Hi Bob,

In response to your questions:

A 40 pound striped bass is only about 15-18 years old. Considering they
can reach 25-30 years old, these 40 pounders are in their prime breeding
age. Recent evidence coming out for many fish species indicates that
the older spawners have better egg quality (more yolk resulting in
better larval survival). The healthiest condition of a stock is to have
a wide range of ages. All else being equal, a spawning biomass
containing many ages is reproductively better than the same amount of
biomass containing only young spawners.

Hope that answers your question.

Regards,
Mike

************************************************** **************
Michael *. ***********, Ph.D.
Program Manager - Recreational and Anadromous Fisheries
Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

Thanks for posting that info - it might put to rest some of the often repeated postings that these fish are past their prime, that the viability of the eggs is less, so it is better to take them than a smaller fish. I am not against taking fish, but using that justification for taking the bigger females no longer seems to hold water.

Well done Bob. Good to see some truth for a change on 40+ pound fish.

I'm not exactly the "I told you so" type, but I hope some of the people that have argued me over time over this topic read that response.

Very interesting post... but it is not a valid arugment.

First of all, just because a fish is only half way through its life expectancy does not equate to 'being in prime breeding age.' Where is the data to back this up? Without hard data, this is all just heresay and conjecture. For all we know the first 1/10th of an animal's life could be the 'prime breeding age.' Heck just look at humans. We live a long time but we all know it's only for a short period of time that we can bear children. Not to compare humans to wild animals, but you get my point.

Second, evidence from other fish species does not exactly translate to stripers. Has anyone measured yolk quantity on striper eggs/fry themselves? While you can adapt data from different species, it is still an estimation/aproximation and not completely valid.

Basically what I am saying is that while this post is informative, it is not definitive. I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I just think there is still a lot of work to be done. What we need is a concrete study done on stripers, with cold hard facts. That should end the debate once and for all.

Well since I hate eatting Big Bass, I will let them go, and take all the small ones!!

I once killed a small 24" fish :yak: and even that I knew it was not leagle to take it, I did rather then waste it.

It was the best Bass I have ever had to eat!!

So all the bigs go back!!:alien:

How is it we take the word of ONE marine bio that gives only one side of the answer and you say it is the only truth? Can it be its what you want to hear so it is right? Please give me his number so I may call him and see if he thinks any of the other marine bio from the state are all wrong or is it that this like all other topics may have many right answers. By the way Bob I see you are from the Plumb Island area stop by the Div. of Marine Fisheries station and say hi to my son he is the Marine Bio working there now. He has not had time to look around for fishing spots yet as he just moved up there last month but like his dad he loves the water fishing and stripers. By the way ask him to see his fish tattoo!!!!!!!!!

Why would you want to keep a big bass anyhow?
They taste like crap.

Trophies are overrated.

What makes you say this guy is wrong? He says there is recent evidence out that supports his statement. I don't understand why some guys feel they need to justify taking a big bass because they believe she is no longer a prime spawner.

I have no problems with anybody taking a fish that is within the legal limits. But why argue the fisheries guys?

How is it we take the word of ONE marine bio that gives only one side of the answer and you say it is the only truth? Can it be its what you want to hear so it is right? Please give me his number so I may call him and see if he thinks any of the other marine bio from the state are all wrong or is it that this like all other topics may have many right answers. By the way Bob I see you are from the Plumb Island area stop by the Div. of Marine Fisheries station and say hi to my son he is the Marine Bio working there now. He has not had time to look around for fishing spots yet as he just moved up there last month but like his dad he loves the water fishing and stripers. By the way ask him to see his fish tattoo!!!!!!!!!


Actually, that's TWO sources in as many days. You got any that says different?

How is it we take the word of ONE marine bio that gives only one side of the answer and you say it is the only truth? Can it be its what you want to hear so it is right?

I am more likely to believe the word of a state marine biologist who is the program manager no less then almost anyone else. It seems like in most cases where someone is claiming that a striper over 40 is no longer a viable spawner they are either just regurgitating the same old ideas about stripers and/or have no backing or education in marine biology.

Well that clears up some old misconceptions on my part based on earlier "published theory". Thanks!

The idea that a 40-pounder has less viable eggs than a 15-pounder has been circulated for years. It's become like an urban myth with no scientific evidence to back it up, but it continues to be told. One point not mentioned in this thread is the shear number of eggs produced by 40-pounder, compared to a 15-pound bass. One study counted 200,000 eggs produced by a 15-pound bass, while the 40-pound bass produced 2 MILLION eggs.

Download this PDF document if you've got some time to read:

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/SBpopulations.pdf

"...Population projections for the next decade indicate that striped bass stock abundance and biomass could be maintained near present levels (i.e., those in 2000 ) if fishing mortality rates do not exceed F=0.4. However, fishing mortality rates higher than 0.25 will result in a reduced proportion of older fish (age 10 and older) in the population and a decline in spawning stock biomass. As fishing mortality is increased, the age structure of the spawning stock is progressively shifted towards younger spawning fish. Research on striped bass and other species indicate that spawning of smaller and younger fish is significantly less successful than older, more mature individuals. At fishing mortality rates greater than F=0.25, there is a heightened risk of reduced recruitment in the stock due to greater reliance on younger spawners."

More in Here: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/SB2001biennial.pdf

www.fws.gov/northeast/fisherycenter/ bioactrep/01bioactrpt.pdf

coopunit.forestry.uga.edu/ FORS8390/Documents/example1.pdf

How is it we take the word of ONE marine bio that gives only one side of the answer and you say it is the only truth? Can it be its what you want to hear so it is right? Please give me his number so I may call him and see if he thinks any of the other marine bio from the state are all wrong or is it that this like all other topics may have many right answers. By the way Bob I see you are from the Plumb Island area stop by the Div. of Marine Fisheries station and say hi to my son he is the Marine Bio working there now.

GBOUTDOORS - Not trying to stir it up, but I for one am not taking the word of one single Biologist in my opinion of this, but I would certainly think that the head of the Recreational and Anadromous Fisheries department would know his stuff. I don't have access to the fisheries journals anymore - but there is literature out there that addresses this issue.

Just got off the phone with a buddy of mine that has a PhD in Fisheries Biology and teaches marine biology at a University down south and has worked with bluefish, stripers, etc. and he confirmed that the bigger individuals produce not only more eggs, but better quality eggs. While not directly related to stripers - he did mention an article off the top of his head by Steve Berkley in Fisheries magazine that did a good job of the subject of larger individuals producing better quality eggs.

This is why they have slot limits for a number of species - not just for stripers. The larger older individuals can devote more resources into egg production and produce more and in general better eggs.

Ask your son - I am sure he would tell you the same thing. I have taken the marine biology classes, the population dynamics classes, etc. that your son most likely has, and I would doubt that he would come to a different conclusion than what was expressed by the Biologist that Bob received a reply from.

Here is some info from a quick google search

A Population Study of Atlantic Striped Bass - this is page 6 and 7 of the report: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/SBpopulations.pdf

Submitted to the:
Committee on Resources of the United States House of Representatives

and

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate

by
Donald L. Evans
Secretary of Commerce

Gale A. Norton
Secretary of the Interior

Significance of Age Distribution
Following the large 1970 year class produced in Chesapeake Bay, striped bass recruitment remained well below average until 1989 (Richards and Rago 1999). As striped bass recovered during the 1990s, the poor year classes of the previous decades resulted in relatively few older fish in the population. Good recruitment in the 1990s, particularly the 1993, 1997, and 1998 year classes (Figure 2), skewed the age demographics of the population toward younger age groups. However, as these year classes grow older (e.g., striped bass can attain ages in excess of 25 years) and fishing mortality rates on them are controlled, older fish will comprise an increasing proportion of the population. The abundance of older fish (considered in this analysis as ages 10 and older) is expected to sharply increase in 2003 when the large 1993 year class become 10 years old.

The distribution of age classes in a population has important implications for stock productivity and stability. Studies on striped bass have shown that larger fish produce larger eggs and larvae, and larger individuals of these life stages have a greater chance of survival (Zastrow et al. 1989; Monteleone and Houde 1990). Studies on other species such as cod (Marteinsdottir and Steinarsson 1998; Trippel 1998) have demonstrated that first-time spawners are generally less successful in producing offspring than fish that have spawned multiple times. As such, populations that rely heavily on first-time spawners to maintain recruitment levels face a greater risk of recruitment failure than those composed of a number of spawning classes.

The implications of increased fishing mortality on striped bass abundance is well illustrated in Figure 11. A hypothetical cohort of one million striped bass was exposed to four different fishing levels assuming that fish were vulnerable to capture beginning at age five. The hypothetical egg production at age of this cohort under these same fishing levels is depicted in Figure 12. The results indicate that even modest levels of fishing mortality reduce the
proportion of older fish in the stock and shift the bulk of egg production towards younger fish. Shifting the age at which fish are first vulnerable to capture or altering the age groups subject to full exploitation also have major implications on the stock. For example, reducing fishing mortality on ages 8 to 12 (e.g., fish approximately 32 to 40 inches) to one half the full exploitation level results in much greater egg production in the stock and an age distribution in which older fish are much more dominant (Figure 13). Maintaining a diverse number of ages in the population has the biological advantages of increased spawning potential through inclusion of older more fecund fish, and a reduced risk of poor recruitment associated with dependence on younger fish for egg production. In addition, such a strategy provides the opportunity for fishermen to catch trophy-size striped bass.

The migratory nature of striped bass is a complicating factor in fishery management. Striped bass spend their first several years in coastal nursery areas (designated ‘producer areas’ in the Fishery Management Plan) before undertaking long-distance migrations. Once the fish enter the coastal migratory component of the population, their migration route brings them back to the producer areas for a limited time during each spawning season. The challenge to managers is to promote equity among fishermen, recognizing that the availability of different size fish varies by location and season. Historically, fishermen in producer areas have targeted smaller fish while coastal fishermen generally targeted the larger coastal migrants. Regulatory changes in the 1980s amplified these differences as size limits increased in the coastal states (up to 36 inches in some locations) and, together with sharp reductions in fishing mortality, contributed to the restoration of the stocks. Since 1995, when striped bass were declared restored by the ASMFC, fishery regulations have become less restrictive and size limits have been reduced in many states. If one of the objectives of management is to produce a high quality coastal trophy fishery while maintaining the traditional “small fish” fishery in producer areas, one possible approach might be to implement an upper size limit in producer areas and a minimum size limit in the coastal fishery. Such a “slot limit” would potentially afford a sizable portion of the striped bass stock a “length window”of lowered exploitation rates.

I have asked the same question many times of MANY marine bio and the answer is always the same on either side of the issue the smaller fish will for sure be around alot longer than the larger fish all things being the same so will produce more over the years. The larger fish will put out more eggs but is limited in the number of years left. What I say is all the answers given here are the same I have seen not one study in wrighting but this marine bio said this and this one said that. As I stated in other posts I gave names and deg. of many that feel that the bigger fish is on its way down and again I think they may have a point as they have the deg. NOT me. I too gave the name of a marine bio prof. from UMASS for 30 years that feels that way but he too does not have a paper on it so you say your PHD is right and I will contniue to think mine is right till I see a study with facts and fig. that show them wrong. Two sides to every issue and way to many answers? I do not state this as a way to say I can or will kill a fish over 40# but as you should know the legal limit says you can and many do that is their right that we can not and should not take away from them and if that was the case then we should not fish at all I guess as that would be the answer to it all:fishslap: :doh:

Who is it at UMASS? - PM me if you like. That is where I went, my buddy went, and I know all of the professors up there. 30 years - that must be Mike Ross, very nice guy always did well in his classes and he was on my committee when I was going for grad degree.

Not saying that you shouldn't take a fish if it is legal. I love eating fish too and will keep a fish for food. What I see though is a lot of people saying that the older bigger fish are all washed up anyway, so might as well take them as the eggs are not going to be viable. What you are arguing, or rather debating - is that the fish has only so many years left to reproduce, so that it is better to take that one rather than a younger smaller fish that has 'X' number of years ahead of it to contribute to the reproduction effort. While that is true - who is to say it will make it there. The big fish already has and during the next spawning season may produce 10x the egg of that smaller female. If these eggs are larger and the resulting fish are in better condition after the absorbtion of the yolk sac - they stand a better chance of making it to juvenile fish and then into adulthood. I see what you are saying, but I do not agree with it either and while I can't speak for Bob - I believe he was just trying to debunk the myth that older larger females produce eggs that are not as viable, or of lesser quality than smaller fish.

The more fish spawning = more fish in the future years, period.

I don't know why you guys are so against this, is getting a fish to be mounted THAT important? And like a couple of us said, big fish just don't taste as good as the smaller fish.

GBOUTDOORS, you are arguing a completely different point. If you need to see the scientific papers regarding fecundity and egg viability in order to believe the summaries and conclusions, you should read the PDFs that Labrax and I posted and then look at all the references they cited. Those references are all scientific papers. Start with Googling "Zastrow et al. 1989" and "Monteleone and Houde 1990" and read those papers if you want.

What you are hanging your hat on, and I suspect is at the root of the long-held misconception of older stripers losing fecundity, is the notion of Spawning Potential. Spawning potential is a made-up figure that some scientists like to use to try to get their population dynamic theories to work. In the real-world of fisheries management, it has no place. If you allow Spawning Potential to figure into your analysis, you would look at a 15-pound striper next to a 40-pounder and correctly conclude that the 15-pounder has greater spawning potential than the 40. That may be true, until a seal eats the 15-pounder you were looking at. I have the potential to become the world's richest man, but my potential is less than my 6 year old's simply because he has, in theory, longer to work at it. Doesn't mean that I won't win the lottery tomorrow or that he may decide to go to art school and make $16k for his entire career.

Moon you are right but the guy lets the 15# go and keeps the 40# to take on a road show to all the guys and eight dif. bait shops to weight in so it does not breed either.:rollem: Guess we are doomed either way.:devil:

Ps Labrax pm sent let me know if you new him.

GBOUTDOORS,

Responded to the PM - thanks. While we may not agree, at least we are doing it civily. As I mentioned in my PM and previously - I think we are coming at this slightly differently which is leading to the difference in opinion over what is the more valuable fish. Our commong ground is that we are interested enough in the resource to add our info and opinions to see that it continues for our kids and grandkids.

Not sure if this was mentioned, but aside from the viability of the eggs, a 40 or 50# fish is obviously a genetically superior fish to have grown to that size and survived a harsh environment.

In nature, that is how a species stays strong. Stronger males, whether it be deer, grizzlies, wolves, etc. do most of the mating. In fish, the big females are your primary breeders. We all know that.

Passing on that strong genetic makeup is key to any species.

IMO... the worst reason to kill a fish is to show it off. Act like you've been there before... a picture says a thousand words. But its just an opinion.