RE: min/max sizes.

Scientific studies have shown that if there is a minimum size restriction, with no Maximum restriction, The size of a breeding mature individual in the population WILL SHRINK.

How is this possible?

How about an experiment. With something simple like corn.
[list=1] plant a field of corn.
remove most of the stalks that reach 6'
save and then plant all seed corn from remaining stalks.
repeat every growing season.
[/list=1]Eventually you will breed the height out of the population.
The few stalks that produce viable mature seed at the shorter height are selected and allowed to reproduce. and with less competition than the larger variety.


Now do the same to Stripers. (it has been proven with trout)
[list=1] Start out the fishing season.
remove as many fish as you can catch that are over 28" and release all fish that are under 28" (shorts)
repeat this every season.
[/list=1]You will find that the portion of the population that are sexually mature (yet under 28") will increase with each season. The few mutant fish that mature early will survive and reproduce. The larger fish - which compete with them for food - will decrease.

Over time the majority of the population get smaller and smaller.
We are selecting for small fish by allowing them to live yet removing the larger cows.

The damage from this action can be felt within years.
However to recover requires very selective breeding and a lot of patience. Large fish must be preserved while short early maturing fish must be limited while not decimating the population.


Why? Because you will continue to have short fish breeding into the population and you must remove them. How do you differentiate short-early mature fish from young-large-fish?

That would mean that increasing the harvest of shorts and decreasing the harvest of large kept could actually be a good thing.


By having a maximum size you encourage the larger breed of the population to keep on producing and increasing the population.


I find it very dumb that if I go to Maine I can keep shorter fish but not the big fish but if I go to Mass I can keep the big cows and bulls thus damaging the breeding capabilities of the species.

Just my 2c.

For another example look at lobster pots.
They catch lobsters up to a max size.
then you can only keep them if they are above a given size.
AND, if they are egg bearers they must be released.

Add some sort of maturity meter to fishing of large stripers and watch them grow!!

SLOT LIMIT.........

SLOT LIMIT....:claps:

Slot limit? How many of you guys would release a 60 pounder? I'm sure McReynolds would be happy to hear that his record would never be beaten.

Mike...nice work.

I'm all for a slot limit, but I think there needs to be a trophy exception as well. Say a keeper limit of one at 28''-36'', and a trophy limit of one at 50''+ regardless of one already possessing a keeper. This would allow people to take something for the table, something to get mounted, and there would still be a solid stock of the larger fish. And as Mike so eloquently said, those larger fish would be spreading their larger fish genes as well.

You want bigger fish? Protect the bait. And a slot limit wouldn't hurt but more than anything, Herring / Mackeral / & #1 Menhaden

whats a slot limit?

how about dropping the sissy rules and going back to 1 fish at 36"

This theory actually was proven with cod as well.

Nature basically does what it needs to do in order to survive, so fish started to mature sexually faster in response to the depleting of the bigger breeders (due to overfishing) and thus the gene pool was weakened.

Fewer fish had the good genes of a heavy breeder. Plus, the bigger breeders produce more eggs.

Fewer and fewer big fish.

I think a slot of one fish, maybe 28-34" then a trophy fish over 45" would protect alot of breeding fish. That would allow you to keep a good eater and still get your trophy.

I'm just throwing those number out, but it would allow quality fish to spawn a few times.

It would have to be consistent up and down the coast though, which I have trouble seeing.

I think BM is right as well... the only reasons I kinda like the slot better however you set it up is it gives some quality 20lb class fish more of a chance to spawn. It also would give more people a shot at bringing home a fish. Not sure why I think that's good. But, at the same time, a straight 36" limit makes enforcement easier and rules simple to follow.

Conn does a slot limit, maybe not a bad idea for Mass/RI.

how would you do a slot limit for commercial fishing?
maybe they just need to be restricted to a line fishing or a much larger size whole in the nets.

I like BM's suggestion, but a slot limit and some "smarter" management would help.

I'm gonna get lynched for this , but I think the commercial size is way too big. There is no reason that slots won't work for them , too. Save the breeders for breeding. Eat the eaters. And one or two trophy fish a year. A farmer who killed his breeding stock would be institionalized. If you want fish , think farm and not predator. And predator is what we are now, IMHO. You gotta put something back and manage correctly. A few half a$$ed rules have brought cod and stripers back from the brink. Just my opinion.

So again, how the heck do you do slot limit for comms?
how do they fish for striper now?
how do they fish for any specific fish when they go out with nets?

do they hunt down schools and then only bring back the particular fish, killing ... err "releasing" the bycatch?

Jake,
NY already has a slot limit for commercials. If I remeber correctly its 26-36 inches.

Sometimes a 29 inches is a breeder. It happens all the time. I was thinking that we should release the breeders or female stripers, but the problem is that how do we know if it is a female? You can't tell if it's a breeder. I don't like taking a pregnant dead striper to the dinner table. Like MikeTLive said, release the egg bearers.

Plus, there are some idiots who take shorts or kill them out of amusements, that is one of the problem besides the commerical fishery and recreational fishery. This is something that we don't have a lot control over.

Slot limit , Ban Comms from taking bass, only allow 1 fish per day etc etc etc. Every one has a idea to help "protect the bass". Some or all may help but most people seem to miss the one thing that will do the most for the entire system. Proper enforcement of the law! As the saying goes a fence only keeps out an honest man. You can see it in every aspect of life. States with open carry laws on the books have less crime, why? not because people obey the laws regarding crime but because they are afraid of being shot when they try to mug someone. Same with speeding we all do it. Why? Because we can get away with it but we all know where it is enforced and won't do it on those roads. I don't care if they allowed you to take 5 fish per day if people have no fear of getting caught they WILL keep 10 of any size they want to. My personal feeling is we should not worry so much about size limits ( not what it is no important ) and spend so much of our time trying to get a slot Etc Ect and more of our energy in getting our political leaders to keep there blood stained hands off the tax $$$ from the fisheries and put more of that money into the DEM so they can be properly staffed and equipped to do there job. If more people get caught and fined fewer people will take shorts or more that there fare share.

KL

I know if you look at me aand Mikey, were like night and day.
I never keep my big fish, but he keeps his first keeper every time.
Maybe do what dave says,
When the limit was 36" I was very proud to keep a fish.
It doesn't really matter to me...the MEP can put the limit at 48" as far as I'm concerned.
Anyhow, now I'm after lobsters and tuna.:D
Later,
Rick

Sorry, don't buy it. Removing larger fish does not stunt their growth. The genes don't change because you took a big fish. The fish are smaller because there is not enough fatty foods for them to eat. They are eating small lobsters (which is hurting that fishery) and craps and low cal fish. They need high fat content fish...bunker, giant sand eels, and lots of herring and macs to grow big.

IMO taking the big fish does hurt the potential population because a giant bass has lots of eggs. BUT I would rather have lots of young healthy breaders then one ol bitch that could die during the spawn and wipe out your main breeder . More is better. One could also use the pollution arg...that the old fish will have a higher heavy metal content and this old cow will be producing poor quality eggs...

IMO all you have to do is keep the lower limit at a point where every fish has a chance to spawn a couple times, keep the water clean and provide enough food for them and there will be enough bass forever.

Making the limit more complicated will not solve anything. It is not policed now...what makes you think someone is going to release a gut-hooked 50# cow? Get real.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Sorry, don't buy it. Removing larger fish does not stunt their growth. The genes don't change because you took a big fish. The fish are smaller because there is not enough fatty foods for them to eat. They are eating small lobsters (which is hurting that fishery) and craps and low cal fish. They need high fat content fish...bunker, giant sand eels, and lots of herring and macs to grow big.

Wrong.

The genes do not change.

Just as there are tall people and short people.
If you remove the tall people from the breeding pool eventually the genes for short people will become more prevelent.
This is how natural selection works. There is a bunch of variation in a population. A disease or some other population limiting factor takes effect.

The portion of the population that has genes that give it an edge (being short) will help that portion of a population to survive.

That simple.

People did not eveolve FROM apes.
Apes and people evolved from a common ancestor.
over the years we each adapted the strongest/best suited to the conditions survived.

The population that was less able to survive died off further differentiating the species.

This is simple basic biology 101. And it is a proven fact that YOU can prove by talking to anyone that raises any kind of plant/animal.

remove the ones with traits you don't want and keep the ones with traits you do want. eventually most will have the traits you want.

In the case of Large Fish, by removing too many of th ones with the traits we want (largeness) we end up with more that have a trait we don't want (shorts)

plain and simple.

Truth is truth.

Now, wether there are other limiting factors is not up for debate.

Yes, the food supply will also effect them. - Again, biology 101.
not enough food, they are dying earlier, the earlier maturers of the species will survive and propogate. Thus increasing ther respective populations.

Heck, even skin color can be changed over a relatively short period - take that KKK you frigin racist bastards -

Move a population of Dark skinned individuals out of the bright plains and give them a milky diet. Their skin WILL Lighten.
This is because VitaminD poisoning will effect the darkest of them thus limiting the prevelence of those genes.

Move a population of light skinned individuals out of the forests and into barbados and over time their complexion will darken - no not suntanning - They will need more vitaminD. their skin will darken. the individuals without enough D will get sick and thus limit the continuance of those genes.

Again, all basic biology101.

A further example - dog breeds.
most of the common dog breeds we are all so familiar with are only a few thousand years old. AND THEY ARE ALL MAN BRED!!! coming from a population that was domesticated in china about 15000 years ago.

If you mix and match all the different dog populations and select for the common traits eventually you wil lget a dog that is much closer to that first subspecies (and is very wolf like).

I have a couple of questions and one assumption.

The assumption first, and then the question. Are not most fish that are gilnetted dead when the net is retrieved. If they are, how and for what reason would commercial fsihermen release dead fish to satisfy a growth limits different from wat we have now?

Macojoe that was an extraordinarily well-said and simple corn analogy.

I think slot limits such as the one in Maine would work.

And when I catch my sixty pounder on the Vineyard on October 9th shortly before midnight on dogfish bar I will release it.

The way I see it and I may be crossedeyed: the genes don't change. The ratio does. For instance Larger fish are survivers, they have survived more than people. Their odds of surviving went up the longer that they survived. and the longer they survive, the bigger they get. Sounds rational to me. Now the bigger they get , the more eggs they lay, more eggs, more offspring, more large fish barring some disaster, like people.
Now I see no reason that the Commercials can't take , say for argument , 22 to 28 inch fish. Just like recreationals. But with a pinsticker permit you can take more and sell.Until a quota is met. the quota would go up as stocks improved. Leave the small leave the large and offer a permit for trophys. Striper fishing now in Massachusetts is hook and line only, keep it that way. Hook and line only would improve all fisheries by nearly eliminating by-catch, but we all know that ain't on any radar screen. But I think that my pipe dream proposal might be an answer. Any others?

Sandman & Jake,

The genes absolutely do change. Not all fish (or any animal) have the genetic makeup to grow to max size. Whether they are susceptible to disease or too slow to avoid predators or whatever. Some may even live a long time just not grow large. Maybe they only get 30lbs not 50.

As Sandman stated, the large fish spawn more eggs. When you cull the large fish out of the population, there good genes are no longer dominating the population.

This isn't too say that a fish has to 50lbs to have good genes. That 50lber has been spreading its good genes from the first time it spawns when it was 10lbs. But over time, if there are fewer large fish, there genes become less and less dominant. And as stated, in their prime years they produce more eggs... more than they did earlier in life.

So, say one out of 20 fish is genetically superior. That fish is not producing any more eggs than the other 19 when they are all 10lbs. If the fish never reaches the bigger size where it will become a major egg producer, it has no advantage over the rest of the population.

The point I made that was shown from the cod stocks takes it a step further.

Nature is resilient and will adapt. When the cod stocks where blasted, there were very few breeding adults left. The species adapted by having sexually immature fish spawn out of necessity.

Hope that makes sense... the big fish' advantage comes when she is producing many more eggs than the other 19 fish... when she is in her prime spawning years.

Guys read what John R wrote. Then read it again. KEEP reading it till it makes sense!!!

Then go to the CCA websitehttp://www.cca-ma.org/ read about the herring, then join.

Thats probably the only way your gonna change anything. YEA POLITICS SUX!!

Kudos to all of you for all the thought put into this thread, I'm happy with any size fish no matter what size if I get a keeper fine if not so be it ,I'm on the water with my son and that 's what makes me happy!
Nexe year I hope to hook up with one of you guy's and fish the Elizebeth islands I need to learn been a shore fisherman for so long need to learn the techinics of catching themfrom a boat,
or isa there any difference? Later LINK