Deputy Dog posted:
"...the coastal fishery makes it very difficult for fish to make it through another season. It is now thought to be around 40% a year fishing mortality..."

DD,

Two nights ago I attended a presentation on the restoration of anadromous species. There it is was mentioned that the latest data indicated that the current mortality rate for striped bass is actually at about 35%. This figure was also cited at the EEZ scoping hearing.

Please ask Mr. Burns where he has seen the accpeted F rate "around 40%" and report back to us.

Thanks In Advance,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

MIke
Look at the very same NMFS charts you referred to on another forum. I can't remember the slide number, but the title is Fishing Mortality Rate - Update, and was part of the handout at all the EEZ scoping meetings. The chart referred to fish age 8-11 and shows the 2001 or 2002 F to be .39 (30%+ over target), and the current number to be .35 (16% over). The way the chart is drawn it's hard to say what number is for what year but the implication is clear enough. Fishing alone, legal and illegal, recreational and commercial, is killing too many large fish and that is before considering fish taken by non-human predators.
Dawg

And no, I'm not interested in any protracted discussions with you. Been there, done that.

I presume that you are refering to this chart from NMFS. Note that the last year listed is 2002 (not 2003) and it is about 35% (not 40%). Note also the next slide that explains this in more detail.

Also, at the same presentation I saw 2 days ago, we were told that we should start to see more and more larger stripers in the coming years - even if the EEZ is reopened.

I hope this information has been of some help.

Best,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

Source:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_f...iles/frame.htm

This slide helps describe the above one...

Also, 2003 saw another banner year for recruitment (slide not available).

Great News,
Mike

Who gave the presentation you attended, Pollyana? You'll note that the first slide shows that F was above threshhold for 6 consecutive years! Where was that little bit of info a year ago?
The truth is those guys couldn't find their own a$$ with both hands.
You still have no agenda, Mike?

DD,

A traget is just that, a target or a goal. Hopefully by trying to achive the target, we will stay below the "threshold" which is a much more important measure because crossing it means that we are indeed overfishing. Note that the chart indicated that we have approached the threshold but it has not been exceeded.

The cool thing is that if we do exceed it, there are very strict managment procedures in place to get stripers back on track.

See attached slide.

As for my agenda(?), my personal comments here are motivated in a sincere interest to inform and learn. Then again, that is the peril of using my full name in posts and not using an alias.

I'm sorry, did you mention what your name is or what you agenda is (if any).

Peace,
Mike

I attended the EEZ meeting in Rhode Island. The presentation was given by a lady named Anne Lange, who I believe is the Chief of the State-Federal Fisheries Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service. (not some lady named "Pollyanna"). I found her extremely knowledgeable, courteous and patient with all members of the audience that were in attendance.

An advocate of Stripers Forever made a presentation where he was yelling in a condescending manner to everyone in the audience including Ms Lange and a biologist from RI DEM. He continued to embarrass himself in front of the entire group by telling everyone that the professional biologists had no idea what they were doing and that he had unique knowledge to see the real picture, since he has been fishing since he was two feet tall. He was not able to pronounce the names of the diseases which he proclaimed that the bass possess, but was convinced that the solution to all biological problems in the Chesapeake Bay was to make stripers a gamefish along the entire coast. (Funny how those who run fly-fishing guide services or sell fly tackle seem to have that as a solution. I wonder what is their real agenda?) Soon after his rant was finished he left.

After taking comments from anyone in the audience who wished to speak, Ms Lange remained over an hour after the scheduled time allotment to answer all questions from the audience in detail.

Ed

flatts1 wrote
My point was that, a year ago, the same fisheries managers claimed we were fishing at an F below target in every category. Now, retroactively, we're above target for 6 consecutive years and practically at the threshold for 2001. They used their previous numbers to justify Amendment 6 and the resultant 42% increase in the coastal commercial quota, to say nothing about the increases in recreational bag limits in a number of states.

Ed, I agree that Anne Lange is all you said. She knew her presentation, and she was polite and friendly and patient. I felt personally that she was in way over her head, stuttering and stammering, but very nice. She is also the person who cast the vote that resulted in the recommendation to open the EEZ. I would guess that she regrets that now, given that most of the attendees of the scoping meetings opposed opening the EEZ, and because the state of the fishery in the Chesapeake is truly disturbing. You have to have your head stuck pretty far in the sand, (or somewhere else) to not know that the mycobacteriosis outbreak is rampant, and that many fish are dying of disease and/or malnutrition before ever reaching spawning size/age.
Lots of folks are pointing the finger at the overharvest of bunker (menhaden) in the Bay area, and that may be the right place to start, but ending the commercial harvest of small fish in the producer bays to the south and the large fish from New York north is the best way to get a handle on this resource once and for all. Sounds like the guy in Rhode Island had it right (I wasn't there).
So Mike, what was this presentation a couple of days ago? Certainly not a scoping meeting as they're all done. Maybe it was Pollyanna.

My name is George Watson and I'm an alchol........whoops wrong intro! I'm one of the founders of Stripers Forever.
My agenda is my closing message.

Would I cry if they made Striped Bass a gamefish? No I wouldn't . Part of this is selfish: I gave up my state license to sell, and the other part is ecological with me being part of the ecology-- I enjoy having the bass around, love the fish, and love to catch them. I would certainly stand at the bass grave and cry if it were to disapear.
However I do not think the bass will become a gamefish anytime soon, this is hardy New England not Florida, and up here things are done differently. I'm not saying your mission is impossible. I'm saying that it'll take huge effort to overcome the opposition. Especially when word like "recovered" are tossed around. You've got a much better shot when mortality exceeds recruitment. The stock then crashes. The quotas get reduced--and the market fisherman goes off and fishes on something else.

Slightly off topic here..

Was there any talk of over fishing manhaden in the chesapeake?? The chesapeake is dying, the crabs are vanishing, the stripers are skinny and hardly anyone makes notice that there are less menhaden around...
If Omega protien layed off the menhaden, the bass would have food and would stop eating the crabs. Same stuf is happening in narragansett bay with smaller lobster and fluke harvests... the bass are eating them because there's too little bait in the water to support the bass colony.
but what do I know...:confused:

The chesapeake has a major problem with run off and nitrogen. The nitrogen is causing giant algal blooms. When the algae dies the process consumes the oxygen in the water and causes fish and invertebrate kills.

goosefish wrote
\

We know what you're saying Goose. Folks have a nasty habit of waiting too long, and then the road back is longer and tougher.
I hope it doesn't come to that. We've got some ideas that may speed the process along (gamefish status, not the decline of the fishery). We'll keep everyone informed as things develop.

George Watson wrote:
"The truth is those guys couldn't find their own a$$ with both hands."

Mr. Watson,

Herin lies my frustration with your group. You are so blinded by your "supposed one goal" of eliminating the commercial fishing of striped bass, and keeping the EEZ closed to recreational folks as well and who knows what else...

However, you are all about SPIN and not the truth. Mr. Burns is so quick to misrepresent (F=.40) the figures published at the EEZ hearing but...

1) He was wrong, as I have indicated that that the that the fugure was actually F=.35. Mr. Burns had the same information as myself (and anyone else attending the hearing). In other words, he knowingly mislead Capt. John Bunar

2) When I corrected Mr. Burns data, we were told by you, (a founding SF member) that 'OH well, NMFS has no clue anyway' (note: your real quote above used some other choice verbiage)

The bottom line here is that Stripers Forever can't have it both ways! The data has to be acceptable when it makes your case as well as when it does not. So which is it? Is the NMFS data acceptable or not?

Finally, now that I have the ear of a real live founder of Stripers Forever, please review the following graph and explain to me again why commercial fishing of striped bass is such a threat to the striped bass resource. As you know, I tried asking the same question on a flyfishing website and I was banned as a result.

Thanks in Advance,
Mike Flaherty
Quincy, MA

ya boyee :)

keep it up :)

Mike
I just finished a long (too long) reply to your last post, went to preview it, posted it instead, tried to get it back and managed to delete the whole bloody thing. Probably just as well.
You didn't answer my question about what meeting you attended in the last few days that gave you such a warm and fuzzy feeling about striperdom. I'm waiting.

You love to jump on something when you think it is a misstatement. NMSF said that we were fishing striped bass at levels below target and threshold. Now they say that large fish have been fished above target and close to threshold for 6 consecutive years, and, if the .35 number was truly 2002, (Anne Lange implied it was for 2003) than this past year will undoubtedly make it 7 years in a row, with the increases given to commercials and recs by Amendment 6. How about hopping on that little error?
The NMFS chart shows F of .39 for, you say, 2001. That's pretty close to 40% I'd say. Whether its for 2001 or 2002 is less important than the number itself and what it represents. The previous numbers were the ones used to justify the commercial increase under Amendment 6, as well as the increase given to recs in some states.
Our opposition to reopening the EEZ was because of our goal of eliminating commercial fishing for stripers, not allowing the effort to spread out. If we had already achieved our goal we would have been silent on the issue.

That graph is a no brainer:(maybe you need an explanation);
Superimpose onto that graph the number of recreational anglers who fish for stripers vs the number of commercial harvesters. Then tell me why the latter should get even a single fish. They're outnumbered 300 to 1. Then superimpose a chart on dollars generated by recs vs coms and, again, justify the comms getting any.
And, by the way, I will engage you only when provoked. Judging from the positive comments and new members at the College Park, Marlboro and Somerset shows, I don't need to waste my time with you. Judging from the traffic on your own website, many others seem to feel likewise.
DD

Time for football !

what is up with you folks ? :confused:

got some major poopie pants here :laughs: :laughs: :laughs:

well i can't see any good in opening the eez!
The comercial qouta is full in 3 to 4 weeks as it is! And then 28" fish?? How are you going to get these eez fish to port when the inshore fish is 34"?? This means all fish will have to be 28" and this is not right! We will fill the qouta in 2 weeks then! and we will be taking all the small fish before they ever have a chance to breed just once.
IMO we will be right were we started with a doomed fishery!! Never see Large fish again! They have done a great job bring back the fishery!! But for what? to just knock it right back down. We are just starting to see nice 50# all the time again and before long we will be seeing 60# and maybe someday see the 73 # record beat??
So if its not broke don't fix it!!

Macjoe,

The size limits will be enforced in the state where the fish are brought to.

In other words, if 2 Mass boats head to the EEZ, 1 rec and 1 com, then the rec boat could keep a couple 28'' fish for each angler, however, the commercial boat could still only bring back fish that are over 34''

Again, since the comercial fishery is bound by a hard quota, opening the EEZ would be a conservation neutral reg.

This was all stated at the EEZ scoping meetings which is why it is so important to attend them.

I hope this helps,
Mike Flaherty