I am posting the latest Blog from Surfcastersjournal.com that I found very well written and very informative, Zeno gave me permission to copy and paste it.

It is pretty long but well worth reading


Striped Bass: Where do we go from here? …by Charles Witek
Posted on November 7, 2013 by zhromin — 8 comments
Editor’s note #1

Surfcaster’s Journal Magazine if offering one day “24 hour free pass” to the magazine till Friday 4 pm. Go to the subscribe page and pick free access option

Editor’s note #2

This is a special contribution to the SJ Blog by Mr. Charles Witek

Striped Bass: Where do we go from here?

By now, most of the folks on the striper coast have heard something about what happened at last month’s ASMFC meeting. Unfortunately, the news coming out of the meeting was a little confused, and if you weren’t paying really close attention, you might not have completely understood what happened and what may—or may not—happen in the future.

There was good news. The majority of the commissioners on the Striped Bass Management Board clearly recognized that there are problems with the stock, believe that harvest levels have to be reduced and have begun the process of making that happen.

There was also bad news. The Management Board, in a decisive vote, decided to do nothing to prevent overfishing from occurring next season, some commissioners made it clear that they had no intention of supporting the harvest reductions that biologists believe are needed, and there is plenty of time between now and next August, when new regulations would probably be finalized, for those dissenting commissioners to derail the current process.

To understand where we’re going, we should probably take a quick look at where we’ve been. According to the best available data, the striped bass female spawning stock biomass—the abundance of mature female fish—peaked in 2004, then began a steady and at times steep decline. Striped bass anglers up and down the coast noticed the decline, which seemed particularly severe in northern New England; by 2007 or 2008, calls for additional restrictions on striped bass harvest began to be heard at ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board. In March 2011, after a motion made by Paul Diodati of Massachusetts and seconded by Gene Kray of Pennsylvania, ASMFC began to move forward with an addendum that would respond to the decline in abundance by reducing coastwide harvest. That addendum would have been released to the public after the August 2011 meeting; however, a motion by A.C. Carpenter of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, which was seconded by Pat Augustine of New York, postponed such release until November, when a stock update would be available to the management board. However, when the November meeting rolled around, Pat Augustine of New York moved to take no action on such pro-conservation addendum until after the benchmark stock assessment was released in the second half of 2012. Mike Johnson of North Carolina seconded Augustine’s motion and, on a 9-6 vote, the motion to delay any harvest reduction was adopted by the management board.

The benchmark assessment was released to the management board in August 2012. That assessment confirmed what so many striped bass anglers feared, that the population was truly in a serious decline. Female spawning stock biomass had already fallen below the biomass target, and there was a good chance that it would also fall below the biomass threshold—meaning that the stock would, by definition, be “overfished”– by 2015 or 2016, unless managers adopted meaningful restrictions on harvest. The assessment also confirmed what many of us had been arguing since the stock was declared “recovered” in 1995: The current fishing mortality reference points were too high, and the current 2 fish bag limit and 28” minimum size imposed on the coastal fishery by ASMFC allowed too many fish to be killed. Under the current fishery management plan for striped bass, the fishing mortality target, F=0.30, allows the removal of about 26% of the adult population each year, while the fishing mortality threshold, F=0.34, defines “overfishing” as removing more than about 29% of that population. The latest stock assessment determined that the fishing mortality target should be reduced to F=0.180, about a 40% reduction in the allowable kill, which would result in roughly 16% of the adults being harvested in any year, and that the overfishing threshold be set at F=0.219, equivalent to the removal of about 19% of the adult population—well below what had previously been the target mortality level. Further, the assessment predicted that, unless current harvest levels were reduced significantly, it is a virtual certainty that the striped bass stock will be overfished in 2014.

The conclusions contained in the stock assessment quickly spread throughout the striped bass fishing community, resulting in a host of reactions. Most serious striped bass anglers recognized the problems being faced by the stock, and supported a harvest reduction that would take effect as soon as possible. However, there was some disagreement about how any such reduction should be structured; some proposed specific changes in the current rules (e.g., adopting a coastal standard of 1 fish at least 32 inches in length), others argued for a slot limit to protect the big females while others raised the perennial issue of conserving bass by ending commercial harvest (which, in some anglers’ minds, included harvest by party boats and perhaps other for-hire vessels). In making such recommendations, many anglers missed a very important point: Before we could intelligently discuss changing regulations, we had to first convince ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board to incorporate the new fishing mortality reference points in the striped bass management plan. Until that was done, all of the other discussions were purely academic. And we could be sure that there were people out there who would do their best to prevent any harvest reduction from taking place.

The meeting of the management board took place on October 29, and played out in the manner that most seasoned ASMFC-watchers expected. The conclusions contained in the stock assessment were taken seriously by a majority of the board. That majority was led by representatives from New England, who have long borne the most serious impacts of the current decline, and clearly supported conservation measures. However, the pro-conservation majority was opposed by a minority, predictably featuring Tom Fote, a governor’s appointee from New Jersey who has a long history of opposing any conservation measures that reduce the recreational kill. But Massachusetts salt water fisheries director Paul Diodati handily dismissed the anti-conservation zealots by observing, in effect, that anyone who couldn’t understand the problems besetting the striped bass stock probably shouldn’t be sitting at the management board table. That was undoubtedly an accurate observation, although it was probably lost on the anti-conservation crowd.

Diodati made a motion that directed ASMFC to initiate an addendum which would incorporate the new fishing mortality reference points into the striped bass management plan, and would also have reduced harvest for the 2014 fishing year by cutting the recreational bag limit to one fish, retaining the 28 inch minimum size and imposing proportionate reductions on commercial landings. His motion was seconded by Richard White of New Hampshire. However, the idea of imposing interim restrictions on the 2014 harvest met with substantial resistance. As a result, Pat Augustine of New York, seconded by Roy Miller of Delaware, successfully moved to separate Diodati’s motion into two parts, one dealing with a new addendum incorporating the new fishing mortality reference points, one addressing interim rules for 2014. The first motion passed easily; the second failed by a vote of 2 for, 12 against. Thus, there is reason to hope that striped bass harvest will be reduced in the future, but there is also reason to expect that rebuilding will take just a little longer, due to the overfishing that will take place next year.

A lot of responsible anglers were disappointed that needed harvest reductions won’t occur in 2014, and a lot of angry comments have been made. But in truth, such an outcome should have been expected. ASMFC’s actions aren’t prescribed by law; there is no equivalent to the Magnuson Act that imposes an enforceable legal mandate to prevent overfishing, rebuild stocks within a time certain, etc. ASMFC can, for the most part, do as it pleases, regardless of the ultimate result. If striped bass were managed under Magnuson, a section of that law, which requires that managers “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability” [emphasis added], would have required that Diodati’s proposed harvest cuts, or something very like them, go into effect for 2014. But ASMFC is bound by no such provision; as a result, both those who oppose needed conservation measures and those who just want to take a slower, more calculated approach to eventual harvest reductions opted to do nothing, and accept the probability that overfishing will occur. That’s the way that ASMFC usually works.

So, as I asked in the title, where do we go from here?

I’m happy to report that, wherever we eventually end up, right now, we’re headed in the right direction. At the February ASMFC meeting, the Striped Bass Management Board will finalize a draft addendum for public comment, which will propose adopting the new, lower fishing mortality reference points into the management plan. We won’t know just how that draft amendment will look or what it will contain; the most likely scenario will see it offer two options—either 1) remaining at status quo, and keeping the current reference points of Ftarget=0.30 and Fthreshold=0.34 or 2) adopting the reference points contained in the latest stock assessment, Ftarget=0.180 and Fthreshold=0.219. Hearings on the addendum will probably be held in March and April, and there will be at least one hearing in each state on the striper coast. All interested anglers should make it a point to attend at least one of those hearings and argue for the lowered reference points, because you can be sure that the folks who don’t want to see their kill reduced will be turning out in force.



that is the first part
see next reply for the second half

After the public comment has been received, it will be compiled and presented to the Striped Bass Management Board before the May ASMFC meeting, when the board will approve the final addendum. Given the sentiment at the October meeting, it is very likely that the board will incorporate the lower fishing mortality target and threshold in the management plan. The fact that the addendum will address only the reference points, and not the regulations needed to achieve the needed harvest reductions, will probably go a long way toward assuring passage. Still, it will not be a slam-dunk. The Tom Fotes of the world will not be standing still; they will be doing whatever they can to gain supporters on the management board and using every bit of the next five or so months to frustrate efforts to reduce the recreational kill.

The May meeting should also see the Striped Bass Management Board finalize another draft addendum that will present various regulatory proposals, all intended to achieve any needed harvest reductions, and this is where things will get interesting.

For years, despite anecdotal reports of a sharply declining stock, ASMFC assured anglers that the stock was not overfished and that overfishing was not occurring; often, when a concerned angler suggested that a harvest reduction was in order, more kill-oriented individuals dismissed his concerns by parroting those ASMFC assurances. And, in fact, ASMFC was correct, the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring—if Ftarget=0.30 and Fthreshold=0.34 were truly the right fishing mortality reference points.

Of course, thanks to the new benchmark stock assessment, we realize that those were not the right fishing mortality reference points. If we apply what we now know to be the appropriate reference points to past harvest levels, we find that overfishing took place—that is, the fishing mortality threshold was exceeded—in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011—while the fishing mortality target was exceeded not only in those years, but also in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2009, 2010 and 2012. That provides a pretty good reason for why striped bass abundance has been in a continuing decline since 2004. However, it doesn’t shed much light on how ASMFC will react to the problem.

The stock assessment noted that, in order to eliminate any real possibility of overfishing, harvest would have to be cut in half. While such a cut might represent the ideal resolution, it’s unlikely that ASMFC will go that far. Instead, they will probably seek some lesser cut that substantially reduces the risk of overfishing—hopefully, makes it much less than a 50-50 possibility but, again, while federal managers, operating under the Magnuson Act, may not adopt regulations that have less than a 50% chance of avoiding overfishing, ASMFC, which is not governed by Magnuson, may accept a far higher level of risk. Whatever cuts are made will probably be based on 2013 harvest, which could be a good thing; 2012 harvest was notably lower than harvest in previous years, with F2012=0.20. If harvest reductions were based on 2012 landings, the required reductions would be relatively minor, and probably would not have constrained harvest enough to avoid overfishing in many future years. On the other hand, if the 2013 fishing mortality rate rebounds to the level typical of the past decade, when overfishing occurred in six out of ten years, reductions would be far more meaningful and more likely to have a positive impact on striped bass abundance.

What form will such reductions take? Right now, it’s hard to tell. A lot will depend on how many people who keep striped bass keep two fish, rather than one, when they go out, and how often they do so. People who don’t keep fish don’t matter, since no reduction in the bag limit or increase in the size limit can reduce their landings below zero. So what fisheries managers will do is first count up all of the fishing trips made (or, more correctly, estimated to have been made) during the year on which people kept striped bass. Then they’ll look at the number of trips on which people kept two striped bass, and calculate what the percentage reduction would have been if all of those people had only kept a single fish. If that reduction is enough to reduce fishing mortality to or below the Ftarget, in 2015 we’ll be looking at a one-fish bag limit and the current 28” minimum size.

On the other hand, if cutting the bag limit isn’t enough to achieve the needed reduction (and, depending on how much harvest needs to be cut, it very possibly won’t be, as there are a lot of people who don’t kill two bass on a single trip), a similar procedure will be used to increase the size limit. Based on the size of bass kept by anglers interviewed by surveyors working for the National Marine Fisheries Service, managers will calculate the reduction that could be achieved by a 1 fish bag limit and various increases in the minimum size. The combination of one-fish bag limit and whatever higher minimum size that (when combined with reductions in the commercial quota) would theoretically bring fishing mortality below the new Ftarget would likely comprise the regulations adopted in the new addendum.

Of course, we’re talking about fisheries management, where things are never quite that easy. It is possible (although, I think, extremely unlikely) that even with a 1-fish bag limit, the size limit needed to achieve the needed harvest reduction will be so high that managers decide to maintain a somewhat smaller minimum size, but reduce the length of the season to compensate (with the length of the season reduction again based on historical catch patterns). In addition, we have to remember that a “slot limit”, which requires that fish both under and over a specified size range be released, is popular with some sectors of the angling community. There are different opinions as to what an appropriate slot size might be; some folks would target immature bass, setting the bottom of the slot as low as 20 or 22 inches and the top end around 26 or 28 inches, arguing that such a slot would protect the entire female spawning stock. Others would choose a higher slot—perhaps 28-32”, or something roughly similar. However, any slot size would not be viewed in a vacuum. Killing smaller fish—particularly immature fish—carries a conservation penalty. ASMFC forced Maine to drop its bag limit from two fish to one when it adopted a size limit that allowed anglers to keep only those fish that fell into a 20-26” slot or were longer than 40 inches. New York commercial fishermen had their quota cut substantially when the state replaced the 28-inch minimum size with a 24-36” slot in order to keep older, PCB-laden bass out of the markets. So it’s pretty clear that if ASMFC ever adopted a slot, even with a 1-fish bag limit there would be a significant shortening of the current season.

And then there is the perennial question of “gamefish” status; eliminating the entire commercial fishery in order to allow anglers to harvest the entire allowable catch. While that might sound good in theory, the chance of ASMFC ever adopting such a strategy in the upcoming year is extremely low. The votes just aren’t there. When you consider that the state which has been most aggressively supporting reduced harvest—Massachusetts—also has the highest coastal commercial striped bass landings, you begin to understand the problem. A desire to conserve the striped bass resource and “gamefish status” do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

If the current schedule remains on track, the regulatory addendum should be released after the May meeting, with hearings held in June and July. It will then, if all goes well, be adopted at the August meeting, with a compliance date—the date when all states must adopt new regulations—of January 1, 2015.

That’s not as early as most striped bass anglers would like, but it is certainly progress, and can only benefit the resource. In the meantime, anglers must keep informed, stand ready to write comment letters and turn out for hearings, and be ever vigilant to help assure that those who would derail the conservation effort will not succeed.

A lot of us lived through the last collapse, back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. It was not a very pleasant time. It is up to all of us to make sure that such a collapse does not happen again.



8 comments on “Striped Bass: Where do we go from here? …by Charles Witek”

That brought up some great points that I think we could discuss some more here. A few things I can see right off is that as predicted by some, the committee has waffled on cutting back on the regs for another year while continuing to overfish the bass, knowing it is happening. I see one or 2 members to blame for this, mainly Tom Fote form NJ for opposing the pro conservation majority. He is a governor appointee, hopefully someone can UN-APPOINT him quickly.

I am not anywhere near as smart as Mr. Charles Witek , who wrote this so that even i could understand what is going on, but I have enough common sense to realize the bass are in trouble and the feet draggers we have creating the regulations managing the fish are no better than our politicians who mismanage our country and the taxes we pay.:smash:

I don't think it's too late to make a change for next season, it could be way too late then, the time to cut back on the killing is now.

I don't agree with their decision to wait another year and it pisses me off:devil2::devil2:

I applaud Paul Diodati for his efforts, we need to do more I think.

Gubmint involvement = gross waste and mismanagement of everything they touch be it our tax $$ or a natural resource.

Great article, I hope there comes a resolution before it's too late.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Charlie knows what he is talking about, the only basic disagreement he and I have is whether or not the MSA applies to the ASMFC. I think it does.

Thanks to all who contributed to clarifying and simplifying its content, so dummies like me can actually take something from it.

I still don't understand what waiting another year is going to do, other than deepen the problem further. It seems the only true way to impact this problem IMO,will be through the education and actions of individual anglers to disciplining themselves on the practice of catch and release.

That's a great synopsis.

Thanks for publishing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a good overview but the process is total BS. Too many know-it-alls each with a say....These guys are like kids playing in a sandbox.

1) It is clear they don't have a grasp of the fishery if they have to change what they perceive is the "right" number to a new right number... Again, if the fishery is deemed overfished by their original agreed upon number...the ASFMC should be disbanded.


2) This is what happens when you give everyone in every usergroup a voice. Total clusterphuk and nothing gets done promptly. And what does get done is so watered down it has little effect.

3) after reading this I now feel the only approach is a total shutdown. No comm fishing, no rec take and no C&R targeting SB for 10 years or until stocks are at record levels. Then, when we get back on track, open it up slooooowly say with a 5% take, then work your way up to 10% or whatever the "ideal" number is so SB remain at or near record levels.

shut it down all together.

This is a good overview but the process is total BS. Too many know-it-alls each with a say....These guys are like kids playing in a sandbox.

1) It is clear they don't have a grasp of the fishery if they have to change what they perceive is the "right" number to a new right number... Again, if the fishery is deemed overfished by their original agreed upon number...the ASFMC should be disbanded.


2) This is what happens when you give everyone in every usergroup a voice. Total clusterphuk and nothing gets done promptly. And what does get done is so watered down it has little effect.

3) after reading this I now feel the only approach is a total shutdown. No comm fishing, no rec take and no C&R targeting SB for 10 years or until stocks are at record levels. Then, when we get back on track, open it up slooooowly say with a 5% take, then work your way up to 10% or whatever the "ideal" number is so SB remain at or near record levels.

shut it down all together.

You're ignoring the fact that we have new "science" in the new stock assessment, that's what's changing things.

As far as shutting it down, that ain't gonna happen, nor should it.

New science...if that was not so sad I would laugh. There will always be new science. Where is the conservatism? You can not negotiate limits between groups...Do what is right for the fish and let the chips fall where they may

You need to push the extreme...show you are willing to give it up for the fish. shut it down

It should be shut down. It will give you 10 years to figure out which new science is right.

I can't believe they can justify themselves out of this? Step back from the monitor...and look at this from a broader perspective and get out of the trenches....this is really screwed up.

Shut SB fishing down completely. This way nobody gets anything and the fish win... This is a 100% win for the fish. With a certainty that nothing else can deliver.

Waiting till 2015 is absurd and you know they will drag this out even beyond that.

shut it down...right now

Great article, I hope there comes a resolution before it's too late.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope is not a strategy! The message here is the we all need to be involved and make every effort to push this in the direction it needs to go.

New science...if that was not so sad I would laugh. There will always be new science. Where is the conservatism? You can not negotiate limits between groups...Do what is right for the fish and let the chips fall where they may

You need to push the extreme...show you are willing to give it up for the fish. shut it down

It should be shut down. It will give you 10 years to figure out which new science is right.

I can't believe they can justify themselves out of this? Step back from the monitor...and look at this from a broader perspective and get out of the trenches....this is really screwed up.

Shut SB fishing down completely. This way nobody gets anything and the fish win... This is a 100% win for the fish. With a certainty that nothing else can deliver.

Waiting till 2015 is absurd and you know they will drag this out even beyond that.

shut it down...right now

Its not like the fish are endangered. Why limit that philosophy to striped bass? Maybe the powers that be should shut down all fishing. :) Go join PETA. :)

Personally, I do think they will institute new limits to hit the required mortality in 2015.

why did they make a snook gamefish in FL?
I see no reason every state in NE cannot do the same. Commercials take very small piece of the pie, that I agree. And game fish does not do anything for conservation, it does not save a single fish.
But commercial guys are not doing public a 'service' by providing the fish for them, they are using "public" resources for their benefit. And that is cool. But there should be a public referendum in each state that does not have game fish status. Let the PUBLIC decide if the bass should be a game fish or harvested fish. Not lifetime appointees of recreational "industry" that are masquerading as ones protecting the public. I wouldn’t mind the process if these people weren't all tainted. You cant represent tackle stores, charter boats and recreational public at the same time. The interest are often not aligned, in fact sometimes they are opposite.
My point is we could manage these fish better without influence of $ we put on the heads of these fish

MakoMike, you're a commercial/ charter guy, no?

You seem like an intelligent person. Do you ever feel like a complete tool who blindly regurgitates, abides, and stands by the laws, regardless of morals and ethics? Do you ever state your own feelings/opinions/ think for yourself or do you just merely quote the ASMFC employee handbook?

Do you feel your loyalty to the ASMFC is more rewarding than ignoring common sense? Again, you seem like an intelligent guy. Not a sheeple. Must be a battle within, fighting against intellect and common sense, but feeling the need to fluff the ASMFC's brain trust as well. Must be a "let's take a hefty dose of Reprisitoll and agree with whatever the ASMFC says" type of deal...

Good for you...

MakoMike, you're a commercial/ charter guy, no?

You seem like an intelligent person. Do you ever feel like a complete tool who blindly regurgitates, abides, and stands by the laws, regardless of morals and ethics? Do you ever state your own feelings/opinions/ think for yourself or do you just merely quote the ASMFC employee handbook?

Do you feel your loyalty to the ASMFC is more rewarding than ignoring common sense? Again, you seem like an intelligent guy. Not a sheeple. Must be a battle within, fighting against intellect and common sense, but feeling the need to fluff the ASMFC's brain trust as well. Must be a "let's take a hefty dose of Reprisitoll and agree with whatever the ASMFC says" type of deal...

Good for you...



bart- youare WAY OFF in what you think of Mike's views on this.... is he a charter guy? yeah (at least I think so)
is he "blindly following along with ASMFC"? not in the least- look around on the other threads on here and SOL and you'll see many posts about his views on whats good and/or bad about all of this-

no offense, you couldn't be more wrong on this.... Mike's about as open-minded as you could ever want from a guy who derives his living by catching fish

I just don't think that this is the place to call out individuals for their actions. It only leads to useless pigeon holing and no real solutions. Go to the hearings and voice your opinions there. EVERYONE needs to pull together on this so we can ALL benefit.

Ed

The sooner they do something the less drastic the measures will need be. Do the smart thing now and it would be more likely to be more acceptable to all involved. Wait and it will be more likely to be unacceptable to everybody, but just as likely to be unavoidable just like last time.

“Learn from history or you're doomed to repeat it.”
― Jesse Ventura

and

“Those unable to catalog the past are doomed to repeat it.”
― Lemony Snicket, The End

or

“We're doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That's what it is to be alive. It's pretty dense kids who haven't figured that out by the time they're ten.... Most kids can't afford to go to Harvard and be misinformed.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Bluebeard

MakoMike, you're a commercial/ charter guy, no?

You seem like an intelligent person. Do you ever feel like a complete tool who blindly regurgitates, abides, and stands by the laws, regardless of morals and ethics? Do you ever state your own feelings/opinions/ think for yourself or do you just merely quote the ASMFC employee handbook?

Do you feel your loyalty to the ASMFC is more rewarding than ignoring common sense? Again, you seem like an intelligent guy. Not a sheeple. Must be a battle within, fighting against intellect and common sense, but feeling the need to fluff the ASMFC's brain trust as well. Must be a "let's take a hefty dose of Reprisitoll and agree with whatever the ASMFC says" type of deal...

Good for you...

1st - I was a charter guy had to give up the last few seasons so I can stay home and take care of my wife.

2nd- I am also an advisor to both the ASMFC (Fluke, sea bass & scup) and the NEFMC (recreational panel) and I have been active in fishery management for over 10 years now.

I don't know where you get the idea that I agree with everything the ASMFC does, because that's far from the truth. But it just so happens that, when it comes to striped bass I think they are doing a pretty good job. When it comes to menhaden, eels and tautog I think they suck, and I tell them so.

The only thing I can fault them on in the latest actions on striped bass is that I think they could acted a little quicker in getting the new regs in place. But I also understand that they wanted to be thorough and also they didn't want to change the regs in the middle of a season.

Does what I type on these discussion boards make a difference in what they do. I don't think so, but I do it to try and educate some of my fellow anglers about how the process works, or is supposed to work.

I do think I make a difference when I talk to the the ASMFC commissioners, Either through the advisory board, written comments or directly.

why did they make a snook gamefish in FL?
I see no reason every state in NE cannot do the same. Commercials take very small piece of the pie, that I agree. And game fish does not do anything for conservation, it does not save a single fish.
But commercial guys are not doing public a 'service' by providing the fish for them, they are using "public" resources for their benefit. And that is cool. But there should be a public referendum in each state that does not have game fish status. Let the PUBLIC decide if the bass should be a game fish or harvested fish. Not lifetime appointees of recreational "industry" that are masquerading as ones protecting the public. I wouldn’t mind the process if these people weren't all tainted. You cant represent tackle stores, charter boats and recreational public at the same time. The interest are often not aligned, in fact sometimes they are opposite.
My point is we could manage these fish better without influence of $ we put on the heads of these fish

While I don't agree with that position, you are correct that if it is to be done at all, it has to be done on a state-by-state basis. Did you guys know that there is currently a bill in the MA legislature that would phase out the striped bass commercial fishery and make it a game fish in about 10 years?

I don't know where you get the idea that I agree with everything the ASMFC does, because that's far from the truth. But it just so happens that, when it comes to striped bass I think they are doing a pretty good job. .

So the "science" now shows that we have been overfishing (even if the SSB is still not formally ruined) for 10 years and F was set too high, something that has been painfully apparent to the vast majority of serious recreational striped bass fishermen for years now, and you feel the ASMFC has done a "pretty good job" by ignoring it?

I am sure you are well intentioned and you sincerely believe what you have advocated is right, but I would be interested to understand how you rationalize what you have chosen to believe in the face of what has obviously occurred.

So the "science" now shows that we have been overfishing (even if the SSB is still not formally ruined) for 10 years and F was set too high, something that has been painfully apparent to the vast majority of serious recreational striped bass fishermen for years now, and you feel the ASMFC has done a "pretty good job" by ignoring it?

I am sure you are well intentioned and you sincerely believe what you have advocated is right, but I would be interested to understand how you rationalize what you have chosen to believe in the face of what has obviously occurred.

We have a new stock assessment, which brings a new look at the situation. According to the previous stock assessment we were not overfishing and according to both stock assessments they are not overfished. Don't you understand that 1) you and the other guys on these discussions (me included) are not "science" and science is what is supposed to govern fishery management, and 2) things change, recruitment may be higher or lower in any given year than what was assumed in the stock assessment, that's why they do new assessment, to figure out if we are still on track in managing the species.

The board is reacting quickly to both adopt the new stock assessment (which they have to do before they can manage the fishery using the new reference points) and to take action which will bring the harvest down.

The sky is not falling. :)

Mako Mike, I'm not buying that, I thought the stock assessment said they are on their way to overfishing next year, yet they chose to do nothing until 2015.

2014 is not here yet, why can't they make at least a change to 1 fish per day for 2014? it is not in the middle of the season yet!

Mako Mike, I'm not buying that, I thought the stock assessment said they are on their way to overfishing next year, yet they chose to do nothing until 2015.

2014 is not here yet, why can't they make at least a change to 1 fish per day for 2014? it is not in the middle of the season yet!

1st, lets be clear about what it said. it said that sticking with the current fishing mortality there is an 80% chance that we will overfish next year. It also said that there is a 100% chance that they will NOT be overfished in 2015. That has to do with the recruitment of the 2011 year class.

Why can't they go to 1 @ 28 for 2014? Well, for one thing no one knows what going to 1 @ 28 would mean as far as achieving the F target. The only thing we do suspect, is that it is unlikely to be enough to meet the F target. So should they adopt an addendum that fails to achieve the target and then adopt yet another addendum, that does achieve the target?

Maybe, but even if they did that, the regs wouldn't kick in until about half way through the season for many areas. If they adopted that addendum at the last meeting, they would still have to vote on approval and the release of the associated public information document at the next meeting in March. Then there has to be a series of public hearings along with a comment period. Then they could vote to approve the addendum, maybe at the May meeting. The states then have a period time to adopt their new regulations, so, at best we would be looking at new regs in the June - July time frame, and in some states, where the regs have to be adopted by legislative action (like NJ), they likely wouldn't go into effect until much later.

Instead the board voted to move forward with a comprehensive revision of the regs that will achieve the revise F target. I'll wager that they will go to 1 @ something, possibly along with other restrictions (I'm in favor of specified seasons). So they will probably adopt new measures in May, then go to public hearings followed by adopting the new measures in the fall of 2014 with an effective date of Jan. 2015.

IOW they are pursuing a course of "ready, aim, fire"! Rather than a course of "ready, fire, aim."

what was the old nike slogan?......Just Do It. Gov red tape and polictico mumbo jumbo sucks....shut the door- the horse is gone?- who cares.

:spin::doh:


If you shut it down, you will meet your bogus F target, guaranteed. And then we can then abandon all this wasted committee meeting nonsense of trying to manage SB.

Do you really think they are doing a good job with SB? (I was wondering to they provide you with any food at these meetings? Maybe it is tainted with some kind of new science brainwashing serum that makes you all naive.)

I know some of my posts have been extreme...but we need this view to bring attn to this process which by any measure is NOT working, involves too many voices, and protects those from ever being accountable!

Vote in someone responsible to manage it and let him do it. Set targets. If he does not meet targets...FIRE HIM! and put someone else in. DONT CHANGE THE METRIC.

what was the old nike slogan?......Just Do It. Gov red tape and polictico mumbo jumbo sucks....shut the door- the horse is gone?- who cares.

So you would rather than the public has no input into the process? That seems to be the opposite of what everyone else is saying.

no mike I would like to MORE public input and LESS govt bs committee dragging their collective azzes input.

no mike I would like to MORE public input and LESS govt bs committee dragging their collective azzes input.

Well, you can't have it both ways. :) If you want public input you have to allow time for it to happen.

. Don't you understand that 1) you and the other guys on these discussions (me included) are not "science" and science is what is supposed to govern fishery management,

The sky is not falling. :)

The sky is falling, Mike. Those of us in our mid-fifties and on are going to be well past our surf fishing prime by the time these 2011 fish are worth catching.
As for your lame faith in fishery "science" that is nothing but self-serving dishonesty. Everyone involved in counting striped bass knew their margin of error was enormous as was their estimates of recreational catch and kill. Even their technical committee reports told them this. They ignored it because the science was inconvenient.

Good science would have taken into account the poor quality of the available data and pointed towards a more conservative management plan. Furthermore, good science would continuely be checking the accuracy of its conclusions and adjusting them based on real world feedback.

In fisheries driven by commercial pressures that doesn't happen........and you know it full well. Managers are pressured for short term economic yield and when it all goes bad everybody blames the "science".

Fishery management is not about science, it is about gambling and hoping for the best then blaming someone else when it all goes bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, you can't have it both ways. :) If you want public input you have to allow time for it to happen.

why so much time? so the marionette masters have more time to maximize their economic yields?

As for your lame faith in fishery "science" that is nothing but self-serving dishonesty. Everyone involved in counting striped bass knew their margin of error was enormous as was their estimates of recreational catch and kill. Even their technical committee reports told them this. They ignored it because the science was inconvenient.

Good science would have taken into account the poor quality of the available data and pointed towards a more conservative management plan. Furthermore, good science would continuely be checking the accuracy of its conclusions and adjusting them based on real world feedback.

In fisheries driven by commercial pressures that doesn't happen........and you know it full well. Managers are pressured for short term economic yield and when it all goes bad everybody blames the "science".

Fishery management is not about science, it is about gambling and hoping for the best then blaming someone else when it all goes bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Self-serving? How so, I rarely fish for striped bass.

As for the "poor quality of available data" that is taken into account. Have you ever read a stock assessment in detail? The scientists use what is called the "precautionary principle" in making the assessments and often IMHO are overly cautious in the resulting assessment. That's what's killing us with BSB right now, the stock is supposedly waaaay over the target SSB but the ABC is set very low because of the "data poor" state of the stock.

I guess you are unaware that in most fisheries management its the scientists that set the ABCs and the "managers" really just try to figure out how to stay within those numbers.

You're about 20 years behind the times in your attitudes and thinking.

why so much time? so the marionette masters have more time to maximize their economic yields?

You really think that 3 months is too long?

You really think that 3 months is too long?

good luck mike....

yeah shut it down. Then I won't feel like I am missing something while working on my house during the fishing season. 10 years is about how much time I need.

:uhuh:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Vulcan axiom.... and those are science guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or the one.

Self-serving? How so, I rarely fish for striped bass.

That explains why you are content believing the ASMFC is managing them well.



I guess you are unaware that in most fisheries management its the scientists that set the ABCs and the "managers" really just try to figure out how to stay within those numbers.

You're about 20 years behind the times in your attitudes and thinking.

I have not seen any change in fishery management, other than that mandated by a judge, over the more than 20 years I have been concerned about it. I have seen continued depletion of most of the stocks of fish I would like to catch and I blame apologists like yourself for facilitating such mismanagement.

You also seem unaware that science is useless with bad data, and that science is subservient to real world data not the other way around. To pretend that fishery management is based on science is ridiculous. It is based on data collection that makes use of science to predict the outcomes using that data set.

When you have bad data, you have bad results. There has been an abundance of real world information indicating that the striped bass data being used to predict management outcomes has been bad for the last 10 years. The ASMFC has chosen not to believe it for political and economic reasons......not "scientific" ones.

We just see things differently. Your perspective is that the fact that the striped bass SSB has not totally collapsed is proof the management has been OK. The fact that striped bass recreational catch is far below what the main user group wants does not matter. The ASMFC has done their job and killed every last "extra" fish out there. Now if they would just do the same for BSB everything would be grand.

To each their own, but why so many gloating posts from you about it on a board dedicated to striped bass fishing if you don't fish for bass anymore?

This ones for you mike....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWGXt979yg

I have not seen any change in fishery management, other than that mandated by a judge, over the more than 20 years I have been concerned about it.

Then you weren't paying attention:


98-623

(1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.

I do give credit to MakoMike for his efforts to actually participate in the fishery management. As Numby is demonstrating it is a thankless job for the most part,and it can be particularly difficult when an educated and frustrated angler minimizes your efforts regardless of your intentions.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

I'll accept that. But I am past the point where anything done for striped bass will have any effect in my remaining lifetime. The fish I want to catch in the years I have left are out there swimming now, and disappearing by the millions of lbs each year.

Yes, I'm plenty bitter about it. Yes, my bitterness is ineffectual, but I make no apology for it.

Anybody who thinks the striped bass fishery has been well managed since the last collapse does not share any perspective I admire. Indeed, we all would have likely been better off if such a person had stayed out of fishery management.

I appreciate your perspective and I am hopeful the "management" improves in time. George,perhaps you should be grateful to the fishery and all the great memories it has provided you. Like most things,it will never be the same as it was.If somebody with your passion and smarts had chosen to dedicate a career to the fishery management perhaps things would be different.

I do give credit to MakoMike for his efforts to actually participate in the fishery management. As Numby is demonstrating it is a thankless job for the most part,and it can be particularly difficult when an educated and frustrated angler minimizes your efforts regardless of your intentions.To criticize in such instances when doing nothing of consequence to support the species besides target them could be construed as self-serving.I interpreted MMs input as discussion and informative rather than gloating and self-serving.

Thanks, I needed that. :)

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all user groups.

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

The Scientists control the catch, its really that simple. The Science & statistical committees set the ABC, ACLs etc. The rest of the management structure has to abide by their determinations, no if ands or buts about it. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

The management of the striper fishery has been dominated by the catering to the party boat industry. I used to go to the meetings in the late 90's and despite the near collapse of the fishery just a decade before , the meetings were a joke. There would be 60 fisherman there. 45 recs and 5 coms and 10 party boat owners. The whole meeting then became the 10 party boat guys yelling and trying to intimidate the lone rec guy with the balls to speak up. Then the committees got overloaded with com and party boat supporting members and we ended up with 2 fish at 28". What a ridiculous limit! All so the party boat customers could be all but guaranteed to take home a fish thus making sure the party boat owners would fill their boats with stupid fisherman who cared zero about the sport or the fishery.

So now the science looks bad for the fishery and despite the science we are still at the party boat friendly limit of 2 at 28. What a ridiculous limit! You don't need to be a scientific genius to know that is a ridiculous limit..

So anyway , I stopped going to the meetings so I wouldn't be put in the position of having to punch the lights out of some party boat loudmouth who was getting in the face of anyone who said the limit should be reduced.

Yes I know this finger pointing at party boat owners (and coms and the politicians they support) is always labeled as divisive and how we should work together to solve the over fishing but you know what , its all a lie. The people who care about the fishery are always going to be bullied at meetings and talked down by the boisterous people who are in the game for money. At the bottom of it all is that as long as there is money to be made on striper fishing , the fishery will be in danger. Money and fisheries management simply don't mix. Get the money out of striper fishing and there will be instant fishery management targeted at a thriving stock , not at keeping every money grubber along the coast in greenbacks.

Oh , did I say 2 @28" is a ridiculous limit?

So go ahead and call me whatever you want. I won't respond because anybody who has been in the sport since the limit was 1@36 knows that behind every argument against conservation is a guy who is making money off the fishery.

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all .

Gee, Mike, it says it in your quote of the law above. The bit about optimizing yield specifically for the United States' [B] fishing industry [B].

I apologize for using such an unreliable source, however.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gee, Mike, it says it in your quote of the law above. The bit about optimizing yield specifically for the United States' [B] fishing industry [B].

I apologize for using such an unreliable source, however.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "fishing industry" includes both commercial and recreational fishing. IOW it includes your local tackle shop as well as your local fishmonger.

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.
.

No, Mike, my recollections are correct and I am sure you know it.

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 that forced the MSA reauthorization of 1996 (just like with the more recent 2006 reauthorization) was entirely the result of legal action and legislative pressure by the Pew trust and other environmental orginizations. The fishing industry fought it tooth and nail until the fisheries were so damaged they had nothing left to lose. You go look it up. The US Judicary site has a nice summary if you are so interested.......which I'm sure you're not (I'd link it for you but don't know how from an iPad).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "fishing industry" includes both commercial and recreational fishing. IOW it includes your local tackle shop as well as your local fishmonger.

Right, Mike (finally), the law caters specifically to those with an economic (i.e., commercial) interest in the fishery. It ignores entirely those of us with a recreational interest in the fishery. You can be very sure that phrasing was inserted under the lobbying pressure of economically interested parties while us recreational schmucks worked our usual jobs oblivious to the screwing we were getting (although obviously the act was concerned with far bigger issues than striped bass and recreational fishermen). A real good argument for gamefish status it seems.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Using your "logic" here Numby, would it be fair to blame you for Obamacare?

Didn't think so....but get it off of your chest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've had to kind of chuckle.In 95 we had loads of nice fish in Maine. MSA adopted. Numbers were changed to meet a figure dirived mostly from the charter industry as like back in the 70's an 80's nothing from the sportsfishermen was valid as we had no documentable data. All tourny an derby data was aneckdotal to ASMFC as they stated when it was brought forward each time.One thing that was promised though was a periodic reveiw of the process to tweek it so as all user groups were treated fairly.As sportsmen have caught up with sata entry things dissapeared from the process,commercial rod n reel became more entrenched and we saw a steady decline of fish in Maine.As the northern reps tried to get the accesment figure proces modified as it was beleived rightfully to be flawed and too high. Wider spread declining fish landings and fewer large migratory schools being found were. showing a familiar trend.Being screamed at by greedy types wanting to still chase the gold rush during hearings and meetings became more like the 80's. Today the decline is coastwide.Catch numbers are way down. Mirgration schools at both ends of the season are almost gone . Name calling by those that want it to stay the way it is for self interest that is usually conected to the pocketbook is starting to get like it was way back.The process can and will be changed. Steps are underway away from the name callers so that all the data right n wrong is being looked at to make changes in the process so the fish will benefit.
The stupedist part of the arguement is that we all have a vested interest in the fish stocks improving. When they do we all will benefit as there will be more fish. Wether they be comms,sport,tounement of for just to see an enjoy the economic benefit will be for all plus the system will be tweeked so as it works better and the fish stocks will be better and healthier.
The thing to do is stop wasting time with the loud nay sayers and get in touch with all those you know away from the shouters an name callers to work towards fixing the broken process. Talk to the club reps an have them contact the other clubs with whats wanted and needed to get this process doing as the MAJORITY wants and not the minority. I'm selfish I'd like there to still be catchable fish when I'm 90. Oh it's been very interesting the response when I asked how many comms paid taxes on the fish sold under their permits. Seems some of it doesn't jive with the catch numbers.

Yes Mike I've been on the phone and computer talkin with a load of people.

Using your "logic" here Numby, would it be fair to blame you for Obamacare?

Didn't think so....but get it off of your chest.
Posted from my LiPhone/Mobile device

Yes, Chris, it would be fair....although I'm not sure I follow your agenda.

Using your example, however, then very definitely cost inflation driven by physician charges and test ordering behavior, of which I am certainly a part and a beneficary, is a major factor necessitating healthcare reform. That means my opinion on the matter is biased and worth challenging.

By the same token, anybody who has been supporting the management process that has
resulted in our current fishery mess, particularly while profiting from that process, is biased and worth challenging.

Enough said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember the 16" limit? I do. What was the science behind that?

So with the idea that the difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist is better informed. I'm trying to dig a little into how the data is gathered regarding the " science " numbers. Tub trawls, seine halls , etc.
From the looks of it rec numbers are derived from phone surveys and intercepts of people fishing.
Really ? Talk about looking at the world through a drinking straw.
No wonder it's at best a guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just remember this guys, when all is said and done the future of striped bass depends on one factor no one can control, the weather. Best the managers can hope for it keep the egg production up (maintain SSB) and pray for good weather.

everyone agrees the "science" has been crappy- until now. StripedBass have undergone the most extensive benchmark stock assessment in the history of fishery management-
is it a "perfect study"? no-

is a perfect study possible? I don't think so- between monetary constraints and the logistic impossibilities of being able to monitor the fishing public, (how many of you actually see another human when out fishing at night?) there are many reasons why the science is kinda $hitty.... so like it or not, these are the numbers that are available- anything else really is pure guesswork. accept it- this is what we got

Just remember this guys, when all is said and done the future of striped bass depends on one factor no one can control, the weather. Best the managers can hope for it keep the egg production up (maintain SSB) and pray for good weather.

I remember when they correlated the production to sunspot activity...really!

Just remember this guys, when all is said and done the future of striped bass depends on one factor no one can control, the weather. Best the managers can hope for it keep the egg production up (maintain SSB) and pray for good weather.

that is partially true. but we can control what i believe is the ultimate factor- we ALL have to stop killing as many breed stock fish as we do thus more eggs. cut rec take and comm take in half for starters.

In fact it is exactly why we are trouble now. It is the gambling approach to fishery management. Preserve some level of spawners and hope for a banner year. And it worked. They got their banner year in 2011, and that means more of the same.

The better way is to ensure a much larger spawning stock so that even mediocre years contribute meaningful fish to the population. Twice as many spawners mean twice as many offspring and double a YOY result, which goes a long way towards turning a bad year into an average year. Unfortunately, those spawners are worth money dead. So we manage with the goal to kill most of them and hope for the weather to save us by generating a banner year once every generation. Brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope and change.
More Fn hope and change !
Hope, isn't a plan.
Just pollyanna thinking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The better way is to ensure a much larger spawning stock so that even mediocre years contribute meaningful fish to the population. Twice as many spawners mean twice as many offspring and double a YOY result, which goes a long way towards turning a bad year into an average year.

Sorry but it just don't work that way. There are plenty of eggs being laid every year, just look at 2011. The problem is that, given the wrong weather pattern very few of those eggs turn into fish.

I remember when they correlated the production to sunspot activity...really!

Read this and then get back to me: http://www.bayjournal.com/article/link_between_striped_bass_weather_suggests_stormy_ times_ahead_for_fish

If you like, I have the URL for the scientific paper published by Martino, but I think it costs $25 to access it.

I'm no authority on any of this, I just know what I have seen over the years growing up but to me, stripers are an uncommon and sometimes rare fish to catch (boat are not) depending on the year. I always thought something was wrong.

To me, wouldn't it make sense to just make Stripers a catch and release only type fish? This way the fisherman can still fish them and they still have the chance to grow. Wouldn't the mortality rate of foul hooking be much lower than what we see now along with the select population of idiots keeping the fish until they get slammed with a fine?

Sorry but it just don't work that way. There are plenty of eggs being laid every year, just look at 2011. The problem is that, given the wrong weather pattern very few of those eggs turn into fish.

Are you serious?

No matter how bad the conditions, some percentage of the total eggs laid turn into fish every year. If you double the number of eggs laid (by doubling the number of breeders) that same percentage results in twice as many YOY unless there is a severe limiting food shortage......which is hard to believe since larvae are very small and eat plankton.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good weather and low rainfall keeps the insecticides and bug chemicals out of the spawning areas when the eggs are hatching for both stripers and what they feed on. Bob Pond proved this fact time an again. The process needs tweeking so that it works not completely scrapped. Incomplete data and ruling out what doesn't agree with what the controling interest wants is a major part of the problem. Benchmarck for max sustainable yeild only works for the smallest group that makes money out of it not the bulk of the users.
The only reason I don't agree with having someone dictate management without public comment is that the controling interest doesn't take care of the fish.Take care of the fish and everyone will benefit .not just any one user group.

The reasons for the sharp decline in the striped bass harvest during the 1970s and 1980s are complex. Scientists determined that overfishing caused the striped bass population to become more susceptible to natural stresses and pollution. (The principle gear used in the Chesapeake Bay commercial striped bass fishery included pound nets, haul seines, and drift, anchor and stake gillnets.) In particular, fluctuations in water temperature in spawning grounds cause significant natural stress. But this is not the only stressor.
Low dissolved oxygen (DO) in the deeper water of the upper Chesapeake Bay and in other areas has eliminated much of the summer habitat of adult and juvenile striped bass.
Acidity and contaminants in spawning habitats may have influenced the mortality of striped bass larvae in the Choptank, Nanticoke and Potomac rivers. Research indicates that highly acidic rain reacts with aluminum in the soil, causing it to dissolve in the water, which is lethal to newly hatched stripers.
Salinity, turbidity, light, temperature and pH also affect the survival of striped bass in their habitat.
Larval striped bass are also susceptible to toxic pollutants such as arsenic, copper, cadmium, aluminum and Malathion, a commonly used pesticide.
Other hypotheses for the decline of striped bass in the Bay include starvation of larvae, unfavorable climatic events, changes in water use practices, competition with other species for food and space, and poor water quality due to agricultural runoff and sewage treatment practices.
Despite these threats, the striped bass stocks continue gradually to increase in the Bay. Because the Bay remains the main spawning and nursery area for 70 percent to 90 percent of the Atlantic stock, restoration efforts remain critically important to the future of the striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay

http://www.stripers247.com/Spawning-Stripers.php

The article state that the most successful survival group of hatching stripers are those that have come from eggs with large yolk sacks. This happens when the females are about 10 years old or older. a look at an age vs length chart will show that these best breeding females with eggs that have large yolk sacks happens at a length of about 35 inches. They certainly do produce eggs that hatch successfully before this but at about 10 years old/35 inches , the survival rate of the hatched eggs goes way up do to the availability of the food in the well developed yolk sacks. Also this size female produces many more eggs as well as the more well developed eggs.

This single fact alone says that the "keeper" size limit for maximum spawning success should be somewhere in the 35 inch range , give or take some for average vs high and low lengths vs age.

No matter how bad the conditions, some percentage of the total eggs laid turn into fish every year. If you double the number of eggs laid (by doubling the number of breeders) that same percentage results in twice as many YOY unless there is a severe limiting food shortage......which is hard to believe since larvae are very small and eat plankton.


You ass-U-me that some percentage of the total eggs will turn into fish. We don't know that, for all we know doubling, tripling or quadrupling the number of eggs will increase the YOY index by zero. We don't know what causes the failure to turn eggs into fish. But by your logic we should shut down all fishing on the hope that it will somehow increase the YOY incises.

Sorry I'm not willing to deny the pleasure of striped bass fishing to millions of fishermen, on some untested and unscientific theory.

Good weather and low rainfall keeps the insecticides and bug chemicals out of the spawning areas when the eggs are hatching for both stripers and what they feed on. Bob Pond proved this fact time an again.

Did you read the article? That is the exact opposite of what the scientists found. High rainfall is the event that causes increased survival.

High rainfall causes more current which help to keep the eggs suspended in the current rather than sinking to the bottom where they suffocate. In this sense , high rainfall helps survivability.

However....high rainfall increases the amounts of chemicals in the runoff from the watershed. This is a particular problem in the northern watershed of the Chesapeake which extends way up into central Pennsylvania. This area has many small farms where the farmers use large amounts of fertilizer and insecticide to maximize yield from their relatively small acreage. The more rain , the more these farming chemicals run off into the Chesapeake Bay from that area of the watershed. It further causes the ph of the runoff and bay waters to the acidic size which results in the leaching of metals like copper and aluminum from the soil. These metals leaching into the Bay are lethal to hatched eggs.

This info jives with what Bob Pond used to tell me over the years when I would frequently go to the Atom Factory which was 15 minutes from my house.

Mike, I've got copies of all that stuff. I watched Bob beat his head against commercial interest for decades so that the money would keep flowing. He all but put ATom under using it to fund research with one goal. Keep the striped bass viable for all interests not just sportfishing.His research was irefutable but because he didn't have PEW funding or large corperate and big name political backing-Kennedy-it was ignored and shot down . Many of use helped and did the grunt work. It was a real eye opener.The moratorium helped the fish to rebound. things were going better till by-catch and commercial take pushed by more sportfishermen started things to reverse.Now the numbers are dropping faster. Things will get changed for the better.Your name calling and insults just show your interest are self serving to the point you could care less as to what happens to the fish.A load of us feel different. Catch n release and sportfish status will all be determined in the next year.A huge anti fishing lobby is just waiting for the chance to shut it all down. If you wish to keep being part of the problem fine. Year after year retorick like yours gets less and less prevolent and conservation mindedness increases as our feelings towards a fish change.that's a positive . Yes like i said i'm selfish. I want my grand kids to be able to catch stripers even if it is just to throw them back.Not to line my pockets.

You ass-U-me that some percentage of the total eggs will turn into fish. We don't know that, for all we know doubling, tripling or quadrupling the number of eggs will increase the YOY index by zero. We don't know what causes the failure to turn eggs into fish. But by your logic we should shut down all fishing on the hope that it will somehow increase the YOY incises.

Sorry I'm not willing to deny the pleasure of striped bass fishing to millions of fishermen, on some untested and unscientific theory.

You are losing it, Mike, when you need to resort to insults and wild ridiculous distortions and extrapolations.

You are also losing it when you pull out the same old tired "the science isn't good enough so we shouldn't change a thing" BS......particularly after you have made such a strong claim that the entire fishery management is based on science ( which it is not).

Your postulate that more eggs will not result in more YOY is totally ridiculous unless the YOY number is determined by a single absolute limiting condition such as food supply. It is not and you should know that. Egg survival is dependent on a whole host of factors that destroy a large percentage of eggs laid.....some years more than others. Lay more eggs then more eggs make it to adulthood FOR ANY GIVEN MORTALITY RATE.

You should be familiar with all this. It is exactly what you are doing with self-serving misinformation. Spout more of it and more of it will stick.

Your agenda here is to support commercial fishing and the management process that is beholden to it. You made it clear you don't fish for bass any more, yet you are neck deep in an argument about their management on a board populated by recreational fishermen. Your bias is clear, as is ours, leave it at that rather than creating lame lies, false claims, and childish insults to cover your tracks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

O.K. I'll say it one more time and then I'm done with this thread. THE LAW requires that the stock be managed using the best available science and attempt to reach optimum yield (MSY) If you don't like it, work to get the law changed, until then the managers will do what they are directed to do. Gamefish status is an individual state matter, as the law stands now the ASMFC would be violating the law if they attempted to make stripers a game fish.

:wall:
time to buy another flyrod
:wall:

maybe basic patrick can clue us in on upcoming meetings and lawmakers so we can get the law moving in the right direction, hope and change, ya that's it

Look at the ASMFC site Slip and find the part on the appeals process. i've been on the phone with some of the northern reps to see if that might be the way to go to fix some of the problems due to the economic impact of the lower numbers of fish landings coast wide.Appeal specific parts of the process with specific changes to improve things for the fish.Fix the fish problem and everyone including the fish benefit.

I am going with the sunspot theory...:)

I don't know about you Jim but before the internet and cell phone we caught way more fish.LOL Might have something to do with it LOL.Way too easy for people. we normally had to find our fish on our own.LOL

The wise does at once what the fool does at last. I just hope this all gets fixed before it's too late. I know it is a heated debate and emotions run high,but I would be curious how many that come here to the site would be for gamefish status. I think it would be interesting to have a poll on this just to see.

I'm for it.

The wise does at once what the fool does at last. I just hope this all gets fixed before it's too late. I know it is a heated debate and emotions run high,but I would be curious how many that come here to the site would be for gamefish status. I think it would be interesting to have a poll on this just to see.

Start a poll thread!

I was at the meeting and working the rec commissioners hard. It was very disappointing that MA & CT were the only states to vote for reductions in 2014. The fact that NY & NJ went the other way was disheartening. I hope anglers in those states hammer their commissioners.

Trying to follow everything said and realize that you're not touching on another unknown factor. SEAL FOOD.
I HAVE A CHANCE TO WATCH THE CUTE SEALS EATING BASS,ONE AFTER ANOTHER,NON STOP.
UNLIKE MYSELF THEY DON'T TAKE TIME OUT FOR HOT DOGS & BEANS.
In the mid 80's I was blessed with the ability to leave my house, drive down Nauset beach, catch two bass[forty lb class] and drive home within five or six hours.

To quote Numby, I'll never live long enough to see that again. The biomass will not be around long enough to reach that age group.
Not out in seal infested outer cape

didn't they even try and increase the quota within the last 2 or 3 years in spite of the poor trends? (it is all becoming a big blurr)

Mark this post. When the comms finish off the bass off chatham (just like they did at gay head) they will be moving to get into the eez next. (Heck I have seen guys fishing it already...there is no one out there to nab them either)