine Resources for DEC, described the proposed options for the 2008 recreational fluke fishery.  He said that New York is not the only state in dire straits, Massachusetts and Virginia are in the same boat.  The estimated 2007 recreational harvest of fluke exceeded the quota in seven of nine East Coast states.  This will lead to reduced state quotas in 2008.

New York's recreational fluke harvest target for 2007 was 430,000 fish, but the estimate of the actual catch was 666,753 fish, 55% more than the target.  This overage is taken from New York's 2008 recreational fluke quota.  That quota has been further lowered because New York has consistently exceeded is recreational fluke quota over the past several years (a poor "performance factor").  Thus, New York's 2008 recreational fluke harvest target is 240,000 fish, a 44% reduction from 2007.

DEC staff distributed the table below, showing various combinations of management measures that, based on past recreational catch data, if implemented in New York's recreational fluke fishery would achieve this 44% reduction in catch.  Mr. Gilmore indicated that DEC needed to make a preliminary proposal to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Fluke Management Board based on one of these options by 5:00 pm today (22 January 2008).

Option	Size Limit	Possession	Open Season	Comment	Season Length
1	19.5	2	May 24 – July 13	Opens Memorial Day weekend	51
2	19.5	2	June 14 – July 22	Opens Father’s Day weekend	39
3	19.5	2	July 4 – August 4	Opens July 4th	32
4	19.5	2	July 29 – Sept 1	Opens Labor Day	35
5	19.5	3	May 24 – July 11	Opens Memorial Day weekend	49
6	19.5	3	June 14 – July 20	Opens Father’s Day weekend	37
7	19.5	3	July 4 – August 2	Opens July 4th	30
8	19.5	3	July 31 – Sept 1	Opens Labor Day	33
9	20	2	July 4 – Sept 1	Open July 4th – Labor Day	60
10	20.5	4	May 15 – Sept 1	Open mid-May thru Labor Day	110

Chairman Wise asked the Council’s opinion on any or all of these options.  Councilor Robert Danielson did not like any of them.  He worried that, if the recreational minimum size limit for fluke were increased to 20.5" with a possession limit of 4 fish, and having a season as long as 110 days, (i.e., Option 10 in the table), this would almost guarantee that New York's 2008 recreational fluke target will be exceeded by a wide margin and where would that leave us for 2009?

Mr. Wise reminded the Council that, at its September 2007 meeting, it directed him to write Governor Spitzer, Attorney General Cuomo and DEC Commissioner Grannis urging that New York State file suite against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) if that agency proposed 2008 recreational fluke regulations featuring a state-by-state, conservation equivalency approach as opposed to a single coastwide set of management measures.  NMFS still has not published its 2008 rules and, regardless of whether, when it does, they feature a conservation equivalency approach, and whether New York does or does not decide to file a legal challenge, none of this will happen or be resolved soon enough to avoid the necessity of New York filing a proposal based on the above table, a decision that should be made today.

Mr. Gilmore said that if New York does not make a proposal to ASMFC this afternoon, a default option will go into effect.  The default, which is based on coastwide recreational fluke catches, would be a minimum size limit of 20”, a 2-fish possession limit and an open season from May 23rd – September 1st. 

Councilor Melissa Dearborn feels it is totally inappropriate to penalize the recreational fishing community for complying with management regulations that, according to management technical committees, should constrain recreational catches to within certain limits.  When they don't, the consequences fall solely on the shoulders of the recreational fishery and fishing industry.  In her view, a reduction in the recreational fluke target of 44% in one year is ludicrous.

Councilor Charles Witek thinks a long open season would result in the recreational harvest in New York again exceeding its target in 2008.  Among the alternatives in the table, he thinks Option 9 might be best because it would cover Wave 4 (July & August), which is the high point of the fluke season when there are not a lot of other species available. 

In response to a question from Mr. Wise, Mr. Gilmore stated that any exceedance of New York's recreational fluke target in 2008 might result in no fishery at all in 2009 season.

Councilor Jim House said that the most of the options in the table would hurt fluke fishermen on Long Island's East End.  Some of the options have them completely missing out on the season and he thinks some of the options would hurt the fishery along the South Shore as well.  He thought that perhaps a split open season might work by sharing the burden between various fishing regions on Long Island.  Councilor Dearborn was not in favor of a mid-season closure, which would result from a split open season.

Audience member Neal Delanoy agrees with Councilor House and feels the reason New York keeps exceeding its recreational fluke harvest target is that the target is too low.  Mr. Delanoy stated that, unless New York starts getting fairer treatment under the ASMFC fishery management plan for fluke, it should be, "…thinking about lawsuits and seceding (from the Commission).”  Several members of the audience agreed with this view.

Mr. John German of the Long Island Sound Lobstermen's Association suggested that the recreational fluke size limit should be made lower; this would make it longer to reach the overall poundage limit.

Philip Curcio, discussing the possibility of New York joining one or more neighboring states in a regional approach to recreational fluke management, said this approach will not help in 2008 and would very likely require an addendum to the fluke fishery management plan, which would take another year.  Addendum XVI to the fluke plan has been sitting at the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) for the past several years.  It may offer an opportunity for increasing New York's share of the coastwide recreational fluke quota, but the addendum needs to be pushed.  He also noted the apparent shift northward in the geographic distribution of fluke, which makes New York's paltry recreational fluke annual harvest target look even smaller.

Councilor Danielson agreed with Messrs. Delanoy and Curcio, et al., and asked what actions the Council could undertake to promote a changed, and for New York, greater allocation of the coastwide recreational fluke quota.  Ms. Alice Weber of DEC responded that this must be “tasked” by the ASMFC Fluke Management Board to its Technical Committee.  The issue is whether the distribution of fluke along the East Coast has, in fact, changed since basis of the current state-by-state quota allocation scheme was established and put into practice and, if such a change has occurred, should this trigger a revised allocation scheme?  Ms. Weber noted that increasing New York's annual recreational quota for fluke as a fraction of the total coastwide quota would require reducing the relative allocation to one or more other states.  Such an action would need a strong technical justification and would not be readily endorsed or accepted in all quarters.  However, the necessary first step is for the ASMFC Fluke Management Board to charge the Fluke Technical Committee with conducting the above assessment.

Councilor Danielson made a motion that the Council recommend to the Department and to New York’s ASMFC Commissioners that they work to persuade the Commission's Fluke Management Board to direct the Fluke Technical Committee to undertake an assessment as to whether the current allocation of the recreational fluke coastwide quota between states, dependent as it is on 1998 catch information data, remains appropriate, especially in light of the fact that the stock distribution may have shifted to the north.  The motion was seconded by Councilor Davi.  Mr. Danielson's motion carried; the vote was 10 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions.

Mr. Delanoy thought we should also question the regime shift.  He questioned whether the original allocation scheme, based on 1998 catch data, was even itself fair to New York.  Mr. Dennis Kanyuk said that the process of re-assessing fundamental aspects of the management of fluke along the East Coast was originally started with the project to develop Addendum XVI to the fishery management plan for this species.  He urged the Council to call for expedited development and approval of Addendum XVI.  Another motion was put forward by Mr. Danielson, to wit: that the Council recommend to DEC and New York's ASMFC Commissioners that they do all in their power to have the Commission move rapidly forward to complete and approve Amendment XVI to the interstate fishery management plan for fluke. This motion was seconded by Councilor Dearborn.  It, too, was adopted, by a vote of 10 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions.

Councilor Dearborn expressed frustration at being presented, for the first time, with a set of alternative 2008 recreational fluke management measures and being asked to digest, discuss and come to some reasoned decision on which one is best for New York - - all in the course of a single afternoon.  Chairman Wise agreed, noting that that it was important for the regional fishery management bodies, ASMFC and MAFMC, to understand the nearly-impossible position state-based fishery management commissions, advisory bodies, etc. find themselves in when the pace of decision-making at the regional level is so slow and protracted and the deadlines for decision-making are often so stark and immutable.  He asked permission from the Council to write to the chairmen of ASMFC and MAFMC, highlighting these problems and asking them to conduct their business in a more expeditious fashion and one where decision outcomes are more predictable than at present.  The Council authorized these two letters.

Councilor Dearborn made a motion that the Council request that, before the Department adopts final 2008 recreational fishery management measures for fluke, it plan and hold a "round-table discussion" with Council recreational fishery representatives and other persons involved in the recreational fluke fishery in New York.  Councilor Somma seconded this motion.  Ms. Dearborn's motion was adopted by a vote of 10 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions.

 

Page last modified Wednesday, February 27, 2008 by George E. Carroll