Summer Flounder Management Issues and Analysis

Leah Kowalski

Wildlife Management – ENVL 3121

Dr. Tredick

May 3, 2023
Summary

Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) is one of the most popular commercial and

recreational fisheries on the east coast of North America, most abundant from Cape Cod,

Massachusetts to Cape Fear, North Carolina. In 2021, recreational harvest decreased by about

3.3 million pounds compared to the year prior (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

2023). The management of summer flounder has been contentious since it was implemented in

1988 by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) (Terceiro 2017).

In the early 1980s, stock assessments indicated that summer flounder stock was

overfished, and managers began to move towards implementation of regulatory measures

(Terceiro 2001). In September 1988, a fisheries management plan (FMP) was enacted, size limits

were set, as well as foreign restrictions and permit requirements, and states were encouraged to

retain the regulations. In 1989, assessments indicated that that summer flounder were still being

overfished, and by then the overfished status was clear to scientists, managers, and fishermen

alike (Terceiro 2001). Several commercial fishing companies and organizations filed lawsuits

against these regulations as the years went on and regulations continued to change. In 1992, the

FMP was amended to include commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits, as well as a

framework of annual adjustable recreational fishery regulations (size limits, bag limits, seasons,

etc.). Now peer reviewed stock assessments were made annually to set annual quotas. Due to

this, tension between scientists and managers increased because managers wanted quotas to be as

high as could be justified by science (Terceiro 2001). In 1993, the first stock assessment under

the amendment took place, and found that fishing mortality at mature ages was still very high,

and regulations needed to continue to change.

 In 1994, several commercial fishing companies brought the Department of Commerce

(NMFS parent agency) to court over the regulations. The court ordered that the NMFS reevaluate

and reset commercial quotas. This highly publicized lawsuit brought extreme public scrutiny

(Terceiro 2001). In 1997, controversy continued as it was found that fishing mortality was

underestimated in the previous year’s stock assessment, and there were issues with length and

age correlation. Fishermen were determined to prove that abundance was underestimated, and

they continued to be at odds with scientists. In a lawsuit, it was once again determined that the

Department of Commerce submitted “arbitrary and capricious” data. In 1998, due to public

scrutiny, a new assessment of summer flounder was not conducted (Terceiro 2001). Lawsuits

continued and the MAFMC continued to be criticized. Despite regulations, by 2000, summer

flounder biomass was still decreasing, and nowhere near the levels of its most abundant

assessment in 1983 (Terciero 2001).

In 2002 a benchmark assessment indicated that the summer flounder stock was still

overfished, and that overfishing was still occurring. Fishing mortality had declined slightly, but it

was still above the target (Terceiro 2011). As stock increased, size limits increased, bag limits

decreased, and seasons became shorter to avoid more severe restrictions the next year. By 2006,

the recreational fishing industry was the staunchest critic of summer flounder management. They

said that scientists were not above adjusting models to support their own agendas, and that a

biomass goal was unattainable. Another lawsuit, this time from the recreational side, against the

Department of Commerce, was called in favor of the NMFS, and their goals were upheld. At this

point, scientists believed that rebuilding summer flounder stock was well “behind schedule,”

with stock biomass reaching about half of the biomass goal (92,646 mt by 2010) (Terceiro 2011).

Despite this, commercial and recreational fishers were still looking for some “flexibility” and
turned to politicians for help. It was determined that summer flounder were not overfished, and

no overfishing was taking place, a huge departure from all recent assessments. In 2009 and 2010,

the same results were found. The size of the 2008 year class had been reduced from an estimated

62 million fish to 49 million, but this was still above average. The 2009 year class was estimated

to be twice the average. It looked like things were improving, but tension remained due to

continuing regulations (Terceiro 2011).

In 2011 the MAFMC implemented a new risk policy and control rule, and the quota for

2011 decreased. Due to this policy, the assessment came late, causing outrage (Terceiro 2017). In

2013, scientists found that the range of summer flounder had moved in a northern direction due

to warming water, and it showed a decrease in mean length at age of fish. However, it predicted

that abundance was on a positive trend and would continue to be positive into 2015. In 2010, the

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement began investigating claims that fishermen were not reporting

their catches, as was required by the RSA program. This obviously could have influenced stock

assessments into reporting better numbers than what fishermen were seeing (Terceiro 2017).

In the present, summer flounder regulations for both commercial and recreational fishing

are still highly contested, and the public is extremely involved in the assessment process. In

2021, recreational harvest decreased by 3.3 million pounds from 2020 (Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission 2023).

Challenges

The “summer flounder controversy” is one of the most public fisheries management

operations to date. It clearly shows the disconnect between scientists, managers, and fishermen,
as well as environmentalists. Summer flounder populations are still decreasing, yet fishermen are

still fighting regulations.

In 2008, “Wild Chronicles”, a documentary series, reported about summer flounder from

a charter boat’s perspective. Customers in New Jersey can be seen throwing 90% of the summer

flounder caught due to minimum size limits, which had increased from 16 inches to 18 inches

over the previous years. According to them, summer flounder were more abundant than ever.

One captain believes that scientists and managers have incorrect information, but managers

counter that these boats are fishing from areas where they know summer flounder will be

abundant. Recreational captains are worried continued regulations will cause less business, and

conservationists are worried that lifting regulations could cause extinction (AtlanticStarFishing

2008). As mentioned above, by 2008, stock assessments were suggesting that summer flounder

were not being overfished, yet populations are still decreasing. This documentary short gives

perspective from the average fisherman. They tend to distrust science based off their own

experiences. This may be valid. Scientists crunching data are not the ones taking day trips all

summer and looking at the fish being pulled in. But, as seen in the summary section, stock

assessments on summer flounder have been going on for years. Scientists and fishermen are

continuously at odds in this case because their data/experience often shows the opposite

information.

Another charter captain, John McMurray, wrote in 2016 that for a while, management

techniques were successful, stating he could “even fly-fish for ‘em” (McMurray 2016). He says

that the fishery was basically rebuilt since it started to decline in the 80s. However, around 2014,

fishermen started to see the population of summer flounder decline. McMurray believes this is

due to some undetectable source of mortality that scientists just do not know. He thinks that
scientists are correct in limiting catch from the solid 2008-2009 year classes, but that some

anglers believe that because they are still catching these fish, that the science is wrong. He also

believes that a lot of the mistrust comes from misleading media. He concludes that without

precaution and abundance, the recreational fishery, especially small operations, won’t have a

fishery at all (McMurray 2016). This mention of the media is particularly interesting to me. Like

in all other politicized issues, the media stakeholders consume influences their opinions. With a

case that is so publicized like this, incorrect information gets thrown around all the time, which

leads to mistrust and a stronger divide between scientists and fishermen. I think that the mistrust

between the two groups is the core problem in this issue, as all the lawsuits and controversy has

delayed effective management of the fishery, which could be what is causing current lows.

Extremely popular magazines like The Commercial Fisheries News indicated that new

information was a surprise to managers and called for more frequent stock assessments. In The

Fisherman, a recreational fishery magazine, Jim Hutchinson Jr. wrote “A bad law and ‘fatally

flawed’ science is leading to intense anger and frustration within the recreational fishing

community,” (Terceiro 2017). Both magazines are very popular in the recreational fishing

community, and this is how the average fisherman stays up to date on current events. With little

to no contact with scientists, media like this can create a convincing narrative against researchers

and the data they have collected.

A lot of the controversy on the summer flounder issue stems from the fact that fishermen

do not know if they can trust the data that scientists are putting out. Over the course of this

conflict stock assessment methods changed. With these changes came new data, and with new

data came new conclusions that may not agree with earlier assessments. In addition, summer

flounder stock assessments are data-rich, meaning that there is an abundance of data and
scientists know the quantities that are being estimated (McCall n.d.). However, the issue with

data-rich assessments is that they severely under-estimate uncertainty (McCall n.d.). Summer

flounder stock assessments rely on reported catch from fishermen, which was found to be

unreliable in several cases (Terceiro 2017). In addition, stock assessments by nature are not the

most accurate assessment method, simply because of how large the ocean is. Scientists try their

best to get the most accurate information possible, but the element of uncertainty will always be

there. All of these factors can easily sow distrust in fishermen because they believe that because

they are on the water every day, they have the knowledge. In addition, it creates tension between

scientists and fishermen.

The economic side of this issue is also important to consider. For commercial boats,

regulations and quotas lowers the amounts they are allowed to harvest, thus lowering income.

For recreational charter boats, with minimum size limits, less fish can be kept. Keeping less fish

leads to less successful charter trips, unhappy customers, and less customers in general. Summer

flounder trips are a huge deal in New Jersey, and they bring in a lot of tourist revenue. Managers

and scientists need to consider this when making decisions, but they also need to prevent

overfishing, which proves in any wildlife management issue to be very difficult.

It seems that regardless of what managers and scientists with summer flounder, there will

be controversy. If they lowered limits, environmental activists would be upset, and if they

continue to raise limits, fishermen will continue to be upset.

Areas of uncertainty

I would like to see further research on the economic effects on commercial and

recreational fisheries. I feel like that was not factoring into the research being done especially at
the start, but to make informed decisions, scientists and managers need some way to estimate the

financial impact of regulations. In addition, due to all the amendments to stock assessment

methods, and the changes in models used, I do not believe there is a viable history that can be

referenced. The fishermen who are distrusting in this issue have a point; how can information

with unreliable collection methods be trusted as fact? Summer flounder is a fishery that has been

managed and in the public eye for a long time, and not having an entirely reliable history is fuel

for more lawsuits and more controversy. Summer flounder populations need to be preserved, but

balancing public and economic interests, with stock assessments giving varying data, is very

difficult.

References:

AtlanticStarFishing. (2008, November 10). Summer Flounder Controversy [Video].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAvnpp-oTzs

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. (2023). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission. species - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Retrieved April 13,

2023, from http://www.asmfc.org/species/summer-flounder.

McMurray, J. (2016, December 7). The hard truth on summer flounder. Marine Fish

Conservation Network. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from

https://conservefish.org/2016/12/07/hard-truth-summer-flounder/

McCall, A. (n.d.). Data-Poor Stock Assessment and Fishery Management. CA.gov. Retrieved

April 19, 2023, from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=36334.

Hicks, R., & Schnier, K. (2016). (tech.). Commercial and Recreational Allocation for Summer

Flounder (pp. 1–71). Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

Terceiro, M. (2001). The summer flounder chronicles: Science, politics, and litigation, 1975–

2000. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 11(2), 125–168.

https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015260005887

Terceiro, M. (2011). The summer flounder chronicles II: New science, new controversy, 2001–

2010. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 21(4), 681–712.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-011-9207-9

Terceiro, M. (2017). The summer flounder chronicles III: Struggling with success, 2011–2016.

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 28(2), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-

017-9506-x