COMMERCIAL FISHERIES NEWS • FEBRUARY 2006 • 21A
Assessment shows striped bass stock size large
WASHINGTON. DC Stock assessment results announced in the tall indicated the striped bass resource remains strong despite continuing disease concerns in the Chesapeake Bay population.
Using a virtual population analysis (VPA). scientists estimated the stock size at 65.3 million fish, which was 10 percent higher than the average stock size for the previous five years.
And complimentary tagging studies estimated that striper abundance could actually be higher than the VPA estimates
The stock assessment results were announced at a meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) striped bass management hoard in October
Scientists characterized the stock as not overfished and said that overfishing is not occurring. The female spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be at 55 million pounds, well above the SSB target and threshold levels of 38.6 million pounds and 30.9 million pounds, respectively.
Recruitment of young fish age one -was estimated to be at 12.7 million, which was close to the average recruitment observed since the stock was declared recovered in 1995.
Infection, food worries?
The exceedingly bright stock assessment report may seem at odds with findings
presented at an April 2004 symposium, which addressed problems plaguing the Chesapeake Bay portion of the stock.
The bay supplies about 80 percent of the coastal minatory striped bass populations, and scientists were concerned about: a steady decline in the survival rate of resident bass since 1998. a 24-40 percent "potentially" lethal Mycobacterium infection rate; and a finding that 70-80 percent of the fish had no visible body fat, suggesting a food availability problem.
In response to questions about those reports, ASMFC striped bass technical committee Chairman Doug Grout said that, while the symposium brought up some potential concerns that needed monitoring, the fact was the assessment
results indicated the stock was continuing to grow in numbers.
"From my perspective the key word ... related to infection with Mycobacterium is 'potentially' lethal." Grout wrote in an e-mail. "While there has been some analysis with the tagging data that suggests a recent increase in natural mortality of striped bass in Chesapeake Bay, it appears that it is currently not at a level that has inhibited stock growth."
The Mycobacterium is a threat only to the fish, not to consumers.
Catches
According to the assessment results, total catch in 2004 rose to 5.2 million fish, a 33 percent increase since implementation of Amendment 6 to the
interstate striped bass plan
The commercial catch rose slightly to 1.42 million fish, with commercial fisheries in Maryland accounting for halt of the harvest.
Recreational harvest and discards accounted for 72.5 percent of total mortality. The majority of those fish were harvested by anglers in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and North Carolina
Based on the advice of its technical committee, the ASMFC striped bass board decided no changes were necessary in state management programs for 2006.
The next peer reviewed stock assessment is scheduled for 2007. More information is available on the ASMFC web site at <www.asmfc.org>. /cfn/

if its put out by the commercial fisheries it should be taken with a grain of salt , sounds like they want to up the quota to me

The commercial catch rose slightly to 1.42 million fish, with commercial fisheries in Maryland accounting for halt of the harvest.


Must be a serious butchering going on down in Maryland...

HEY SAX Yo Yo YO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I REMEMBER :wave:

Wait a couple of weeks - there will be a contrary set of facts and findings from people with a different agenda.
:yak5:

Imagine my college GPA if I could have used Virtual (ANYTHING) analysis.

if its put out by the commercial fisheries it should be taken with a grain of salt , sounds like they want to up the quota to me
The article was certainly published in a newspaper called "Commercial Fisheries News". But who did the actual stock assessment? Was it the ASMFC, Commercial Fisheries News, or some independant commercial fishing interest with "Hired Gun" scientists? Would it have been better, or more believable if the stock assessment had been bleak?
I've read threads and posts on this board which indicate that the ASMFC has a strong bias towards commercial fiherman. Is this true for every species that they manage?
I've never read "Striper Wars". Did the ASMFC play any part in the rebuilding of striped bass stocks? Did they work with #^&#^&#^&#^& Russel, against him, or did they play absolutely no part?
Are their efforts to manage/rebuild stocks of the American eel and river herring counter to the interests of recreational fishing?
If I had left the name of the newspaper and the ASMFC out of the post, would the reaction have been different?

HEY SAX Yo Yo YO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I REMEMBER :wave:
I can't friggin' WAIT!!!

:::CRUNCH:::

:faga:

Scientists are always part of a larger institution that is driven by funding. It does not matter whether they draw their checks from Harvard, the US Government, or they work for a tobacco company. For a scientist, a finding that goes against funding is not in the best interest of tenure or continued employment.

I don't think data from the ASMFC is any less slanted than the data from Stripers Forever. I think they both present their data in such a way as to further their respective causes.

To believe that if one group found supportive data of the opposition's position and would report as so speaks to an extreme lack of sophistication. Maybe things were different at one time, before the preponderance of lobbyists, big-money influence, and the wholesale corruption of our institutions. But it's pretty clear now that everything is about money.

Makes you wonder about the models that are being used to get these nuimbers.

Any article published in a periodical which is written by and for the benefit of commercial fishermen could hardly be considered biased and a prudent person would have to assume those figures arrived at by using "VPA's" are inflated. Commercial fishermen have never let science/truth get in the way of thier slanted view on stock asessments. One has to pay attention to the young of the year surveys and many many other factors. If the stock assessment was 10 % higher in 2005 that figure would probably coincide with a higher young of the year survey five to eight years ago. VPA's without reading into VPA's is probably like looking at the same girl today that you looked at yesterday and thinking that she is different. When the only difference is that she is wearing a different dress. Nothing else has changed. It reminds me of the term voodoo economics. This sounds and reads like voodoo fisheries science and not reality.

Ummm... ok.
Maybe I'm just totally thick headed and/or ignorant, but I'm still not getting it. Is everyone here saying that the so-called "scientists" who conducted this stock assesment were hired by/paid by commercial fishing interests and therefore "cooked" the numbers by using some sort of voodoo psuedo-scientific method called "VPA"? If this is so (and for all I know, it is), then why don't these same commercial interests do the same for all other species that they target?
East coast commercial ground fisherman and facing cuts in days-at-sea which will reduce their days from the 52 they have now, to possibly as low as 32 days per year. Why are they not simply paying scientists to conclude that not only are stocks sustainable at current mortality rates, but the stock can support an increase! :)
My guess is that they don't do this because that's not how fisheries management works. I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that fisheries management bodies are comprised of various intererests; fishing industry, conservationists, government regulators, scientists, and that once they have some sort of survey data/stock assessment to go by, they then try to hammer out regulations that will protect/conserve/rebuild a resource, while still maintaining a viable commercial fishery.
Commercial fisherman find themselves in dire straights due to pre-Magnusen Act foreign fishing and the unchecked greed of domestic fisherman in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, before serious management was in place. In every subsequent year, in an effort to protect the resource and meet the requirements of law, whole sections of prime fishing areas have been closed, days-at-sea reduced, and total allowable catch numbers decreased.
It's funny that some would refer to the science used in this striped bass stock assessment as "vodoo-this" or voodoo that", because thats exactly what, for years, commercial fishing interests have been calling the science behind the management measures that are ultimately aimed at protecting thier livlihoods.
So which is it? We can't have it both ways.
Yes, this stock assessment was reported in "Commercial Fisheries News", which has also, over the past 10 years, published story after story after story about stocks that really ARE in trouble;fish populations that really ARE near collapse. Because these stories are published in a commercial fisheries trade paper, should we dismiss them as "spun", "slanted", and "biased"? Again, I have to ask, if the story about the stock assessment had been published in say, OTW, or "The Fisherman", would the reaction by recreational fisherman to the study be different? Perhaps some want to "shoot the messenger".
There are some enviromental groups who would simply like to see all commercial fishing ended permanantly. Some recreational fisherman might think that that might be a good thing. We all know that these same groups would also like to see all recreational fishing permantly banned as well.
Having said all this, let me point out that I have absolutley no idea if the stock assessment was accurate or not. Are there other assessments being done by some other group of scientists using more reliable methods? I don't know the answer to this question either. Can anyone shed some light on that?