I am waiting to see how 09 went after a poor 08 and IMO a disturbing trend. Has anyone heard how the spawn went?

Curious to see Jim...
worried myself...

I am waiting to see how 09 went after a poor 08 and IMO a disturbing trend. Has anyone heard how the spawn went?

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"

those are our 28-32" fish

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"



I checked the MD DNR #s. Based on 8 being good, there have only been 8 years that meet or exceed that since 1957. They are: 1958, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2003.

Not to imply that I am not concerned about how things seem to be heading, but it is hard to know what the #'s really tell us.

1958 was 11.12, followed by 0.59 in 1959.

Thirty two of the last 51 years were below 4, including eight of the years between 1957 and 1969, which is considered part of the golden years of stripers, you could say.

From 1973 to 1988 there were only two years above 3 and they were 3.75 and 3.37. That obviously was bad.

Average (mean) for
1957-1966 is 4.56.
2000-2009 is 5.69.

I think it is the trend you should be more concerned with as opposed to a specific year absolute number and the average. I look at trend (either improving or worsening).
I attached a couple plots that have give me an uncomfortable feeling...
The first is the yoy index. You say 3.9 is the 09 value, look at the 10 year trend.
The other is the largest shore bass caught at the MV derby since 1947. Look at the trend since they reinstated it. (it was removed from the derby for a decade or so during the problem years) Now to be fair this is not 100% accurate as the rules changed over the years slightly, but one should also include the fishing "effort" today vs the effort back then...ie. there are 3X as many people fishing the derby today and it runs for 5 weeks now as opposed to 30 days back then. If you include that the worsening trend would be significantly modified. Also I know the numbers of fish are down as well as the weight. More importanly, If you look at bass/angler I think the trend would become more clear we are decling. I hope to get some more data and look at it in more detail with some some more solid statistics but I think this trend is bad. And what concerns me the most is that DMF (what ever group) will not worry about it until it is way too late. Their track record is abysmal, remember, they were "managing" SB as well as cod, flounder, and every other species that ran into problems. IMO they are actually part of the problem and not the solution.

I think the largest fish chart really has no significant meaning since the last couple of years people are reporting large amounts of large in the EEZ, and the lack of large inshore. They are probably onto a new source of bait, a change in cycle or an adaptation if you will. There also appears to be no consistancy in the YOY index across the whole time line. I am too stupid about this stuff anyway :smash:

i think the largest fish chart is a result of the gray seals :fury: :smash: keeping (eating some and chasing the rest away) the larger forage fish away from shore. a big bass doesn't need to be chased away from shore that many times to figure out it ain't safe. so, no food, not safe, i'll stay in deep water and eat hake. just my op.

I think the largest fish chart really has no significant meaning since the last couple of years people are reporting large amounts of large in the EEZ, and the lack of large inshore. They are probably onto a new source of bait, a change in cycle or an adaptation if you will. There also appears to be no consistancy in the YOY index across the whole time line. I am too stupid about this stuff anyway :smash:


The largest fish chart are actual facts, "reports of large amounts in the EEZ" are more or less hearsay without numbers of any kind and therefore less significant than the derby's numbers. That said, I am sure there are a body of fish migrating offshore, and perhaps this is where satellite tagging would help, but no one is really looking into the decline of the size, quality and numbers of fish.
I have to say we had plenty of fish around here in July nothing huge but decent numbers of 20's.

According to all the experts and articles I have read, we should have broken the world record by now...we were supposed to be seeing more 50#+ fish by now.

All of this IMO points to a overall decline in size, number and quality of bass. No doubt bait is a big part of the problem as well but as long as fishery "experts" focus on the problems by a species by species approach and not a big overall picture (including forage fish) I think we are doomed.

Maybe we are in a mixed area, combination of being spoiled by the great 96 class of fish AND we are at a loss on the later classes.

Time is running out for those of us over 50. If we are looking at 20 years for a 50 lb fish, these consecutive low year classes are grim news.

The largest fish chart are actual facts, "reports of large amounts in the EEZ" are more or less hearsay without numbers of any kind and therefore less significant than the derby's numbers. That said, I am sure there are a body of fish migrating offshore, and perhaps this is where satellite tagging would help, but no one is really looking into the decline of the size, quality and numbers of fish.
I have to say we had plenty of fish around here in July nothing huge but decent numbers of 20's.

According to all the experts and articles I have read, we should have broken the world record by now...we were supposed to be seeing more 50#+ fish by now.

All of this IMO points to a overall decline in size, number and quality of bass. No doubt bait is a big part of the problem as well but as long as fishery "experts" focus on the problems by a species by species approach and not a big overall picture (including forage fish) I think we are doomed.

I don't think the biggest fish taken over a 5 week period of the derby really represents a realistic sample of the overall health of bass. There are so many factors that can affect shore fishing - as stated above, the gray seals for one.

As a friend of mine once said, "when we shore fish, we are just outlining the vast area these fish live in. Those big fish from back in the day could still be around, just 5 miles off shore."

Even when a scientific research study of the health of fish stocks is done, there still seems to be an immense difficulty pinpointing the health of the fish stocks. Just looking at the YOY chart demonstrates this - numbers completely all over the place with no real consistency or statistically significant trending aside from in the 80s.

Or maybe I'm just hopeful that all the stories I hear from the old timers talking, that start "remember when" and "back 15 years ago" will come around again sometime.

While I don't deny it's not the best statistical sample but it is a somewhat consistent sample that has been taken for 63 years and shows some general trends even if you ignore the absolute numbers themselves...besides what is the fishery guys doing to get a better sample?...Oh yeah, I forgot, they are being forced by the feds to create a saltwater fishing lic...this will fix everything:wall: 50 years from now, IF they use the money correctly and require all fishermen to report their catch.

Moreover, if you look an any other trends from any source do you see improvements of any kind? All I hear is "according to the best science available" the fish is not over fished. Their best science is pretty bad if you ask me...if this fishery goes to the point of collapse again I think recs should demand prison sentences for all those working in the fishery departments. I am serious.

if we weren't eternal optimists we wouldn't be surfcasters


or

if we weren't dumb we'd have boats

[QUOTE=Mr. Sandman;717861]...besides what is the fishery guys doing to get a better sample?...Oh yeah, I forgot, they are being forced by the feds to create a saltwater fishing lic...this will fix everything:wall: 50 years from now, IF they use the money correctly and require all fishermen to report their catch.

[QUOTE]

Actually, the more likely outcome is that the data obtained after the registry begins will establish a new "baseline" which they then will consider the norm for the population....even though it is only a shadow of what we once had.

''or if we were stupid we'd have a kayak'' it is amazing the differance a few hundred feet can have

''or if we were stupid we'd have a kayak'' it is amazing the differance a few hundred feet can have

:buds:

besides what is the fishery guys doing to get a better sample?..

How about doing real sampling on the spawning grounds every spring? MD DNR has been doing sampling up in the spawning rivers for years. BTW- they are also the ones that do the YOY survey. NY DEC also sample the Hudson population in the spring. If you want to really get the facts start at http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/stockStatus.pdf

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"

those are our 28-32" fish

2007 was 13 and change, and 2005 was close to 20.

If you look at the historical data, prior to 1970 there was only one year as good as 2005, and only a handful as good as 2007. You can't expect a 1993 or 1996 spawn every year.

its "yoy" "young of year" index

its a 3.92 for 2009

the last good year was 2003 at a 10.83

anything over an 8 is considered "good"

those are our 28-32" fish


Just as an FYI--you are using the geometric mean (3.92) in your post, and I don't believe that an "8" is accurate for a "good" year using the geometric mean. 10 is considered an average year using the arithmetic mean. The chart in Sandman's posts also shows the YOY index as the arithmetic mean. Last year's arithmetic mean was 3.82, but the geometric mean was only something like 1.6. This year's YOY index of 3.92 geometric translates into an arithmetic mean slightly under 10---a little below average but still 2-3 times higher than last year's YOY index.

To give some frame of reference, from 1954 when MD started compiling these YOY indices until the record spawns of the early and mid 1990s, an "average" year would consist of an artithmetic mean of 8.0. The great spawns pushed an average mean to 12.0. Today a 10.0 is considered "average".

If you don't like it do something about it.
My friend started the save the summer flounder fisheries fund (SSFFF) after the NMFS told us we where going to be down to 2 fluke per outing with the possibility of a closed season the next year.Reason was NMFS statistics told us we where vastly overfishing our quota's..:fury:
He worked hard to raise money.With it a independent scientist was commissioned who put fourth numbers to dispute the claims of overfishing.It worked..And we have had a few banner seasons since..
They have more new battles now but that's a different story.
My point is if you put forth the effort you can get it done.If you think there is a problem do something about it.
Typing on websites gets little done.

I think I remember reading somewhere (Daignault) the model was changed at some time in the YOY survey..
Plus many things factor into the success of the spawn.This years wet spring could have been a factor.
If you ask me as a fisherman. I think the striped bass population has been somewhat stable the last ten years..
I think their feeding habits are changing..We have cleaner water now,that yields easier offshore feeding.I think some sort of satellite tagging program would be very interesting to say the least,.

Mike P, not to get too boring with math but geometric mean is more accurate than arithmetic mean for calculating trends (population growth, return on investment, etc) over time so the numbers Matt quotes are more relevant (and accurate) than the arithmetic mean numbers. Generally the arithmetic mean and geometric mean are not drastically different. If the geometric mean of the data differs from the arithmetic mean by two-fold as you suggest then their data is junk.

Just that the arithmetic mean is the one that has been traditionally referred to when assesing the succes/mediocrity/failure of a spawn. People are used to hearing it--when they hear "3.92" and don't know that it's the less familiar geometric mean being used, they tend to think that it's a disasterous spawn rather than a mediocre one.

It was also the one used by ASMFC to end the commercial moratorium--there had to be an 8.0 average over a 3 year period before the fishery was reopened.

The 26 recorded in 1989 accomplished this all on its own ;)

And I mis-spoke the arithmetic mean for 2009--it's 7.87, not "a little under 10".

all this math talk is makin me hott!!!

[QUOTE=NIB;.I think some sort of satellite tagging program would be very interesting to say the least,.[/QUOTE]

Funny. RIRockhound and I were talking about just that last weekend.

Especially since I have been talking to the Tuna guys and they are telling me that there are tons of Bass out on Stellwagon eating sandeels like there is no tomorrow. They are offshore because their favorite food is offshore.

Matt -- you get hot looking at the pictures in the latest issue of Modern Maturity. :love:

Mike -- thanks for the clarification. Mine was a minor point but the math was more interesting than the usual 1000 "nice job" posts after someone uploads a pic of a 15lber