Been looking at some interesting data, and had a discussion with an “expert" on the availability of large fish (50# class) for the next few years.

The past several seasons, 2005 in particular, there were considerably higher numbers of giant fish (50 # class) landed compared to the early 2000’s. The occurrence of these fish coincides with the last of the 1982 year class of fish, which would be 25 years old next year. This means, statistically, there won’t be many left due to the fact that they just don’t live that long on average.

I mention the 1982 class because it was the first class of fish with an above average YOY index during the recovery years. Subsequent years, say, the 1983-1988 classes were below average, and 1989 was the next above average year for the index. With this data, one could conclude that we may see a decline in super large fish between 2007 and 2009, as compared to 2005-2006.

This doesn’t mean some individuals won’t knock them dead, but implies the general availability of this class of fish will be fewer coast wide due to what was born 25 years ago. Beginning in 2010, the YOY numbers suggest a markedly increased availability of super large based on the 1989 year class of fish, which will be 20 plus years old. So what is the consensus, do you buy the experts math, or is it all voodoo?
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2006/102606b.html

It makes sense but with every sport on the offseason, people look for a reason to hype the next year. I'm sure you can find data that will say there won't be as many due to lack of bait etc.

I love the theory's and they do get me excited for a chance but I just don't hold my breath.

mike,

Look at the numbers of 40-48 pound fish taken last year... just on this site alone. maybe we were treated to a school that hugged the coast... but it seems like next year offers a good chance at large. We shall see.....

-Dave

seems like we're seeing more and more adult bunker each season. i would think that if they return, big fish should continue to venture into our waters .......that is if the jersey guys don't kill them all :hihi:

I think we'll see more bigger fish in the NE, as bunker make a stay in our waters. More 50"/50lb fish instead of 50"/40lb fish. Same fish, just heavier.

I think we'll see more bigger fish in the NE, as bunker make a stay in our waters. More 50"/50lb fish instead of 50"/40lb fish. Same fish, just heavier.

I argree;
I saw more 'healthy' fat fish this year than years past, many more 38" legit 20lb fish instead of schools of 36" 15lb fish

My numbers/thesis is for coastwide, not just s-b members. You guys are all making legit arguments. There are variables, but the general population numbers right now based on YOY favor us catiching a lot of 15-35# fish, just like this year. This is based on the spike in YOY roughly 10-12 years ago.The real big fish(documented/official, of course) caught from the surf this year I know of are minimal compared to the early 2000's through 2005. I say its an availability issue coastwide.The boats still get them frequently, but I'm pretty sure its less than a few years ago. The YOY index says it should be less than the early 2000's.

mike,

Look at the numbers of 40-48 pound fish taken last year... just on this site alone. -Dave


you mean 2005, not 2006, right?

based on the numbers of schoolies I caught this year, if the bait populations are taken care of, we could have tons of good sized fish in 20 years!

The 1996 YOY was almost triple that of the 1989 ;)

The 1996 YOY was almost triple that of the 1989 ;)

How big would one of the 96 class fish be now?

The 1996 YOY was almost triple that of the 1989 ;)
that explains the loads of 42" 24-27 pound bass all over the place this year.

How big would one of the 96 class fish be now?

36-38" range, or 15-18#'s for 1996 class.

48-50" for the 1989 fish right now, the weight is negligible. By 2009 though, you could make an argument for an increased number of trophy class fish available based on the numbers of what was born 20 years prior.

Intersting data Mike, How many seals are forecast for 2009-2010....SCARY!

I buy the theory, it makes too much sense. But the actual weight of any given fish is going to be influenced by where she has spent the recent past and how much she has found to eat.

I wont even bother giving a theory too much thought, that doesnt account for losses.

So if in 1989 there were x amount of yoy, and they should be x length and weight by x year.

Where are the losses factored in?

I like the theory dont get me wrong just trying to bring up another point of view. Its almost like an IF nothing goes wrong with these fish theory?

Factor in a few metric tons of lost fish for the nets off nc and I'd be more onboard with the theory.

I wont even bother giving a theory too much thought, that doesnt account for losses.

So if in 1989 there were x amount of yoy, and they should be x length and weight by x year.

Where are the losses factored in?

I like the theory dont get me wrong just trying to bring up another point of view. Its almost like an IF nothing goes wrong with these fish theory?

Factor in a few metric tons of lost fish for the nets off nc and I'd be more onboard with the theory.
I think that the theory is including that...if year x had y amount of fish. and year x+1 had y+75 fish, then 10 years down the road, more fish from year X+1 should be around.:huh:
did that make any sense?:poke:

I agree with krispy about the bait-

What about the bait situation and how poluted the chessapeke is now.

I think that the theory is including that...if year x had y amount of fish. and year x+1 had y+75 fish, then 10 years down the road, more fish from year X+1 should be around.:huh:
did that make any sense?:poke:

That's the theory exactly. Everything else would be the same, or normalized, with regard to attrition rates and nutrition levels.:uhuh:

IF: X=1
Y=X+75
Z= normalized mortality rate over given time frame.
THEN:
X-Z<Y-Z at the end of given time frame.

This is too F!@#@#$n deep. :bsod:

you mean 2005, not 2006, right?

no 2006

I wont even bother giving a theory too much thought, that doesnt account for losses.

So if in 1989 there were x amount of yoy, and they should be x length and weight by x year.

Where are the losses factored in?

I like the theory dont get me wrong just trying to bring up another point of view. Its almost like an IF nothing goes wrong with these fish theory?

Factor in a few metric tons of lost fish for the nets off nc and I'd be more onboard with the theory.

The losses are impossible to calculate, but if every year class is fished with the same pressure, lets say 70% of what's available dies before it reached 50# (I'm sure it's more like 85%) if year A has 100M and year B has 300M... you still have 3 times the leftovers from B to A. Whoa, that's a lot of thinking for friday afternoon.... knap time ni ni

I just wanted to bring up the losses and how possible it is/would be to calculate them.

Take tuna for instance where they were doing all these studies based on yearly spawning, for quite some time.

Then someone said hey do these really spawn yearly??

They tracked ‘em then realized oooops… Some spawn ever few years… so how skewed were those numbers???