https://vimeo.com/32209893

Same here

Tomorrow would be perfect timing.

makes sense to me. ''Lets save the stripedbass from the commies,so the recreational INDUSTRY can kill them all''

makes sense to me. ''Lets save the stripedbass from the commies,so the recreational INDUSTRY can kill them all''

makes sense to me. ''Lets save the stripedbass from the commies,so the recreational INDUSTRY can kill them all'':confused:

Meanwhile, I'm for anything that will get the bass population to flourish. No matter how extreme.

I was watching a video of a couple guys fishing off the cape this summer with eels. They were doubled up for the whole video, the deck was loaded with 20-30 lb bass, it made me sick.

It is obvious there is a problem with the stocks right now. Eliminate the commercial sector. If these guys were not doing it 6-8 years ago like the video states its not like they are going to starve if they have to give it up again.

Make it a game fish with a 1 fish limit and see what happens. Something needs to give and it makes sense to eliminate the commercial sector and make them a game fish. It helps a fish that is WAY more important recreationally then commercially.

Eben - Good post - the pleasure of pursuing and catching a bass far exceeds that of eating one.
Rob - I remember that video as well. The guys were proud to post it even thjough it represented all that was wrong (albeit legal)with the commercial fishery of stripers.

makes sense to me. ''Lets save the stripedbass from the commies,so the recreational INDUSTRY can kill them all''

???

I didn't see or hear anything in the video about upping the recreational kill.

Clearly the striper-based INDUSTRY that benefits coastal communities most is recreational fishing, not commercial fishing, and there would be no future in killing off the bass, so why assume so?

Far from a silver bullet as far as saving the striper, but a step in the right direction.

Where do I sign?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Striped bass are too important to only be caught once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it that when the powers that be talk about groundfish stocks at low levels and set the catch limits accordingly, people go along in belief. But when the same authority claims a healthy sustainable bass fishery and sets the limits accordingly, no one believes them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL Yup here we are again. well when the commercials don't catch enough to afford to run those expensive holes in the water I'll still be walkin the shore an castin gettin a few stripers an releasin them. They'll be cryin as they can't make their boat payments. If your nice I may even let one of you borrow my kayak LOL.

Never listen to kayakers and fly fisherman when coming up with striped bass regs. Bass don't like warm water! Still plenty of em you people just don't know where to find them! Stick to trout if want a gamefish.

LOL obviosly you live a very sheltered life. Many of us old farts do it all. Thats why we've landed some of the moby bass we have.We've also seen what greed will do.Thats why many of us have had the privledge to hook ,land an release fish over 50. But having lived through 1 moratorium due to so many not wanting to listen we don't want to hve to do it again.Some places do have fish but everyplace used to have fish warm water or not.But like I said when you fish them out I'll still be finding a few here n there.

While I tend to feel gamefish is the ultimate end game
For bass I don't think Stripers Forever wins many fans with their hard line on it. There are too many ways for people to poke holes in their logic. Number one their is no way to re allocate commercial fish to conservation per current management regulations. Sounds good but it just doesn't work that way.

Second I feel they should first advocate for recreational mortality reduction with no increase to commercial quotas. If recreational fishermen (which I am) are to tell others how to manage their fishing they need to look in the mirror first. Stop the talk of slot limits and managing the fishery in a bubble. If x happens then y and z will be perfect. We have a litmus test for what worked in the past to boost stocks why re invent the wheel. Recs need to go back to one a day. It is unfortunate for those that fish once a year on a charter but when they realize that a boat with10 people or more on it goes out twice a day two bass a piece times 100 trips a year that adds up to a lot of fish. The heads have little invested in the fishery and more than likely will not miss the fish when they are potentially gone.

Maybe I am wrong but I feel this issue needs to be looked at on so many levels other than Rec vs. comm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All one needs to do to understand this works is to read a little bit about the redfish in florida. That's the model to follow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

mark,i totally agree with you.in no way am i against conservation,if it is needed.working in a tackle shop,building plugs and holding a Mass bass license,all require bass for me to continue my way of life. i still have to laugh when i hear ''old timers'' talk of how great things were. the reality is that just like now there were good times as well as bad times.never were there times of only great fishing for months on ends as some would like ous to believe.

Yup. And without the moratorium in the 80's you would have NOTHING.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your right there were good an bad times but if you knew what you were doing you could find some bass everywheres. Good or small numbers an goin fishless as what happens to so many now wasn't as often as it is now.Guys like me will always be able to find fish.But when we saw these warning signs in the past we had to be forced into a moratorium even when friends like Bob Pond were calling for action. You younger guys have a chance to slow it down an back off before it happens again. All us old guys you just don't want to hear from us.Your choice. We've already made ours.That's why you hear us preaching to slow it down.Remeber old doesn't mean stupid. we made our mistakes an are trying to prevent the same happening again.Ron

Agreed Ron that's why I never take fish ever. Plenty of guys take mine home. Like I said I feel the ultimate end game for SB is gamefish but Rec's need to slow down before we can ask commercial guys to make wholesale changes on how they live their lives.

One thing I will say for SF is they were willing to compromise in the last round of hearings. They were willing to change their proposed legislation to include verbiage to allow commercial fisherman who gain a pct, if their overall income to Maintain a commercial license.

I cut my chops during the end of the moratorium. I don't go back to the "glory days" I look to other people I trust who have been out there longer than I, like yourself and John to provide me with a balanced look on where we were where we are and where we are headed. I can't trust an organization like the ASMFC to provide me with accurate reporting. When one yoy is applauded as a great triumph and the next is dismissed due to weather or who knows what?

I have been around enough to know we are on a decline. Even the ASMFC's numbers dictate that.

For people to say that all the bass are outside the three mile limit is bush IMHO I feel they were there before. I can't say that for a fact? But I would venture a guess that they were in and offshore in previous years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Same bunch of guys standing in the parking lot at Walmart wondering where all the deer went, because they refuse to go in the woods.
Head, meet sand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Same bunch of guys standing in the parking lot at Walmart wondering where all the deer went, because they refuse to go in the woods.
Head, meet sand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is evidence the fish were in shore in previous years? Is there evidence showing they were not offshore prior to the EEZ ban? I am not trying to be a smart Alec just have always asked this question and never got a real answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back in the late 60's I was a mate on a cod charter boat out of Pine Point. In july an august we went 20 to 30 miles off shore to find colder water for the cod. From time to time we would run into stripers as deep as 200 ft on the humps an ledges.they were feeding on whiting as we would open one from time to time to see what was inside.as a kid i had no clue as to what it meant. so one day helping Bob at a show I asked him about it. his reply was basic. the fish don't always eat the same food and will follow what they're eating.He also said that netters would come in with a boat load of stripers from time to time back in the 50's netted way offshore. So between that an what we ran into cod fishing there have probably always been stripers out there. i even remeber some of the tuna guys talkin about it way back as a kid down at Galalee during the tuna tournaments.

Why would they want to come inshore?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/5A786A1B-8F5F-4F25-BC5F-E3A964890973-5367-00000473055D1621.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/BC858766-E575-42BE-A20E-B8A51B9BA7D6-6792-0000069D8DF12E67.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/7D676FAB-C88B-4E2A-93A6-0E284B216F61-6792-0000069DA7BB40EF.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/5F5E9093-DC1E-48C1-8704-AA729EC4343F-6792-0000069DAEE7F6B1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/12693129-DD59-43DA-BFF0-4AE7A44DCDC1-6792-0000069DB3E51377.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/A02D64FE-555D-4A9E-9E67-318FE14899AE-6792-0000069DB8685EA7.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back in the late 60's I was a mate on a cod charter boat out of Pine Point. In july an august we went 20 to 30 miles off shore to find colder water for the cod. From time to time we would run into stripers as deep as 200 ft on the humps an ledges.they were feeding on whiting as we would open one from time to time to see what was inside.as a kid i had no clue as to what it meant. so one day helping Bob at a show I asked him about it. his reply was basic. the fish don't always eat the same food and will follow what they're eating.He also said that netters would come in with a boat load of stripers from time to time back in the 50's netted way offshore. So between that an what we ran into cod fishing there have probably always been stripers out there. i even remeber some of the tuna guys talkin about it way back as a kid down at Galalee during the tuna tournaments.

I ask because that is often an argument put out there by many "the fish have all moved offshore" I always figured they were in both places but wanted an opinion other than my own.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hard part for some of us Mark is that some of us old farts were part of the problem back then.We don't want to see the same mistake happen again.For us well some won't be around to see the fix happen. Kinda scary you know what I mean.

Those pics say a sad story for the Cape.I used to walk out there an fish every spring.

Those pics say a sad story for the Cape.I used to walk out there an fish every spring.

A good friend of mine guided those flats and put himself through school there. We used to have 60 fish days easy with out exiting stage harbor. The cut opening and the seals changed all that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody thinks that warmer water temps, lack of bait, and increased predation (seal and human) has anything to do with where bass stay??? Why would a fish forge on crabs and small scup when all they have to do is follow plentiful offshore bait in deep water with a comfortable temp??? Less effort for more food maybe? Pogies are no longer a reliable inshore food source. Would you bet your life on a food source that may not be around. Or maybe because you "old farts" are not doing as well as years ago the species must be decimated. Perhaps the bass are adapting to what best suits them and not shore fisherman? Don't let pride cloud your judgement.

If you want to rally around a cause save the tautog their population sux compared to years ago. It is a direct result of greed and poaching. I hope that issue is sexy enough for you!!!?????

Well way back when they netted stripers everywhere they could from shore. we still had some fish.Now there's so much bait in places you can walk on it but no fish. MMMMM still don't see many kids outfishin most of us old farts but there are a few like us hard cores.LOL. Loads of us don't need a boat an have them sittin in the yard to take company out. But just teasin you. It's good to ask those questions. Do some research and check the answers out. It will boggle the mind.We learned the hard way. You don't need to but go for it if you like. it takes a long time for any species to come back an some get replaced completely. Look at the Iceland cod stocks.Ron

Why would they want to come inshore?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/5A786A1B-8F5F-4F25-BC5F-E3A964890973-5367-00000473055D1621.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/BC858766-E575-42BE-A20E-B8A51B9BA7D6-6792-0000069D8DF12E67.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/7D676FAB-C88B-4E2A-93A6-0E284B216F61-6792-0000069DA7BB40EF.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/5F5E9093-DC1E-48C1-8704-AA729EC4343F-6792-0000069DAEE7F6B1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/12693129-DD59-43DA-BFF0-4AE7A44DCDC1-6792-0000069DB3E51377.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/thefishingfreak/A02D64FE-555D-4A9E-9E67-318FE14899AE-6792-0000069DB8685EA7.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On the Cape the bass appear to have no choice.

The seals likely don't leave enough inshore bait for the bass, so they go where the food is- offshore.

Adapt or perish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe that if bass are unable to forge in an area for consecutive years due to lack of bait that they will begin to give up their yearly search in the said area and concentrate on a sure bet. Therefore I believe that when the bait returns to your fishing area your bass are sticking to their newfound habits and eating their meals elsewhere. I have experienced this firsthand in some of the areas that I first learned to fish that are now void of predatory life even with bait around. Skilled boat anglers will always have the upper hand especially now and that is unfortunate because of the rich surf fishing history of NE. Forgive my sharp tone I wish all of you a happy healthy new year and a great fishing season. Gamefish status can kiss my A $ $ though.

Also, my lilly white Irish skin is still peeling from the permanent sunburn of last season so don't call me sheltered. HAHA

Nobody thinks that warmer water temps, lack of bait, and increased predation (seal and human) has anything to do with where bass stay??? Why would a fish forge on crabs and small scup when all they have to do is follow plentiful offshore bait in deep water with a comfortable temp??? Less effort for more food maybe? Pogies are no longer a reliable inshore food source. Would you bet your life on a food source that may not be around. Or maybe because you "old farts" are not doing as well as years ago the species must be decimated. Perhaps the bass are adapting to what best suits them and not shore fisherman? Don't let pride cloud your judgement.


Same old farts on here complaining about the fishery for years... Every year it's the end, the collapse, another moratorium, blah, blah, blah. To lazy and pigheaded to change with the times. Stuck in the same 10 yards of beach waiting for the fish to come to them, blaming others for their lack of success....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My concern with stripersforever is related to this quote:
"The fishing public, even restrained by very modest bag limits and moderately high minimum sizes, could easily harvest all that a well managed wild striper population can provide without any help from commercial fishermen. Making the striped bass a gamefish will simply mean that those who wish to catch their own will be given priority over those who want to buy their own at market. This is the way a free society should work."

By itself it won't reduce harvest enough. It shouldn't be rec vs commercial issue, it should be about sustainability. That said, I won't mind seeing some of the chest beating clowns go out of business though when the crap hits the fan.

That said, I won't mind seeing some of the chest beating clowns go out of business though when the crap hits the fan.

They will also be the first ones with their hands out looking for federal assistance. Woe is me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My concern with stripersforever is related to this quote:
"The fishing public, even restrained by very modest bag limits and moderately high minimum sizes, could easily harvest all that a well managed wild striper population can provide without any help from commercial fishermen. Making the striped bass a gamefish will simply mean that those who wish to catch their own will be given priority over those who want to buy their own at market. This is the way a free society should work."

By itself it won't reduce harvest enough. It shouldn't be rec vs commercial issue, it should be about sustainability. That said, I won't mind seeing some of the chest beating clowns go out of business though when the crap hits the fan.

Knock everyone way back

They will also be the first ones with their hands out looking for federal assistance. Woe is me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2:

Striped Bass Stocks 2012 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Cc8bCOOfFs4)

I guess these guys who fish far away from the bloated seal populations of CC have no clue either?

Regardless of what happens in the future present etc. steps need to be taken. MA could start by issuing licenses only to guys who report catches. Otherwise why buy the license?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Striped Bass Stocks 2012 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Cc8bCOOfFs4)

I guess these guys who fish far away from the bloated seal populations of CC have no clue either?

Regardless of what happens in the future present etc. steps need to be taken. MA could start by issuing licenses only to guys who report catches. Otherwise why buy the license?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I rarely boat fish, but over the last 6 years or so I have fished the early western LIS run with a friend in his boat. He has been fishing it his whole life and knows what he is doing. Over the last 6 years it has gotten worse and worse. The sound is filled with bait in May, much of it adult bunker. There are nights using chunks and live bait where we will hit reefs from Norwalk to Hempstead and sometimes not land one bass. The idea that the fish are all of a sudden offshore is ridiculous. There used to be fish everywhere. If there is a need to "change with the times" it is because there fewer fish to go around. The spawning stock biomass estimates peaked around 2003. A decade later and the commercial and recreational pressure is even higher, the yoy indices have been typically low. The only reasons to not reduce the harvest for everyone are greed and short term money interests.

Mark,you are required to file report catchs in mass,whether you fish or not.i have to agree with Kenny,same guys complaining every year,one constant complainer even mentions that he had one of his best years ever.are bass stocks down? i say yes but they are down from the peak.people got use to easy fishing now that you have to do a little work to catch people complain they are gone.in the last 5 years i have caught more fish more consistantly than ever before.without the annouance of others,because they are afraid of walking a few feet from there vehicle.if popular places like Race point,Montauk, Smiths point,Democrat,etc,are slow than the cries are the fish are gone.more often than not the fish are a few miles away were a select few are hammering them.maybe some should count how many fish pass thru the canal each spring or how many bass were schooled up off Chatham,the number of fish that were off fire island 2 years ago,or the numbers off Jersey last fall winter.as far asthe Moratoruim,i am curouis,did the remaing bass decide to spawn because some states decided to ban the keeping of them or did some enviornmental factors line up just right in order for a sucessful spawn?in my 50 plus years of working playing on the water i have seen differant types of sea life come and go in cycles.

Gamefish status before it's too late. The striped bass is worth MUCH MORE money alive than dead.

The people who are always against this are the ones who are making money off of the fish. Sad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mark,you are required to file report catchs in mass,whether you fish or not.

My bad point taken.

I agree, you and I both know of a handful of guys who sit out at a certain spot and fish the same water every day year after year and say the fishing is terrible when down the road there are fish to be caught.

The one individual from that video that makes me really take notice is Wetzel simply because we have mutual friends and I know the guy kills himself to be on top of bait and fish patterns.

Regardless I honestly hope we are down in the cycle and things improve. Like I said before I was encouraged by the numbers of really small fish I saw this year. Just hope they make it to adulthood. By my estimation they were probably 3 or 4 year old fish which leadsr to believe that last years class should have us swimming in schoolie bass in a couple of years. Not my favorite fish to catch naturally but when my daughter is a teenager I should be able to put her on some nice fish(if she still thinks I am cool then, god knows her mother doesn't lol)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don,explain to to me how gamefish status will keep bass alive?am i missing something?does gamefish status ban the keeping of stripedbass by everyone?is gamefishstatus making bass fishing a catch and release only fishery? just curouis if i am not getting the facts right

as far asthe Moratoruim,i am curouis,did the remaing bass decide to spawn because some states decided to ban the keeping of them or did some enviornmental factors line up just right in order for a sucessful spawn?.

It reduced the harvest so that the few remaining fish could stay alive to spawn. The abundance in the mid 80's was incredibly low, like 1/20th what it is today by weight. Without the moratorium, it is likely they would have gone the way of cod. We don't need a moratorium today, but a reduction in harvest would help the documented continuous downward trend in abundance over the last decade. Based on the published data, there are at least 30 million fewer spawning females than 10 years ago and the numbered has decreased every year.

The people who are always against this are the ones who are making money off of the fish. Sad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As are the ones for it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree with a lot that lifishinvt says, but I truly believe that we can all do our part. Fish stocks are down, can't really argue it. Are they horrible? NO. Having said that I think in order for us to keep them where they are we could cut down from two fish to one for recs and also reduce the amount of commercial a little and we can get close to a sustainable fishery that will not have to go through so much craziness every 20 years.

As are the ones for it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile deviceyes. A good point. I should have said the ones that are always opposed to reductions are the ones who profit from dead bass. The people who make money from these fish who are for gamefish are the ones who are guides and tackle store owners and lure makers who need to see people fishing and catching. Those who sell dead fish profit more when there is more dead fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Generally speaking of course.. There are always exceptions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

personally i am all for an across the board reduction in numbers.but how do you reduce the rec take in reality? in my eyes the only way is to have some sort of tag system or license system such as the commercials have,but what are the chances of that happening.guys put up a stink about shelling 10 bucks for a license now.

Mark,you are right the number of small fish was pretty incredible.there were some spots that were producing fish in the 8 to 12 inch range.i just have to wonder where the big fish that came thru the canal went.the commercial season saw an average of around 17 lbs,very few fish in the 40 lb range.the other puzzling thing is that the outer cape sees good fishing a couple of weeks before the canal goes off.and by the end of june gone.

Mark,you are right the number of small fish was pretty incredible.there were some spots that were producing fish in the 8 to 12 inch range.i just have to wonder where the big fish that came thru the canal went.the commercial season saw an average of around 17 lbs,very few fish in the 40 lb range.the other puzzling thing is that the outer cape sees good fishing a couple of weeks before the canal goes off.and by the end of june gone.

More than likely the fish that travel the outside are coming from the Hudson group? And the fish coming through the ditch are Chesapeake? Just a guess but it seems the canal fish come through fairly sick where I don't often see that level of illness on the outer cape. Just a guess.

As far as where the canal fish wind up all over the bay and parts on the south and north shores would be my best guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

personally i am all for an across the board reduction in numbers.but how do you reduce the rec take in reality? in my eyes the only way is to have some sort of tag system or license system such as the commercials have,but what are the chances of that happening.guys put up a stink about shelling 10 bucks for a license now.

Cut back commercial take 33% from 2006 levels.

Cut rec to 1 per day (like 2006) and make C&R only in 2x 2week windows to be determined - say May7-May21 in NE, July 15-29 - Apr 15-30 in MidLant, Jul 7-21... Play with the dates / numbers some but have real closure - C&R only during effective windows - just tossing it out for discussion

Mark,going back a few years it seemed like the canal fish would come thru the bay invading the beachs on the cape side,right up to long point the last few years this hasn't happened to the degree it was. does this mean the fish are gone or are they changing patterns,seems like good numbers come thru the canal.

I like that John. I think 1@36 to 45 inches for a slot makes sense too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mark,going back a few years it seemed like the canal fish would come thru the bay invading the beachs on the cape side,right up to long point the last few years this hasn't happened to the degree it was. does this mean the fish are gone or are they changing patterns,seems like good numbers come thru the canal.

Seals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cut back commercial take 33% from 2006 levels.

Cut rec to 1 per day (like 2006) and make C&R only in 2x 2week windows to be determined - say May7-May21 in NE, July 15-29 - Apr 15-30 in MidLant, Jul 7-21... Play with the dates / numbers some but have real closure - C&R only during effective windows - just tossing it out for discussion

http://i1063.photobucket.com/albums/t506/markpirani/EE462C48-54C9-413E-A3E0-E78BA4547388-3714-000002252CD2B9D7_zps604b0297.jpg
And boom goes the dynamite

Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think this could very well be a large part of the problem
http://www.jackgartside.com/myco_info.pdf
Releasing fish may not be the solution
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't remember the last time I kept 2 bass in a trip... make the fishery rec only with a 1 bass limit. And end this stupid CT bonus bass program that lets you keep over 2 fish if you have a ticket.

Cut back commercial take 33% from 2006 levels.

Cut rec to 1 per day (like 2006) and make C&R only in 2x 2week windows to be determined - say May7-May21 in NE, July 15-29 - Apr 15-30 in MidLant, Jul 7-21... Play with the dates / numbers some but have real closure - C&R only during effective windows - just tossing it out for discussion

Why a C&R only time frame? My quesiton being what do you do if you catch a bass in the C&R window that is obviously not going to survive. I seldom go out into the surf with the goal being to keep my limit of bass. However, if things happen and I have a deep hooked fish, spent fish from the fight, etc., then I have kept two fish in a night. When #2 goes on the stringer I call it a night and had to do so last season after landing back to back large fish, so the likelyhood of there being a real cow in front of me was pretty good. If that occurred in a C&R season I would be doing nothing but feeding crabs. A "better idea" is to have an all-out closed season if you are looking for a no-kill timeframe, but I am more against that than I am at modifying current regs.

I can't remember the last time I kept 2 bass in a trip... make the fishery rec only with a 1 bass limit. And end this stupid CT bonus bass program that lets you keep over 2 fish if you have a ticket.

And New Jersey's bonus tag while your at it...

Both of those are states that outlawed Commercial Striper fishing and reallocated that quota to the recreational sector by allowing a third fish (disgusting).

2 very good examples of eliminating commercial fishing not doing a GD thing in terms of reducing mortality.

Stripers Forever "forgets to mention" this when they show their little state by state graph.

Btw - as a charter boat, our business depends on a strong bass population. I'm in no way against limits and conservation that makes sense. But these Stripers Forever guys are barking up the wrong tree.

If they actually cared about the fish stocks and not their own personal agenda, they could put their time and significant funds into something that might have a positive effect, rather than this fools errand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like that John. I think 1@36 to 45 inches for a slot makes sense too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I prefer a slot limit that protects breeders like 1@28-36. More fish would be harvested than 1@36-45, but none of the bigger fish would be harvested. The overall take compared to now would be dramatically lower.

I love catching big drum. They were getting hammered down south in the way bass do now. States put in slots. NC is 1@ 18-27". Netters are allowed a certain amount of slot fish.The population recovered. Florida has a similar system, but I believe there are differences like a two fish limit in some areas. Protecting breeders is key.

Why a C&R only time frame? My quesiton being what do you do if you catch a bass in the C&R window that is obviously not going to survive. I seldom go out into the surf with the goal being to keep my limit of bass. However, if things happen and I have a deep hooked fish, spent fish from the fight, etc., then I have kept two fish in a night. When #2 goes on the stringer I call it a night and had to do so last season after landing back to back large fish, so the likelyhood of there being a real cow in front of me was pretty good. If that occurred in a C&R season I would be doing nothing but feeding crabs. A "better idea" is to have an all-out closed season if you are looking for a no-kill timeframe, but I am more against that than I am at modifying current regs.

I am not sure what I think about a closed season, but from an ecological/fisheries viewpoint, the injured fish is no worse when fed to the crabs than in your freezer. A small percentage of fish would be returned wounded or dead, but it would still result in substantially fewer fish harvested, which is the goal of the closed season. I have the same emotional instinct that a fish is wasted when tossed back dead, but if thousands of other fish are returned alive because of the closed season, it is far and away a net positive for the population.

Why a C&R only time frame? My quesiton being what do you do if you catch a bass in the C&R window that is obviously not going to survive. I seldom go out into the surf with the goal being to keep my limit of bass. However, if things happen and I have a deep hooked fish, spent fish from the fight, etc., then I have kept two fish in a night. When #2 goes on the stringer I call it a night and had to do so last season after landing back to back large fish, so the likelyhood of there being a real cow in front of me was pretty good. If that occurred in a C&R season I would be doing nothing but feeding crabs. A "better idea" is to have an all-out closed season if you are looking for a no-kill timeframe, but I am more against that than I am at modifying current regs.

Why a C&R? Because in order to get to have meaningful sufficient reductions in rec kill you need to have a either C&R or no fish during real parts of the season and I'd rather C&R then stay home ;) - If you look at the 8% mortality rate on C&R (whether correct or not it is the baseline used) it would be better than a 100% mortality of taken fish plus the 8% of C&R fish during the same time. Maybe put a dent in the spring slaughters from NJ to CC

To have a closed season in January wouldn't make much sense so it needs to be a relevant time.

Personally, I think all groups need to take a strong hit on take/kill of striped bass. Anything else is a deck chair relocation program. in the end THAT may not be enough WRT Myco.

This is why I always kick myself for getting involved in these kinds of threads..

I look at how I fish and assume all others do the same. I pretty much always head out for a tide as a C&R fisherman (unless participating in a toruney), but I have the means at my disposal to harvest in the event that a fish I catch will not survive. I do everything in my power to prevent any wasteful kills, but if I know the fish is going to end up as crab food, onto the stringer she goes. Since I am already fishing under a self imposed C&R rule, making it illegal for me to harvest crab food, something I feel I am doing for the better good as Zimmy noted I have the same moral hang up never to wastefuly kill anything (above the 8% that are going to die anyway that I can not avoid unless I quit fishing all together), is somehting that I would have a very hard time getting behind.

Regarding slot limits, I have always been in favor of such limits so long as the sizes are purely based on scientific data and not random numbers. Protect the first two or three spawning opportunities, as well as the two most prolific spawning opportunities as based by scientific data, and/or allow for a trophy fish to be kept. This provides a fish for the table as well as a hunt for the next record fish. Limiting SB to only the small slot and no trophies will simply never happen as there is WAY too much money on the line for the big girls (tournaments, charters, tackle sales, endorsements, etc.).

This is why I always kick myself for getting involved in these kinds of threads..

I look at how I fish and assume all others do the same. I pretty much always head out for a tide as a C&R fisherman (unless participating in a toruney), but I have the means at my disposal to harvest in the event that a fish I catch will not survive. I do everything in my power to prevent any wasteful kills, but if I know the fish is going to end up as crab food, onto the stringer she goes. Since I am already fishing under a self imposed C&R rule, making it illegal for me to harvest crab food, something I feel I am doing for the better good as Zimmy noted I have the same moral hang up never to wastefuly kill anything (above the 8% that are going to die anyway that I can not avoid unless I quit fishing all together), is somehting that I would have a very hard time getting behind.

Regarding slot limits, I have always been in favor of such limits so long as the sizes are purely based on scientific data and not random numbers. Protect the first two or three spawning opportunities, as well as the two most prolific spawning opportunities as based by scientific data, and/or allow for a trophy fish to be kept. This provides a fish for the table as well as a hunt for the next record fish. Limiting SB to only the small slot and no trophies will simply never happen as there is WAY too much money on the line for the big girls (tournaments, charters, tackle sales, endorsements, etc.).

I only keep a couple per year myself and am 99.9% C&R but this has to be designed for all anglers.

I would be for a slot that makes sense but again, deck chair relocation program. Just something proper needs to be done before it is too late.

Regarding slot limits, I have always been in favor of such limits so long as the sizes are purely based on scientific data and not random numbers. Protect the first two or three spawning opportunities, as well as the two most prolific spawning opportunities as based by scientific data, and/or allow for a trophy fish to be kept. This provides a fish for the table as well as a hunt for the next record fish. Limiting SB to only the small slot and no trophies will simply never happen as there is WAY too much money on the line for the big girls (tournaments, charters, tackle sales, endorsements, etc.).

That's a solid take on slot limits.

One of my biggest problems with Stripers Forever is that they continually advocate for a slot limit that targets pre-spawn fish.

How anyone can argue that killing fish that haven't even had the chance to spawn once is conservation, is asinine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is why I always kick myself for getting involved in these kinds of threads..

I look at how I fish and assume all others do the same. I pretty much always head out for a tide as a C&R fisherman (unless participating in a toruney), but I have the means at my disposal to harvest in the event that a fish I catch will not survive. I do everything in my power to prevent any wasteful kills, but if I know the fish is going to end up as crab food, onto the stringer she goes. Since I am already fishing under a self imposed C&R rule, making it illegal for me to harvest crab food, something I feel I am doing for the better good as Zimmy noted I have the same moral hang up never to wastefuly kill anything (above the 8% that are going to die anyway that I can not avoid unless I quit fishing all together), is somehting that I would have a very hard time getting behind.

Regarding slot limits, I have always been in favor of such limits so long as the sizes are purely based on scientific data and not random numbers. Protect the first two or three spawning opportunities, as well as the two most prolific spawning opportunities as based by scientific data, and/or allow for a trophy fish to be kept. This provides a fish for the table as well as a hunt for the next record fish. Limiting SB to only the small slot and no trophies will simply never happen as there is WAY too much money on the line for the big girls (tournaments, charters, tackle sales, endorsements, etc.).

I think many fish the way you do. I always release just the way I am wired I am certain in my years of fishing some may not have survived the release just due to odds. But I know when they left my hands they shook on their own power.

After fishing the better part of two summers on the canal I can tell you there are people that take two a day every day if there is an opportunity to take two fish. I don't crap on em I don't begrudge them it is their legal right to do so.

However if the ASMFC proposes to reduce mortality in any sector I will support it. I know plenty of guys who will tell you til they are blue in the face how things should be. Not many are willing to actually do something about it.

The only hearings I have ever seen well
Attended were the Massachusetts
Hearings on the Stripers Forever bills.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a solid take on slot limits.

One of my biggest problems with Stripers Forever is that they continually advocate for a slot limit that targets pre-spawn fish.

How anyone can argue that killing fish that haven't even had the chance to spawn once is conservation, is asinine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We have different definitions of asinine.

The reasons are three fold (or four):
1. Larger fish have dramatically more eggs. One dead 40 incher is like killing three 28"ers.

2. When the slot is small, about 50% of the harvested fish are males.

3. A harvest that selects for bigger fish will result in smaller fish over time. It has been documented repeatedly in population studies.

4. (the weakest of the three) there is a portion of fisherman who only keep a fish because it is big and they want to show it to people, not because they want it for food. Some of those people aren't going to keep a 27"er since it is less likely to impress someone.

I stay away from these threads because I dont have the answer or suggestions on this topic, If I had my way, they would be gamefish. However, the video is terrible. All the speakers have their livelihoods tied to the sucess of stripers which makes it extremely biased. I dont mean to be overly cynical but you can easily reword to say "please limit striped bass kill so I can continue to make money off the fishery". Its just the wrong angle to tell the story.

I stay away from these threads because I dont have the answer or suggestions on this topic, If I had my way, they would be gamefish. However, the video is terrible. All the speakers have their livelihoods tied to the sucess of stripers which makes it extremely biased. I dont mean to be overly cynical but you can easily reword to say "please limit striped bass kill so I can continue to make money off the fishery". Its just the wrong angle to tell the story.


I think money in this argument is the entire problem. Either way the argument always comes down to money. SF study The Southwick study all about money. Maintaining a commercial fishery Money. The fish are secondary to these arguments and that is the sad part.

Fisheries management is about money and not fish. What is the maximum sustainable yield etc.

Slot limits or not we do not need to re invent the wheel we had a formula that worked pretty damn good IMHO 1@36 fish were every where after a few years.

You could ask 100 fisherman commercial or recreational what the solution is and you would get 100 different answers.

The solution is going to have to be recreational and commercial guys working together for the betterment of the fishery through a fair and equilateral reduction. Otherwise someone is going to get hosed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The solution is going to have to be recreational and commercial guys working together for the betterment of the fishery through a fair and equilateral reduction. Otherwise someone is going to get hosed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precisely why I say cut to the chase - go back to the more restrictive levels of 2006 and then cut by 33%

We have different definitions of asinine.

The reasons are three fold (or four):
1. Larger fish have dramatically more eggs. One dead 40 incher is like killing three 28"ers.


If you are concerned about the future of the fishery 3 28” fish have a lot more value than one 40” fish. The smaller fish will continue to grow and will spawn for many more years than a fish that is in the middle to end of its lifespan. The number of eggs the 3 smaller fish will contribute to the fishery over time is far greater than the one large fish. In my opinion the guys that are catching and releasing 30, 40 , 50+ schoolies are night are doing far more damage to the fishery than the guys that are out there hunting for big fish and keeping a handful of them a season.

If you are concerned about the future of the fishery 3 28” fish have a lot more value than one 40” fish. The smaller fish will continue to grow and will spawn for many more years than a fish that is in the middle to end of its lifespan. The number of eggs the 3 smaller fish will contribute to the fishery over time is far greater than the one large fish. In my opinion the guys that are catching and releasing 30, 40 , 50+ schoolies are night are doing far more damage to the fishery than the guys that are out there hunting for big fish and keeping a handful of them a season.
Do some studying on fisheries biology andand population dynamicsdynamics and see what you find. Let me know if you find data that supports your statement about smaller fish. I have never seen it. I have read a ton over the years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe,the seals are not a problem along the inside of the cape,at least not until you get to long point.

Do some studying on fisheries biology andand population dynamicsdynamics and see what you find. Let me know if you find data that supports your statement about smaller fish. I have never seen it. I have read a ton over the years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have done a lot of reading on the subject. I'm not trying to argue that smaller fish produce more eggs than larger fish in any given year. If you look at their potential for producing eggs in coming years though the number of eggs the three smalle fish will/could produce far exceeds the potential for the one larger fish. If you want to ensure a healthy population going forward would you rather have a one 40" thats going to produce eggs for the next 5 years of 3 28" fish that are going to produce eggs in greater numbers each year as they grow in size for the next 15 years?

How many Bass do you really need to keep ? ( I'm in for 6 or so a year )
To me , they don't taste as good as a lot of other fish out there.
Don't the bigger fish have more accumulated toxins in them anyway ?

i keep 1 or 2 bass a week depending on size and who is home for dinner.i rarely give it away towards seasons end i will freeze the meat from a few fish.my season keep total is between 20 to 40 fish.normally i keep fish around 30 inchs.

Nebe,the seals are not a problem along the inside of the cape,at least not until you get to long point.

Makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We have different definitions of asinine.

The reasons are three fold (or four):
1. Larger fish have dramatically more eggs. One dead 40 incher is like killing three 28"ers.

2. When the slot is small, about 50% of the harvested fish are males.

3. A harvest that selects for bigger fish will result in smaller fish over time. It has been documented repeatedly in population studies.

4. (the weakest of the three) there is a portion of fisherman who only keep a fish because it is big and they want to show it to people, not because they want it for food. Some of those people aren't going to keep a 27"er since it is less likely to impress someone.

I'll give you 2 and 3 as reasonable points, but point #1 illustrates the ineffectiveness of SF's proposal.

Not only do they want to take pre-spawn fish, but their plan also includes taking +40" breeders.

The other problem is that a group of experienced fisherman often forget is that most people out there struggle to catch a "keeper" bass. But alot of these of these guys can get a schoolie or 3 - drop the size to 20" and mortality goes through the roof as all these people can now catch and kill a "keeper bass".

Look at what happened in Maine when they went with their slot - mortality skyrocketed, and their fishing went in the toilet.

I don't want to see a plan that failed miserably in 1 state get rolled out to all of New England and wreck everyone's fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Soon though. Had some pop up in front of me shore fishing last spring on the inside last year. God I hate those fn things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have done a lot of reading on the subject. I'm not trying to argue that smaller fish produce more eggs than larger fish in any given year. If you look at their potential for producing eggs in coming years though the number of eggs the three smalle fish will/could produce far exceeds the potential for the one larger fish. If you want to ensure a healthy population going forward would you rather have a one 40" thats going to produce eggs for the next 5 years of 3 28" fish that are going to produce eggs in greater numbers each year as they grow in size for the next 15 years?

If you could point me to any of those studies, I would appreciate. I would like to at least see a discussion of the math. The potential of the small fish you speak of is irrelevant once those fish can be harvested at 28 or 36". The drums lot that targets the 18-27" allows for maximum recruitment and increases growth rates within the slot due to lower competition,which results in more and bigger fish. It may not be intuitive, but it is in practice, supported by the science, and it works.

If you could point me to any of those studies, I would appreciate. I would like to at least see a discussion of the math. The potential of the small fish you speak of is irrelevant once those fish can be harvested at 28 or 36". The drums lot that targets the 18-27" allows for maximum recruitment and increases growth rates within the slot due to lower competition,which results in more and bigger fish. It may not be intuitive, but it is in practice, supported by the science, and it works.

If you could point me to any of those studies, I would appreciate. I would like to at least see a discussion of the math. The potential of the small fish you speak of is irrelevant once those fish can be harvested at 28 or 36". The drums lot that targets the 18-27" allows for maximum recruitment and increases growth rates within the slot due to lower competition,which results in more and bigger fish. It may not be intuitive, but it is in practice, supported by the science, and it works.

You originally stated that killing one 40" fish was the same as killing three 28" fish. Starting from now and going forward assuming all fish reach the same age (say 20 years) the eggs produced by the three fish will far exceed the eggs produced by the one. The smaller fish are going to grow and produce more eggs and the larger fish going to die off first.

A slot limit may be the answer, or maybe not. My only point was that mathematically you are likely get a greater return over time with the three smaller fish.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you sure about that?? I always thought that the larger the fish, the more eggs they laid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You originally stated that killing one 40" fish was the same as killing three 28" fish. Starting from now and going forward assuming all fish reach the same age (say 20 years) the eggs produced by the three fish will far exceed the eggs produced by the one. The smaller fish are going to grow and produce more eggs and the larger fish going to die off first.

A slot limit may be the answer, or maybe not. My only point was that mathematically you are likely get a greater return over time with the three smaller fish.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if you are talking about killing three small fish for every large fish. You are assuming the three fish make it to age 20. They won't so the argument is invalid. The math doesnt work the way you propose it. I would like to move on, but I think it is important for people to understand the science of it so if asmfc gets their act together and moves on it, the community understands the basics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if you are talking about killing three small fish for every large fish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didnt you made the post saying that killing one 40" fish was the same as killing 3 28" fish? I was trying to say that I disagreed with that statement and that I think mathemaically you are better off killing the one large and keeping the 3 smaller breeding size fish alive.

Agreed time to move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didnt you made the post saying that killing one 40" fish was the same as killing 3 28" fish? I was trying to say that I disagreed with that statement and that I think mathemaically you are better off killing the one large and keeping the 3 smaller breeding size fish alive.

Agreed time to move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, that is what I was saying. In other words, you would have to kill at least three smaller fish to equal the loss of one large breeder. Add in the fact that maybe half of small fish are male, the equivalency is more like 5 or 6 small fish harvested has the same impact as one breeder. Plus the small fish grow faster whn there is less competition in the school.

The math is based on fecundity and recruitment. I am not making statements about what I think, I am reporting the scientific properties of population dynamics based on what I was taught and what I have read in scientific literature. If it has changed, I really would like to read those studies. There are hundreds of studies and I haven't read them all, that is for sure.

I think 1@36
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lower the commercial quota and do this and I think we will have a sustainable fishery for years to come! Could probably even go to 1 @34. This will give every fish a chance to breed a couple times before having the possibility of being harvested.

Yes, that is what I was saying. In other words, you would have to kill at least three smaller fish to equal the loss of one large breeder. Add in the fact that maybe half of small fish are male, the equivalency is more like 5 or 6 small fish harvested has the same impact as one breeder. Plus the small fish grow faster whn there is less competition in the school.

The math is based on fecundity and recruitment. I am not making statements about what I think, I am reporting the scientific properties of population dynamics based on what I was taught and what I have read in scientific literature. If it has changed, I really would like to read those studies. There are hundreds of studies and I haven't read them all, that is for sure.

Here is the question based on what you originally posted “Larger fish have dramatically more eggs. One dead 40 incher is like killing three 28"ers.”

Over the next 15 -20 years which of these two options has the potential to produce the most eggs?

a. Three females that are 28” today and will continue to grow
b. One female that is 40” today and will continue to grow

You try to keep adding new variables but if you look at it from a strictly mathematical perspective as the fish continue to grow over time the number of eggs produced by the three will far surpass the number of eggs produced by the one.

Since you asked to see the math here you go. Numbers taken from this study: Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries: Striped Bass - Species Profile (http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/recreationalfishing/stripedbass.htm)

For simplicity I’ll use the same eggs per pound for the life of each group though in reality the numbers of eggs the smaller fish produce per pound will go up as they grow.

Group A: 12# striped bass produce 850,000 eggs (70,833.33 eggs per pound)
Group B: 55# striped bass produce 4,200,000 eggs (76,363.64 eggs per pound)

Age and weight progression from here:
Striped bass fishing length to weight chart (http://www.stripers247.com/striped-bass-length-to-weight-chart.php)

Year 1:
3x 28” (10# each) fish produce roughly 2,125,000 eggs
1x 40” (26#) fish produces roughly 1,985,454 eggs

Year 5:
3x 37” (20# each) fish produce roughly 4,250,000 eggs
1x 50” (50#) fish produces roughly 3,818,181.82 eggs

Year 10:
3x 46” fish (38.7# each) fish produce roughly 8,223,750 eggs
1x dead fish – no eggs. If by chance it’s still alive and an 80# fish it produces 6,109,090 eggs.

Based on the math at no point in time does the one 40” fish produce more eggs than the three 28” fish and as they age the gap becomes larger and larger (especially once the bigger fish dies).

The part you are missing is that you have to kill either one small fish or one large fish, you also have to add in the recruitment from the fish that come from the eggs. You also have to look at the mortality rates. You w0uld have to establish the population denisty in each age/size group and then evaluate the mortality in each scenario, then calculate the reproductive potential. It is an algebriac problem, not arithmetic. By the way, if you want to use your math to get an idea, kill one small fish and do your calculations for three time periods. Then kill the 40" and do the calculations for three years. That will give you some idea. Then multiply by millions and look at the difference. It isn't really valid, but it at least gives you an idea what happens when you kill a fish.

I'll do a quick estimate of the two scenarios using the math the way you did it, but with one fish killed. By year 10the numbers are even less valid as 35-40% of breeding females are harvested each year.

Kill one small:
Year 1
2x28"= 1,403,000
1 x 40 =1,985,454
(big fish +500,000 increasing each year for 5 years)


year 5
2x28= 2,805,000
1x 50 = 3,818,181.82
(1 million per year positive, diminishing over next 5 years)
roughly 6.6 million eggs annually combined

year 10
2x37= 5427675
(I will let the big fish be dead. The eggs it produced for years 2-4 and 6-9 more than make up for the difference.)

Scenario 2: Kill the big fish, protect the little fish
year one
3x 28 = 2,125,000
big fish dead

year 5
3 x 37 = 4,250,000
(would probably be 2 x 37 accounting for mortality, so 2,805,000 is more realistic)

It takes 5 years from the time they are 28" for those 3 fish to get to the point where the total release by three 37" equals the release of one 50lber.

Scenario one results in millions of more eggs annually and a tremendously greater recruitment. In scenario two, without the 40" fish in the mix, millions of fewer eggs annually leads to an exponentially smaller population in the future. Now you can imagine a scenario where either a 40" or 28" is killed, but there are 3 small fish and 2 40" fish. One has to die. Those two 40" fish will produce tens of millions more eggs in the scenario where a 28" is harvested then if a 40" is harvested.

There is no comparison between the ability for big fish to aid in recruitment compared to small fish.

eggs per year combined
years scenario 1 (kill a 28") vs. scenario 2 (kill a 40")
1-4 : ~3.5 million vs. ~2,125,000
5-9 : ~ 6.6 million vs. ~4,250,0000

Over the 10 year period, the kill a 28" group produce roughly 50 million eggs, the kill a 40" ~32 million.
once the breeding potential of recruitment classes are included it is an astronomical difference

The part you are missing is that you have to kill either one small fish or one large fish, you also have to add in the recruitment from the fish that come from the eggs. You also have to look at the mortality rates. You w0uld have to establish the population denisty in each age/size group and then evaluate the mortality in each scenario, then calculate the reproductive potential. It is an algebriac problem, not arithmetic. By the way, if you want to use your math to get an idea, kill one small fish and do your calculations for three time periods. Then kill the 40" and do the calculations for three years. That will give you some idea. Then multiply by millions and look at the difference. It isn't really valid, but it at least gives you an idea what happens when you kill a fish.

I'll do a quick estimate of the two scenarios using the math the way you did it, but with one fish killed. By year 10the numbers are even less valid as 35-40% of breeding females are harvested each year.

Kill one small:
Year 1
2x28"= 1,403,000
1 x 40 =1,985,454
(big fish +500,000 increasing each year for 5 years)


year 5
2x28= 2,805,000
1x 50 = 3,818,181.82
(1 million per year positive, diminishing over next 5 years)
roughly 6.6 million eggs annually combined

year 10
2x37= 5427675
(I will let the big fish be dead. The eggs it produced for years 2-4 and 6-9 more than make up for the difference.)

Scenario 2: Kill the big fish, protect the little fish
year one
3x 28 = 2,125,000
big fish dead

year 5
3 x 37 = 4,250,000
(would probably be 2 x 37 accounting for mortality, so 2,805,000 is more realistic)

It takes 5 years from the time they are 28" for those 3 fish to get to the point where the total release by three 37" equals the release of one 50lber.

Scenario one results in millions of more eggs annually and a tremendously greater recruitment. In scenario two, without the 40" fish in the mix, millions of fewer eggs annually leads to an exponentially smaller population in the future. Now you can imagine a scenario where either a 40" or 28" is killed, but there are 3 small fish and 2 40" fish. One has to die. Those two 40" fish will produce tens of millions more eggs in the scenario where a 28" is harvested then if a 40" is harvested.

There is no comparison between the ability for big fish to aid in recruitment compared to small fish.

eggs per year combined
years scenario 1 (kill a 28") vs. scenario 2 (kill a 40")
1-4 : ~3.5 million vs. ~2,125,000
5-9 : ~ 6.6 million vs. ~4,250,0000

Over the 10 year period, the kill a 28" group produce roughly 50 million eggs, the kill a 40" ~32 million.
once the breeding potential of recruitment classes are included it is an astronomical difference

Why are you changing things around and killing off fish? Your statement was that one dead 40" fish was like killing three 28" fish. The numbers don't support your statement so you start manipulating the inputs?

This was never a discussion about killing one 28" fish or one 40" fish. As I continue to point out your statement was that one dead 40" fish was like killing three 28" fish. Even in year 1 the three smaller fish produce more eggs than the 40" fish.

If you want to include Mortality rates they should be factored in as a percentage. If you assume a flat rate it doesn't really change anything as both groups are impacted equally. In reality i think its fair to say that mortality rates would increase with age (once the fish reached breeding size) so the larger fish would have a higher mortality rate and take a bigger hit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why are you changing things around and killing off fish? Your statement was that one dead 40" fish was like killing three 28" fish. The numbers don't support your statement so you start manipulating the inputs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't manipulate the inputs because the numbers don't support my statement, but I will say it was a mess. I was trying to make a comparison so people can see the impact of removing the big fish. It wasn't valid, but I was starting with numbers that you provided for three fish, which assumed all 28" fish will be female .

Even comparing females to females, my statement is pretty accurate.

Year 1:
3x 28” (10# each) fish produce roughly 2,125,000 eggs
1x 40” (26#) fish produces roughly 1,985,454 eggs

Three 28" females produce on average 7% more eggs than an average 40". But start harvesting and you won't get all females. And the numbers are estimates so that 7% is probably +/- 3%.



This is it for me... I agree my explanation wasn't great and I probably should have said 5 or 6 28" to one 40". Here it is in the most basic form, but including males and females:

A group of six 28" fish (3 males, 3 females) produces about 2 million eggs. A 40" fish, almost certainly female, produces about 2 million eggs.

An average harvest of six 28" fish will remove almost the same number of eggs (~7% more, to be as exact as possible) as removing one 40" fish.

It is even more dramatic if you compare a 24" to a 44".

You guys are comparing two different things. Zimmy is using the example that works best for one given year. A 4o lb fish will release more eggs per spawning than 3 28 inch bass.

Rhl's point is that those 3 28" bass could live to be 3 40 lb bass and hield more eggs in their ice time than a single dead bass.

Ont thing that hasn't been mentioned is that every single fish over 30 lbs is a female. Males never grow that large, and 1 male can fertilize the eggs of dozens of females. Killing smaller fish makes sense because you are more opt to kill a male.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ont thing that hasn't been mentioned is that every single fish over 30 lbs is a female. Males never grow that large, and 1 male can fertilize the eggs of dozens of females. Killing smaller fish makes sense because you are more opt to kill a male.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't valid, but I was starting with numbers that you provided for three fish, which assumed all 28" fish will be female .


Three 28" females produce on average 7% more eggs than an average 40". But start harvesting and you won't get all females.


A 40" fish, almost certainly female







I really thought I was done with this? :rotf2: Another really important point is that the 28" fish won't live for 15 more years. The current rate of harvest is that almost 1/3 of breeding females removed per year. Without protection, the far majority don't make it to 40". Protecting them at 28" allows a great majority of those fish to get to large breeding size, which is the point of a 18-27" slot. With lots of big breeders pumping out eggs, plenty of smaller fish could be harvested and plenty would be left to grow to max size.

You guys are comparing two different things. Zimmy is using the example that works best for one given year. A 4o lb fish will release more eggs per spawning than 3 28 inch bass.

Rhl's point is that those 3 28" bass could live to be 3 40 lb bass and hield more eggs in their ice time than a single dead bass.

Ont thing that hasn't been mentioned is that every single fish over 30 lbs is a female. Males never grow that large, and 1 male can fertilize the eggs of dozens of females. Killing smaller fish makes sense because you are more opt to kill a male.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks Eben, that pretty much sums it up. What I was trying to demonstrate was that there is a point at which killing greater numbers of small fish (which a slot limit can encourage) has a more detrimental impact on the long term health fishery that killing a smaller number of big fish. The killing of three 28" females vs one 40" female just happened to be a good example that. One for one it's not even a close.

I appologize for the hijack of the thread. I just strongly believe the data shows that protecting breeders is critical for the future of bass. Obviously, we all have the same interest.

But once a fish makes it past the upper threshold of the slot limit, it has a get out of jail free card.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

unless it's one of those mexican pails... err... I mean jails...

Hahahahaha!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But once a fish makes it past the upper threshold of the slot limit, it has a get out of jail free card.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True – on the flip side if you have a one fish limit at 36” all fish have several good spawning years before they can be legally harvested.

I don’t know what the right answer is but I cringe when I think of all the small bass that would likely be killed with an 18-27” slot limit. Every year a few select YOY classes would be getting hammered up and down the coast. These fish are the future of the fishery. How many small fish would be killed each winter in the Housy and Thames river systems alone if people could keep 18” fish? All of these fish are being killed before they have even had a chance to spawn, that just doesn’t sit well with me for some reason.

Agreed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it should be 1 fish - 28-34 inches
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True – on the flip side if you have a one fish limit at 36” all fish have several good spawning years before they can be legally harvested.

I don’t know what the right answer is but I cringe when I think of all the small bass that would likely be killed with an 18-27” slot limit. Every year a few select YOY classes would be getting hammered up and down the coast.

It used to concern me as well, but if big fish are left alone, recruitment is so good that what is taken is quickly replaced and there is enough abundance for plenty of fish to get beyond the slot. I cringe much more knowing the impact of the tons of big fish on the bank of the canal in may or on boats in jersey in november, and va and nc over the winter.

Imagine if every fish from 35 to 45 lbs was allowed to spawn. It would be amazing. There would be a lot more 50 lb ers caught as well and if there was a trophy slot of fish length that was over 60 inches (off the top of my head) many many more people would be able to catch a fish of a lifetime. That is what goes on down south with the redfish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It used to concern me as well, but if big fish are left alone, recruitment is so good that what is taken is quickly replaced and there is enough abundance for plenty of fish to get beyond the slot. I cringe much more knowing the impact of the tons of big fish on the bank of the canal in may or on boats in jersey in november, and va and nc over the winter.

Large numbers of big fish don't guarantee high recruitment numbers. Environmental factors seem to play at least as big a role as the biomass. We have had very good numbers of big fish for the last 5 or so years and very poor YOY indices, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 were all well below average, we have one good year class coming up (2011). People are complaining about the lack of small fish but we have plenty of big fish around. Start harvesting the small fish we do have and what do we have left in 10 years? Big fish die of natural causes. How hard do you think the 2011 year class of fish would get hit in a few years with a slot limit? The management plan that people credit with bringing back the population of striped bass protected the one good year class we had at the time and gave them an opportunity to reproduce before they were harvested.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JLH,i am glad you brought up the subject of envoirnmental factors. no matter how many fish spawn ,without the right envoirnmental conditions it means nothing.i wonder how many fish contrubuted to the last recovery. i am not sure that reducing the limit to one fish would really decrease the total numbered killed. what if 3 times the number of people decide to keep fish in the future what if i decide to keep one fish aday 7 days a week rather than 2 fish once a week.i think many of the things that people suggest to reduce the number killed are just feel good statements.the only way to decrease the number is by allowing x number to be killed,just as the commercial has a quota.

JLH,i am glad you brought up the subject of envoirnmental factors. no matter how many fish spawn ,without the right envoirnmental conditions it means nothing.i wonder how many fish contrubuted to the last recovery. i am not sure that reducing the limit to one fish would really decrease the total numbered killed. what if 3 times the number of people decide to keep fish in the future what if i decide to keep one fish aday 7 days a week rather than 2 fish once a week.i think many of the things that people suggest to reduce the number killed are just feel good statements.the only way to decrease the number is by allowing x number to be killed,just as the commercial has a quota.

I think going to one fish and possibly increasing the size limit would cut down some on the number of fish harvested. One example: Most charter boats (and a lot of private boats) limit out every trip because that's what their customers expect. They need to keep their customers happy if they want to stay in business and the customers know the legal limits. It certainly wouldn't result in a 50% reduction in the take for the reasons you mentioned and because there are people that only take one fish now and will continue to do so.

A quota or closed seasons could certainly reduce the numbers of fish killed. Would probably be a lot more difficult to implement than a change in the regulations.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Large numbers of big fish don't guarantee high recruitment numbers. Environmental factors seem to play at least as big a role as the biomass. We have had very good numbers of big fish for the last 5 or so years and very poor YOY indices, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 were all well below average, we have one good year class coming up (2011). People are complaining about the lack of small fish but we have plenty of big fish around. Start harvesting the small fish we do have and what do we have left in 10 years? Big fish die of natural causes. How hard do you think the 2011 year class of fish would get hit in a few years with a slot limit? The management plan that people credit with bringing back the population of striped bass protected the one good year class we had at the time and gave them an opportunity to reproduce before they were harvested.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Environmental factors matter, particularly for a given year. The size of the breeding population matters tremendously over an extended period of time. Clearly, there are years with plenty of fish where there are breeders, but terrible yoy, but the good years are better when there are more breeders, so it somewhat balances out. Although, I am curious about what you base your statement about plenty of big fish?

I agree there is potential for some year classes to get hammered, but
more restrictive regulations can be used to protect certain year classes. The slot can also change to target certain size fish. Since harvesting small fish only gets half females, and young fish are easier to replace. A size class can get somewhat more hammered when young with less impact.
One thing about the 80's is that there were few big fish or small fish and even less fisherman. People weren't killing fish over 36" like they are now, so it is a tough to compare today to then. I also don't think the problem is people taking 2 fish every time they go, but rather one fish over and over up and down the coast.

Environmental factors matter, particularly for a given year. The size of the breeding population matters tremendously over an extended period of time. Clearly, there are years with plenty of fish where there are breeders, but terrible yoy, but the good years are better when there are more breeders, so it somewhat balances out. Although, I am curious about what you base your statement about plenty of big fish?

I agree there is potential for some year classes to get hammered, but
more restrictive regulations can be used to protect certain year classes. The slot can also change to target certain size fish. Since harvesting small fish only gets half females, and young fish are easier to replace. A size class can get somewhat more hammered when young with less impact.
One thing about the 80's is that there were few big fish or small fish and even less fisherman. People weren't killing fish over 36" like they are now, so it is a tough to compare today to then. I also don't think the problem is people taking 2 fish every time they go, but rather one fish over and over up and down the coast.

I guess “plenty” of big fish is pretty subjective. For what it’s worth the biomass has been and is still above the target (though its dropping). As you’ve pointed out earlier there have big numbers of large fish caught/killed from Virginia through Mass every year recently so wouldn’t that point to us having had a pretty healthy population of big fish over the last 5+ years? Unfortunately the numbers of big fish haven’t translated into very good YOY numbers.

I agree that the size of the breeding population matters but does it matter as much as environmental factors? The breeding population has been dropping since 2004 yet in 2011 (where there were significantly less fish around than there were in 2004, 2005, 2006 etc…) was has our best YOY in the last 10 years. The 2012 YOY is one of the lowest recorded in recent years and the population hasn’t changed that dramatically in one year. Ideally you want to have the largest population numbers line up with the years with the best environmental conditions but if a management plan is designed to protect only the big fish and you have an aged population of breeders that will die of natural causes what happens when you have a long run of years with bad environmental factors? You are not going to have the numbers of small fish coming up every year to replace them especially with a slot that targets the smaller fish. A more evenly distributed population could be better option when there are other environmental factors at play that can’t be anticipated.

My point about the 80s and the recovery is that the management plan protected the few good year classes of fish we had at that time. You mentioned having regulations to protect certain year classes, adjusting slot limits based on the distribution of the population, those are good ideas if they could be implemented. Having a set slot limit from 18-27 or whatever that ever year class has to survive to even get to spawning age in my opinion is not a good management plan. For the record I don’t think 2 at 28 is a good plan either.

All the people taking one fish every trip are certainly taking their share. My biggest gripe with two is really the charter boat industry that takes 12 to 16 fish per trip often running two trips per day. Over a season that adds up to a lot of dead fish. It's hard to blame the captains with the current regulations, they need to keep their customers happy if they want to stay in business.

All good points