I will here attempt to summarize last night's hearing in Dedham, MA for those of you who could not make it.

There were 32 or 33 people in attendance. It seemed all were recreational fishermen, except for maybe 1 or 2. The Mass Striped Bass Assn. made a strong showing and though most (if not all) members who showed were recs, they indicated that they represent a large number of comms in their organization. Also present were John Redman (Striped-Bass.com), someone from ReelTime.com, several members of Plum Island Surfcasters, several from Stripercoast Surfcasters Club, and several others who's affiliations I did not catch. Interestingly enough, I don't believe the MBBA and Stripers Forever were officially represented.

Paul Diodati (sp?), the MA appointee to the ASMFC was host.

Nichola Meserve gave a good presentation on the current draft of Addendum II to Amendment 6, fielded questions, and moderated the public comment portion of the meeting. She handled the meeting very well.

For those who have not read the Addendum, it is attached to this post as a PDF document. I had studied all of these details ahead of time, but wanted to hear the ASMFC presentation for myself just to make sure that I was, in fact, understanding everything correctly. I'm glad I did, as it did clarify a few things for me.

The Addendum is basically broken into 2 parts, or 2 separate issues.
Both issues were discussed separately in Ms. Meserve's presentation, and the public comment section was also split into 2 parts discussing each issue separately.

Issue #2, the less controversial issue was discussed first, so I will touch on that first for you all. This question under Issue 2 is basically whether or not to redefine the method for determining recruitment failure of the Juvenile Abundance Index (JAI). The JAI is essentially an estimate of the success of the spawn for any given year.

Currently under Section 3.1.1 of Amendment 6, the data used to determine recruitment (spawning) failure, includes ALL data known, including data from early years before the methods were standardized, and some years where data is actually missing, as shown circled in RED below in the Virginia JAI history:

http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/add2fig9.jpg

Removing these years from the data set would result in the bar (black line above) being RAISED. This is a good thing in my opinion. Management action (i.e. reduction in comm harvest and/or rec harvest) is triggered if 3 consecutive years fall below the line. By raising the bar here, management action would be triggered more quickly, while the stock is still actually healthy enough to rebuild quickly.

Here is where the bar would be set on the VA JAI chart if those early years were removed from the data set.

http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/add2fig10.jpg

Also included in this option would be the recommendation to FIX the bar at this level, so that it is not a constantly moving target that changes every year as data is added. It is recommended by the Technical Committee that the current data set is ideal and a moving target is not in the best interest of the fishery in this regard. I agree with this assessment.

Public comment on Issue #2 described above showed 100% of the meeting attendees in support of the Technical Committee's recommendation to redefine recruitment failure as outlined above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The floor was then opened for public comment on Issue #1 of Addendum II to Amendment 6, which is basically this. Under Issue #1, we have 2 options on the table.

Option 1 = Status Quo, under this option commercial quota would remain unchanged. However, the Committee requested comments the idea of simply reallocating some of the recreation catch (through min size increase, reduced bag limit, or closed season/area) to the commercial sector. So that the overall take would remain approx. the same, but with a larger portion of it allocated to the comm sector.

Option 2 = Under this option the Management Board would select a specific percent increase (yet undefined!!!) to be applied to the coastal comm quota established in Amendment 6. Each jurisdiction (state) would be responsible for deciding whether or not to actually implement the increased quota level. In other words, any state could chose to NOT increase their commercial allowance in spite of a go-ahead from the ASMFC to do so.

Public comment was 100% in favor of Option 1, Status Quo, no commercial increase, this includes those representing the commercial sector in MA. No one spoke up in favor of a commercial quota increase. In addition many people strongly recommended not only no commercial increase, but also a reduction in recreational allowance to 1 fish per day with a slot limit.

Some of the arguments presented against commercial quota increase were as follows:

1. MANY people present reported an overwhelming absence of small fish over the last couple years. This goes along with the ASMFC's graphs in Addendum II which show a steady decline in JAI, especially in the Maryland/Chesapeake numbers.

2. Several people pointed out that while the ASMFC's female spawning stock biomass assessment is currently above the threshold they've set to determine whether or not the stock is being overfished, their chart also shows a fairly steady decline in the Total Abundance of striped bass since 2004. This is another indication that the lower JAI numbers need to be taken seriously, as small fish are not filling in to keep the overall abundance high. Once the current Female Spawning Stock Biomass is gone, there are few small fish coming along behind them to fill in the gap.
This is reflected in the below graph taken from Addendum II.

http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/add2fig3.jpg

3. Juvenile Recruitment levels (age 1 fish) shown above showed steady decline from 2005-2007, with only a small recover in 2008. 2009 numbers not shown on the above graph also indicated decline.

4. Mark Pirani from Stripercoast Surfcasters Club spoke about the potential devastating effects of mycobacteriosis in the Chesapeake. When asked, Ms. Meserve stated that an estimated 75% of the entire coastal biomass comes from the Chesapeake. She also confirmed estimates that at least 70% of those fish are believed to be infected with Mycobacteriosis. She also said that the long term affects of the disease is yet unknown (i.e. whether or not it is always fatal, whether or not a fish can ever fully recover, the rate at which growth is slowed, etc... all unknown). Mark urged the board to look at this very conservatively, and consider the worst case scenario,,, which is this. The ASMFC's graph above shows the SSB to be just over 60 million fish. If 75% of those fish come from the Chesapeake, that's 45 million female spawners in the Chesapeake. If 70 percent of those fish are infected with Mycobacteriosis, that is 31.5 million female spawners that are possibly infected with myco in the Chessy alone,,, more that half of the entire SSB on the eastern seaboard. If this disease does turn out to be fatal, we will be loosing more than 50% of all the breeders in the next few years, which would crash the stock to WELL below the threshold set by ASMFC for urgent management action. Mark said that increasing any quota at this time would not be wise or in the best interest of the fishery. Several others echoed Marks comments.

5. Poaching. Ms. Meserve said that the ASMFC is in the process of developing more accurate models of estimating the amount of unreported poaching that is going on, but said those numbers are not yet available. Several people spoke of the KNOWN poaching that is going on and that the actual take, especially from the commercial sector, is far above what is indicated by the ASMFC's numbers. It was also mentioned by myself and 1 or two other people, that the commercial fishing industry, and the legal sale of striped bass in general, are fueling the rampant poaching that we all know is going on and it was recommended that the only way to truly stop large scale poaching operations, such as the ones recently discovered in Maryland and Virginia, is to stop the legal sale of striped bass coast wide. I personally have in my hand a stack of printed articles from unbiased news sources and the USDOJ showing that in the last year alone 111,553 lbs of illegally caught striped bass were confiscated. That's just the articles I found in about 30 minutes of searching, and is nearly equal to all of Maryland's annual quota! To increase the commercial quota at all, especially at a time when the ASMFC admits to not having a handle on even a remote estimate of the number of poached fish is unwise. If they can estimate how many fish I take home legally each year without even asking me, surely they can come up with at least a ballpark figure on poaching and factor that into their figures.

I think we got our point across loud and clear. I hope they listen!!
I will also be at the hearing in Rhode Island tonight.

Fishermen and other interested groups are encouraged to provide input on the Draft Addendum, either by attending public hearings or providing written comments. The Draft Addendum can be obtained via the Commission’s website at www.asmfc.org (http://www.asmfc.org/) under Breaking News or by contacting the Commission at (202) 289-6400. Public comment will be accepted until 5:00 PM (EST) on October 1, 2010 and should be forwarded to Nichola Meserve, FMP Coordinator, 1444 Eye Street, NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 289-6051 (FAX) or at nmeserve@asmfc.org (nmeserve@asmfc.org) (Subject line: Striped Bass Addendum II). For more information, please contact Nichola Meserve, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator at (202) 289-6400 or nmeserve@asmfc.org (nmeserve@asmfc.org).

~ Jake

Thank you for spending the time to write this up for those of us who couldn't make it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for spending the time to write this up for those of us who couldn't make it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What he said. Thanks a lot.

No problem guys. If I missed anything or got something wrong, JohnR was there too, and I'm sure he can correct it. I tried to take notes as best I could.

If you couldn't make it to the meeting, please follow up with snail mail and email to Ms. Meserve of the ASMFC. She will be accepting public comment until October 1st.

It can be something as simple as, "I am against commercial quota increase of any kind. I am for redefining the method for recruitment failure of the JAI." No need to make a 5 page document out of it. Make sure you include your full name, city/state, and affiliation if any.

I would strongly recommend that even if you WERE at the meeting, that you send in your comments in both snail mail & email as well. Yes, they were recorded, and they took notes, but if you want to make sure that your comments are there in your own words, it's best to put it in writing yourself and send it in. ;)

A couple of other points I got from the meeting. While the change to more conservative recruitment failure break point is a move in the right direction it still does not seem to be very conservative. You have to hit the threshold three years in a row to start required action. Since 75 percent of the fish come from the Chesapeake it would seem that a higher level of importance would be assigned to it. I ask after the meeting about this and was told that it would be expected that the technical group would look at this but no fixed check is in place. Second point is related to needing three years in a row to pull the trigger. You could have two very bad years and one fair followed by two bad without required action. Would seem like a running three year average would be the right way, plus a more conservative approach for the Chesapeake.

Most of the reason given for the decrease in fish numbers was related to low recruitment. We have seen the number of spawning stock drop by about 20% in the last five years. It would seem very unlikely that this would be due mainly to recruitment being low since many of these fish from the last five years would not have reached the age to spawn yet. Second is even though the recruitment numbers have been low they are no where near the three year recruitment failure threshold, either the present or the new more conservative threshold talked about above.

Last would be the lack of people that showed up. The room had 180 chairs and a total of 33 people took the time to attend. With the number of people who fish in Mass it is just mind bogling that only 33 people showed. Many web sites and clubs actively promoted getting out to this meeting so it shouldn't have been a case of no one knew. Even if people were on the fence on the issue it was a chance to learn more and be heard. One 2-hour meeting every few years isn't much. So my main take away is most everyone trust ASMFC to do a great job and are happy with the way things are going.

A couple of other points I got from the meeting. While the change to more conservative recruitment failure break point is a move in the right direction it still does not seem to be very conservative. You have to hit the threshold three years in a row to start required action. Since 75 percent of the fish come from the Chesapeake it would seem that a higher level of importance would be assigned to it. I ask after the meeting about this and was told that it would be expected that the technical group would look at this but no fixed check is in place. Second point is related to needing three years in a row to pull the trigger. You could have two very bad years and one fair followed by two bad without required action. Would seem like a running three year average would be the right way, plus a more conservative approach for the Chesapeake.

Most of the reason given for the decrease in fish numbers was related to low recruitment. We have seen the number of spawning stock drop by about 20% in the last five years. It would seem very unlikely that this would be due mainly to recruitment being low since many of these fish from the last five years would not have reached the age to spawn yet. Second is even though the recruitment numbers have been low they are no where near the three year recruitment failure threshold, either the present or the new more conservative threshold talked about above.

Good points. One thing that is a HUGE factor in redefining the method for determining recruitment failure is FIXING the bar where it is, so that it is no longer a moving target. This is huge, and I think misunderstood by most.

Here's the deal. Status Quo on this issue means that a bar that is already low, is also variable. The bar is set at 75% of the average of all years in the data set. Let's say for example that for the next 10 years we have consistently low JAI indeces (slightly above, or right at the current bar, or just one year out of every 3 slightly above the line keeping the trigger from being tripped), because those new numbers for the 10 bad years become part of the average, the bar will gradually get lower and lower as the average JAI in the data set goes down.

By FIXING the bar at its current level, or recalculated higher level, 10 bad years won't cause the bar to drop, resulting in a what could be a sliding curve toward the bottom, never quite tripping the trigger.

Thing that stuck out to me was how shaky the catch data they have is. It's based on dock-side interviews with fishermen, tag reports, and reported commercial catch.

I've caught 2 tagged fish in the last 10 years and have been talked with 1 time in the past 20 years. There were several others in the room that expressed the same sentiment, many who spend a lot more time on the water than I do.

I don't really know what the answer is but I believe the plan is to leverage the recreational license to help tighten up those numbers by expanding the sample group.

Until then, YoY indexes are probably the best gauge of the health of the fishery and they aren't looking too hot.

I hear ya. The rec catch and mortality statistics are pure conjecture. I personally believe the ASMFC's reported annual recreational harvest to be grossly inflated.

No, I can't back that up with factual statistics,,,, because THERE ARE NONE!!

No one has EVER approached me on the water, or on the shore, or by phone or email to collect data about my personal harvest trends.

If one were to assume that I take 2 fish for every day I go fishing, you'd be looking at an astounding number, where in reality I've not harvested a single fish this season,,,,, yet,,,, and I can honestly say with all confidence that every single fish I've caught has been in excellent condition upon release.

Very Good Report Jake...Thanks

I would have liked to see more but in my experience that was an above average turnout. A proposal has to be taking something away for people to fill the room.

Another thing that really jumps out at me is this. Take another look at this graph...

http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/add2fig3.jpg

In 1988 the Recruitment (YoY) was at approx. 5 million fish. During that same year, the Female SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) was also right at 5 million fish. So in 1988 you have biomass of approx. 10 million pounds of spawning females, and end up with an additional 5 million YoY fish as a result.

In stark contrast is the year 2007. In 2007, we had an estimated 120 million pounds of Female SSB, yet we had a Recruitment level of only 5 million fish, same as 1988.

That's scary to me... and just another indication that something is seriously wrong in the spawning grounds....

During the Rhode Island meeting I asked Ms. Meserve and the RI appointees to the ASMFC about this specifically and asked if they could give us any information on why the recruitment level is SO low, given the current level of female Spawning Stock Biomass. They did not have an answer for me. Ms. Meserve DID speculate that it is most likely due to environmental issues in the spawning grounds and confirmed that the fishery is NOT being replenished at anywhere close the the same rate at which it is being depleted.

Good stuff there Jake
thanks for posting and getting to the meeting

The stock was not recovered until 1987. Including numbers from 1981 to 1987 when deciding where to set the JAI artificially sets it lower than it should be and makes it easier to keep the fishery open. Surely they know that, so why did they draw the line at 1981??????

Glad I was there to look them in the eye, glazed over as they seemed to be.

THANK YOU, very much, for making available the information and for your dedication to our beloved prey. i am still digesting your report and only had time for a brief perusal of your post, as the project that has me outside of DC for the time being prevented me from attending the hearing this week.

while i get that science takes time and handcuffs the ASMFC(they can't act without it), wouldn't American history indicate that more often than not "the" numbers can be manipulated to suit the interests with the deepest pockets? and i detest how science works in reverse of an event. that being said,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

i firmly believe that what would suit the stock biomass in the immediate future is a more proactive approach to limiting the TOTAL take (1 @ 36" rec, and a commensurate comm reduction) and an initiative to protect the forage. what good is it to reduce the take and let more stripers spawn and eat, if we do not increase the availability of their preferred forage? not coincidently, doesn't malnutrition make striped bass more susceptable to myco as well as impede the healing process once they become infected with it? as i understand it, pogies provide the best bang for the nutritional buck, providing there are enough of them to be mawed upon. on my former point, if we as recreational fishermen are willing to take a 50% hit and increase the size limit, then why can't the comm's join us in that proactive measure for the GOOD of the species?

please don't misunderstand my position, i am not making this an us versus them battle~~ my intention is to protect the SSB first and foremost. along the lines of leveling the playing field, somewhat, and steering us more towards a "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander" approach. if it means that they can no longer sell them profittably, then perhaps gamefish status is where we should be heading. besides, striped bass are loaded with pcb's and mercury levels continue to rise within them, through no fault of their own. i only eat striper twice a year for these same reasons.

lastly, i would like to thank Patrick for his tireless devotion and vigilence in seeing that our group stays engaged in the battle. kudos to everyone that made the hearing and for sharing your thoughts and understandings of the process. i shore hope to be there for the next one!

Jake - I will add a couple points (OK, opinion ;) ) tomorrow but thank you for putting something together that was better flushed out than what I was putting together. Good meeting you too :btu:

As stated above, the turnout was overwhelmingly (completely IIRC) against any expansion of the commercial quota. What was clear from the numbers is that we are heading for a crash if current trends continue. Add to the that the issues of the mycobacterioisis and the striped bass, as we know is in for some significantly hard times. Factor in the more conservative numbers of the juvenile index and we are getting even closer to one of the triggers that will bring about a more stringent quotas for rec & comm.

I wish I was able to go to RI today but I could not get out of work early enough. I proceeded then to catch my 2 smallest fish of this season.

The stock was not recovered until 1987. Including numbers from 1981 to 1987 when deciding where to set the JAI artificially sets it lower than it should be and makes it easier to keep the fishery open. Surely they know that, so why did they draw the line at 1981??????


My understanding is that, for the Virginia survey which I used above as an example, that 1981 is the year in which the survey method was standardized for that particular spawning area. Years prior to 1981 either no data was collected, or the data that was collected is generally not believed to be as accurate as it should be. This is why the Technical Committee is recommending that they be removed from the data set.

The same goes for the New Jersey JAI index, were under the new definition, all years prior to 1986 will be removed from the survey. Under the new definition, the New Jersey JAI index will go from this (years circled in red to be removed):
http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/add2fig6.jpg

To this (data sets in green were above the threshold prior to recalculation):

http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/add2fig7.jpg



You asked me on another forum why I would support the proposed new definition, since it still includes years prior to when the stock was declared "rebuilt".

My answer was this. I support it because that is what is on the table and it's better than what we currently have. I agree that ideally we should get rid of all pre-1987 numbers, no argument there. Unfortunately that is not what is on the table.

There are two options on the table for this issue.
Option 1 = Status Quo, no change
Option 2 = Redefine the definition to a slightly more conservative position and make sure that future low JAI indices (which we know are coming) do not cause the bar to drop.

In my opinion, there is only one responsible choice given those two options.

If I was given the option to scrap the whole document and write my own, I'd go for that as well http://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/images/smilies/wink.gif

It is also important to note that the New Jersey index and the Virginia index are the only two which are being redefined. The other 3 indices would remain unchanged http://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/images/smilies/frown.gif ,,,, for now.

Here's an update on this... All public comment is in and has been tallied. I have a PDF fresh off the presses from the ASMFC which is a breakdown state-by-state of all public comment received. It is attached at the bottom of this post.

The Management Board at the ASMFC will be voting on this Addendum at their annual meeting in South Carolina on November 9th.

I also have the contact information of every person on that board, and have emailed every one of them. It is also attached at the bottom of this post, in case any of you are interested in doing the same.

Fight the good fight... :D

Good job Jake. So if you take a look at the PDF you will see that the vast majority of the people submitting letters, calls, or other forms of communication, favor a reduction in the rec limit to 1 fish per day, perhaps a slot but most assuredly an increase in the size limit.

This is great news for us. The bass population cannot take the wanton destruction that is taking place. This is especially true of the charter boat guys who take out once a year sports and kill 2 fish for every man on board.

Good job Jake. So if you take a look at the PDF you will see that the vast majority of the people submitting letters, calls, or other forms of communication, favor a reduction in the rec limit to 1 fish per day, perhaps a slot but most assuredly an increase in the size limit.

This is great news for us. The bass population cannot take the wanton destruction that is taking place. This is especially true of the charter boat guys who take out once a year sports and kill 2 fish for every man on board.


Hopefully the ruling entities will follow the overwhelmingly pro-conservation bend of the respondents.

Hopefully the ruling entities will follow the overwhelmingly pro-conservation bend of the respondents.

We'll know by November 10th.... That's my birthday and I expect a good present :)

If they choose to vote in favor of a commercial increase in spite of the overwhelming public opinion against such a move, then they will basically be saying loud and clear that the whole public comment part of these proceedings is a farce and means nothing to them. I don't see that happening....

great thread. Gonna have to read it a couple of times. Thanks for the info. for sure.

How about one fish at 36 period. no comercial season and stopping the senseless slaughter of breeder fish in macho filled tournaments like the striper cup that kills more breeder fish in a year for what? A pin or a rod or a grand prize boat or a truck?:smash: Lots of people complain about how the stocks are going south but how many of these people enter fish in these stupid events that promote the slaughter of thousands of breeder fish? Conservation starts at home.Everyone who enters these events is part of the problem as well as every charter guy who kills 12 fish a trip to keep his clients happy.:wall: There, I'm not afraid to speak my mind.

How about one fish at 36 period. no comercial season and stopping the senseless slaughter of breeder fish in macho filled tournaments like the striper cup that kills more breeder fish in a year for what? A pin or a rod or a grand prize boat or a truck?:smash: Lots of people complain about how the stocks are going south but how many of these people enter fish in these stupid events that promote the slaughter of thousands of breeder fish? Conservation starts at home.Everyone who enters these events is part of the problem as well as every charter guy who kills 12 fish a trip to keep his clients happy.:wall: There, I'm not afraid to speak my mind.

http://www.colectiva.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lkzyz89efm_clap.gif

Well said.

Lots of people complain about how the stocks are going south but how many of these people enter fish in these stupid events that promote the slaughter of thousands of breeder fish?

So true.... That's why I don't enter them, and my club's tournaments are catch & release only. You actually get penalized for fish that are not successfully released in our tournaments :)

I have word from an inside source that the ASMFC Management Board has voted in today's meeting AGAINST increasing the coastal Commercial Striped Bass Quota. I have not yet heard the results of a vote on Issue 2 - Redefining Recruitment Failure... I will post as soon as I hear.

Thank you all for helping us be heard on this issue and encouraging the ASMFC to avoid taking a step in the wrong direction!

This just in... Board voted unanimously on Issue 2 - to Redefine Recruitment Failure as recommended by the Technical Committee. This is HUGE and something we pushed for strongly over the last year! I don't think a lot of people really understood it's ramifications, so it didn't get the attention that Issue 1 - Commercial Quota Increase got, but it's just as big of a win for our beloved fish!! :uhuh:

Here's how the voting on Issue 1 breaks down....
The exact vote for status quo went like this:

10-4-1
For Status Quo:
ME = Yes
NH = Yes
RI = No (increase quota)
MA = Yes
CT = Yes
NY = No (increase quota)
NJ = Yes
PA = Yes
DE = No (increase quota)
MD = Yes
DC = absent
PRFC = abstain
VA = Yes
NC = No (increase quota)
NMFS = Yes
FWS = Yes

While the votes tallied 10 to 4 in favor of maintaining Status Quo, I am SHOCKED that RI & NY voted FOR the proposed increase (maybe I shouldn't be, but I am).

Here's what the public comments received looked like for the states who's delegates voted in favor of the increase:

http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/ri-comments.jpg
http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/ny-comments.jpg
http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/nc-comments.jpg
http://www.stripercoastsurfcasters.us/docs/de-comments.jpg