• At some point over the next few days NC Hunt and Fish will be migrating to a new server. We are not changing our hosting provider, but we are changing machines within that provider. The reason is that an external vendor, cPanel, has increased the price of their software and we need to migrate to a different control panel. When the migration occurs, the site will be unavailable and it will remain unavailable until the DNS servers are populated with the new IP address. This could take a day, but usually happens overnight. Once the site goes down you should clear your cookies and cache in your browser so you no longer attempt to connect to an old instance. Instructions will be posted on the old server so people who are stuck there will know how to find the new server.

This may shock some people but....

longrifle

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
fish swim! I almost hated to post this but for those who like to deal in statistics and numbers? Here are a few.....
 
Last edited:

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
fish swim! I almost hated to post this but for those who like to deal strictly in statistics and numbers? Here are a few.....

the below made me chuckle,,,so true yet hit me as funny because it is so obvious (except to those with no clue),,,

fish move because they have tails.
 

jbaldwin

Four Pointer
Not pro rec or pro comm or negative either way. Can someone please explain to me how they got all of the rec numbers in legitimate data info??????
 

longrifle

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Not pro rec or pro comm or negative either way. Can someone please explain to me how they got all of the rec numbers in legitimate data info??????
The commercial side is pretty hard to argue with, that's catch sold and verified. I did wonder how they arrived at an accurate number for the rec side but consider this: even if they're off by 20, even 30% that's a significant difference between the two.
 

jbaldwin

Four Pointer
One of my better friends was on the flounder board years ago and some of the data that came up was of no scientific value. Example was flying the beach and sound on Fri and Sat night and counting giggers and then totaling that number for each day of the week with limit for each boat multiplied. Surveyors check fisherman and they are trout fishing and have one flounder and list them as flounder fishing and then multiply limits by boat occupancy. He final just said this is not going to work out and left board membership after a year.
 
This post doesn't fit the narrative of 90% of the people that frequent this site, they'll find a dark corner to move this into

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

sky hawk

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
I don't believe they have any clue what the actual harvest numbers are for recs. The entire method of estimating harvest is based on a very small number of samples and lots of extrapolation. They could be off by a LOT. Either direction. I'd like to see the confidence intervals on the rec harvest numbers. I've never seen one.
 

darenative

Ten Pointer
One of my better friends was on the flounder board years ago and some of the data that came up was of no scientific value. Example was flying the beach and sound on Fri and Sat night and counting giggers and then totaling that number for each day of the week with limit for each boat multiplied. Surveyors check fisherman and they are trout fishing and have one flounder and list them as flounder fishing and then multiply limits by boat occupancy. He final just said this is not going to work out and left board membership after a year.
Pretty much how most fisheries advisory boards work. Had family and friends sit on em for years.
 

23mako

Ten Pointer
This isn't shocking at all as shrimp and crab constitute the bulk of commercial value. It further proves the point that to consistently catch fish recreationally in North Carolina you need a boat and preferably one that goes into the ocean. I understand spanish and kings can be caught off piers but the bulk of them are caught by boat anglers. Blues probably go either way. I haven't seen anyone on here bitching about fishing for mackerel (federally managed btw), mahi (also federally managed), cobia (federally managed), yellowfin (federally managed), or bluefish (federally managed). Speckled trout and red drum are making a nice recovery. The removal of purse seining for menhaden in our waters has done wonders for spanish/king and cobia fishing.

We also know the commercial spot harvest is completely bogus as it doesn't account for bycatch in the shrimp trawl industry. I've attached the results of 25 year study for statistical folk! :)

Three years is also a pretty short time frame to try and develop a trend. Why don't we go back and look at the time period from 1981-2017? 1981 is the earliest year that has recreationally statistics published. Wow, recreational fishing has never broken 40 million pounds! The first year the commercial fishing industry did that was in 2006. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who has ruled the roost in NC for decades.
 

Attachments

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Declining fish stocks of some species, tighter regulations, net bans to protect sea turtles
 

23mako

Ten Pointer
A big decrease is menhaden. That was the largest significant finfish catch back in the day. But since we got rid of purse seining the number of menhaden I see now is through the roof compared to the years preceding the ban.

I'll go back when I have time and try to deduct them from the total to give a clearer picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRC

sky hawk

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
so comms killed 388 million lbs in 1981, and 19 million lbs last year.
what would explain that drastic shift?
Well, it's not because the market for fish dropped out.

I think the most obvious answer is the fish aren't there.

If it was overregulation or a reduction in commercial effort, we'd see a drop in landings, but fish stocks would be healthier than ever. They're not. Recreational landings have essentially stayed flat over that same time period.

An even better question is why was the combined (comm+rec) landings in 1981 421million pounds, but only 47 million pounds in 2017. Our total harvest is only 11% of what it was 36 years ago, and yet our fish stocks on average are not better than they have been. Either we ARE doing something or we HAVE done something over the past 30 years that has caused our sustainable yield to decline dramatically.
 
Last edited:

oldest school

Old Mossy Horns
well the way I looked at that was all you hear is how good the fishing "was."
So logically to my wee brain if the fishing was great and they were taking out 20 times more fish via the commercial route, its hard to see how you blame them now for the fishing. They arent catching anything compared to the past.

I must be missing something so please help.
anyone?
 

wanchese

Ten Pointer
In the 80's a huge part of the commercial landings were from long-haul rigs working in the sounds. They caught croakers and trout. That is a thing of the past.


Landings dropping in the last 10-15 years, some of that can definitely be attributed to increasing regulations on gillnets because of the sea turtle ITP.
 

gangrig252

Four Pointer
Theres also far less comm. Fishermen then years past too. And after this years crab market, I'm betting it'll be a lot of boat/license, pots and barrels of nets on craigslist soon. If not already
 

gangrig252

Four Pointer
Years past most every man in this part of the state had a license for himself and each of his sons....that died with pound nets.
 

23mako

Ten Pointer
well the way I looked at that was all you hear is how good the fishing "was."
So logically to my wee brain if the fishing was great and they were taking out 20 times more fish via the commercial route, its hard to see how you blame them now for the fishing. They arent catching anything compared to the past.

I must be missing something so please help.
anyone?
Because so many fish are removed from the population that the biomass of the species has a hard time recovering when you factor in natural mortality. This is what happened to the new england cod fishery in the early 90s and it still hasnt recovered. This is most likely what has happened the the weakfish/grey trout fishery.

"Weakfish have been one of the most important components of a mixed-stock fishery on the Atlantic coast since the 1800s. In the late 1990s, however, weakfish biomass began to decline, reaching an all-time low of 342,990 pounds in 2011 (compared to 45.6 million pounds in 1981). Total landings in the weakfish fishery have generally declined over the past two decades, with 2017 landings estimated at were 609,000 pounds, a 48% increase from 2016."

They are still getting caught significantly as bycatch in the inshore shrimp trawl fishery. Same as spot and croaker.
 

sky hawk

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
well the way I looked at that was all you hear is how good the fishing "was."
So logically to my wee brain if the fishing was great and they were taking out 20 times more fish via the commercial route, its hard to see how you blame them now for the fishing. They arent catching anything compared to the past.

I must be missing something so please help.
anyone?
OS, your brain and mine must work completely different on this topic. You've said something like this several times, and I keep scratching my head.

When I look at those numbers My first thought is: if you overfish stocks for 30 years, you'll eventually put yourself out of business. I'm not saying that is the whole story, but the market is there. If the fish were there, they'd still be catching them. I'd say they kept going back to the well and found it had less water. Is it possible that catching 400 million pounds a year, or even 200 million wasn't sustainable?
 
Last edited:

23mako

Ten Pointer
well the way I looked at that was all you hear is how good the fishing "was."
So logically to my wee brain if the fishing was great and they were taking out 20 times more fish via the commercial route, its hard to see how you blame them now for the fishing. They arent catching anything compared to the past.

I must be missing something so please help.
anyone?
Saying that those huge harvest numbers had nothing to do with current populations is like someone who smoked their entire life until age 50 and got lung cancer at age 52 saying "I don't know how on earth I got lung cancer".
 
Top