They were on top of it last time the species collapsed and we were just being silly .. I did great at the canal in the spring ..(not in the fall) .. Fishing the canal, your fishing a funnel .. kind of cheating .

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! "
"All is well, all is well"



As far as rec mortality and game fish goes....this can be simply regulated and throttled to whatever mortality is acceptable while maintaining the bulk of the economic benefit. NJ chose not to do this and take "all their fish" before anyone else can catch them.

IMO, they technically DO NOT have a game fish status:

New Jersey is allocated a commercial harvest quota of striped bass under the Striped Bass Interstate Fisheries Management Plan as administered by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). Since New Jersey does not allow netting or sale of striped bass, this quota was transferred to the recreational fishing sector resulting in the origin of the SBBP. <<<<<FIRST MISTAKE!!! Where is the conservation here????

The current allocation from ASMFC is 321,750 pounds to be distributed between individual anglers and party/charter boats. Should NJ overshoot this quota in 2011, any overage would be subtracted from the 2012 quota. Although this program does allow for the harvest of an additional striped bass for New Jersey anglers, the Division encourages catch and release whenever possible so this species can prosper for future generations.


I ask you why does any angler need that many big striped bass to take home?




the banner below has said this for years.

Just some points:

1. Agree with Jay, there are a ton of fish "out further", BUT, the surf casters have seen an overall decline in catching.

2. The decline in shore fish probably has to do more with other factors - where does the bait go (sand eels are not burying themselves close to shore at the end of the Cape anymore), changes in bottom configuration and current flow, dare I say "seals", and some even believe the outflow pipe has affected the water in our area (???).

3. The data - does show a decline, maybe not to pre-set "we must act" levels, but if it is declining and seems to be on a trend, why not act now? Make some changes to try and reverse the trend.

4. The HAMMER does not have to come down crazy - but as a pretty active charter captain, making the limit 1 per person is not that big a deal, and I'll leave the size determinations to the scientists. I have seen way too many fish taken - and we keep telling our customers "that will be a lot of fillets" and they keep saying "we'll eat it" and at the end of the trip they look at the pile of fillets and say "do you guys want any, there's too much for us".

Not an easy issue for sure, but my vote would be for some moderate changes in both the recreational side and "commercial" side.

Avg inshore temps were high this year.
Usually find Bass around sandspit any day/any time, but the water temps were waaay up.
Same running the beach of Nonquit. Dead quiet, hot water.

I tend to side with a post DZ recently put up about wetsuiters. I think the same can be true about the boat guy. I think those fish offshore have always been there and are not a true representation of the overall health of the stocks. The inshore fishery has disappeared for whatever reason, how long before the boat guys start seeing a decrease?

And just another point to think about. Ken Abrahams( I think that's his name) has an interesting theory that the same "families" of fish return to the same areas every year. I would be interested to see if those fish that took a pounding off Chatham are there next year....

If my fridge doesn't have anything I want to eat in it, I'm probably gonna go to the store....

Yeah but buying new groceries doesn't cost 20 grand...

Copied and pasted from another site:

On the other hand, we do have a way to get away from anecdotal evidence and look at more objective information, and that's the NMFS trawl survey that is conducted each fall. I just got a copy of the results of the 2010 survey yesterday. If bass were offshore, as we hear, they should be showing up in greater numbers at the appropriate sampling sites. It's not happening. There was one huge catch in a single sample--and that was about 2 1/2 miles off Fire Island, and coincided with the big sand eel bite that occurred there last fall. Otherwise, bass in the near-offshore samples were scattered and few, as one would expect if the fish were not offshore in significant numbers, except for certain hotspots of local abundance. Also, when the trawl fishery for bass was being debated at MRAC, the trawler captains assured us, without exception, that once they used up their tags, they could essentially avoid catching bass as bycatch mearely by moving off the beach, because there were very ferw fish out there. In order to believe that the bass really are out in deep water, we'd have to assume that the trawlers were commenting in bad faith before MRAC in order to influence the adoption of a regulatilon that they favored, and I know that a lot of people would object if we accused them of being dishonest about such a thing...

Exactly my point. You get people that say: "You're just not looking in the right spot." or "Inside the bay is loaded with bass and so are the areas off Orleans and Chatham." That's like looking up into the night sky, counting the stars you can see and saying "I counted 250 stars so that's how many stars exist." For a fish that has a range in-excess of 1000 miles, basing the health of the stock on how the fishing inside Cape Cod Bay was is just silly.

The ocean is vast and these tiny snap-shot opinions of the health of the stock based on personal experience is useless.

Hi Jay,
Same thing happend in the early 1980s - if you fished near Block you would have never thought there was a problem. Only thing was that Block at the time was the ONLY place that had bass. If the current stock assessment was based only on surf fishing this fishery would have been probably been shut down a few years back. We're seeing "range constriction" - in another words the extreme ends of the migration route see a decrease in fish first, hence Maine, NH, and now the Cape, Vineyard. Now I'm talking surf bass here... not boats which can find any school of fish with increasingly sophisticated electronics. Surfcasters are the "canary in the coal mine" and we're starting to cough (do canaries cough? ;) well you know what I mean. Could it be other factors like seals, baitfish presence? Sure it could - but they're more like a related factor - not a cause. And seals may just be filling the predator "void" left by lack of bass. And we all know bass will eat anything present - schools of baitfish just concentrate them. The numbers are what they are - I'm glad the YOY #s are up because I feel we're going to need them.

DZ

For what it's worth, a friend of mine whose a long time lobster diver tells me he sees the same fish year after year in the same general location. It has a deformed tail, easy to spot.
Makes me surmise that maybe populations of the same fish locate to the same general area each year. So it wouldn't take long for everybody to pound the snot out of easy to get to fish. While the harder to access populations go relatively unscathed. So spillover fish don't as quickly replenish nearshore populations. Just a small part of a myriad of issues that have an influence on a wild fish and its habitat.

An old mans two cents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the same way,plenty of fish. I fish both shore and boat. I fish the boat mainly during commercial season and i see more than enough. I fish from shore the remender of the days including sundays during comm season. I have caught more fish from shore yearly including five fish on sundays without a problem. Patterns are changing for the fish but patterns for the fisherman are staying the same. If ur not catching u need to try something else or somewhere else. I havent been around for a long time but i have been fishing hard for the past 15 years and i have seen NO CHANGE.

you are not insuating that you keep the 5 comm fish on Sundays, right?

A commercial rod and reel licence covers it right.

Right. I was thinking closed day. forgot thats Fri/Sat (in RI).
sorry

DZ you hit it pretty good. I've been fishing for Stripers since the mid 60's and when it dropped we saw it ist.Same as now with the same type saying there was no problems. We need to work at it. Small steps are good but steps need to be taken. If not well greed will do the same it did in the past.Funny to see a guy with a $100,000 boat claiming he needs the money from commercial striper fishing. shame he doesn't pay his taxes on it.

What about the guys claiming they "make money" comm striper fishing? They certainly ain't going to the dealers.

HO HO
U SELL ME FISH BAK DOOAH!

The boats with gps, fish finders and radios will always find bass even when stocks are overall low. Whereas the shore fisherman is random independent sampling the water independent of such equipment thereby resulting in more accurate measurement of the stock. Also compound that with consecutive years of poor results should give a somewhat accurate picture.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Problem is that everyone is viewing this from a micro point of view. The YOY has nothing to do with the stock assessment/required actions. Those fish are too small to be counted as SSB.

Get serious. Obviously this year's YOY has nothing to do with current female spawning stock. Just as obviously the YOY has EVERYTHING to do with future spawning stock. Also obvious is that the current spawning stock is disappearing fast by the ASMFC's own numbers. Without this good YOY index there would be nothing in the pipeline to replace them and fishery managers would have to take steps to slow the decline or the fishery would meet the level to shut down in several years (go look at the slope of the ASMFC's spawning stock curve). With this fortunate good YOY number, they can easily calculate that in several years a large number of female bass will enter the spawning stock. Hence the current fish become expendable and the ASMFC is going to see to it that they get expended.

Without the good YOY index, striped bass regulations would have changed this year. With it the pressure is off so nothing changes. It is easy for ASMFC members to vote to continue to fish at current levels when the see big numbers of fish in the pipeline, even if that vote means some very lean years for quality fish in the near future.

Collect rod & reel gear...send to ASMFC commisioners-and for both comm & rec lobby
 

good idea presented in this thread earlier....gather up a holiday packet of suitable rods & reels for striper fishing......gift them to the ASMFC......maybe it would send a mesage of future intent:)

.......sometimes in the mddle of night....I awaken...no, it was not about a women, stock market crash, etc....is it hope, faith, or reference to continued bi-partisan cooperation to maintain the striped bass and other coastal fisheries......:wid:

They would have to ignored their own fishery management plan to do anything this year. Go read the stock assessment, SSB is above target F is below target. No one on the commission would have voted for more restricted measures.

The report say there has been a 26% on average decrease in the recreational harvest since 2006. But 4 states have actually seen increases above the 2006 number so the other states have seen a decrease of 45%. I think you will actually find the decrease number much higher in Maine and NH.

How good the assessment data is I really can't say, but no matter what it is at least a year old by the time they put it out. To me the real issue is are the threahold numbers the ones we really want. These numbers are based on the over all fishery management but factors of other demands play in. Reduce the harvest of bunker, mackerel and other bait fish and you can increase the numbers of fish like stripers and blues.

Up here in NH we have seen not only a major decrease in the numbers of stripers but the blue fish numbers are even worse. Without these two fish there really is no surf fishing up here.

WOW talk about stepping back in time. More n more it sounds like the late 70's and early 80's. As the fishing died on the beaches the boat guys argued more to do nothing till the collapse of the fishery. SSDD Ron

The vote was 9-6. Throw out the federal agencies involved, USF&WS and NMFS, and it was 7-6. 6 states wanted more restrictive measures. Each state, as I understand it, has at least 3 representatives, so multiple people from each dissenting state wanted more restrictive measures right now.

Each State only gets one vote. I'm not sure how (or if) the federal agencies voted. They usually abstain on these types of issues.

Both of the federal agencies voted to do nothing until the 2013 numbers come in.

Main thing here is what the vote really said was that ASMFC didn't want to hear from the public. This was only a vote to start the process of looking to put in place more restrictive numbers. The only reason it was even talked about was because of public input saying something is wrong.

Makes it easier to write that check to Stripers Forever. They may not be perfect but at least they try.

This is why gamefish status in just one more state would make a huge difference. Change that balance to 7-6 in favor of conservation and the fish get treated differently.

The states may only have one vote, but every state has multiple representatives on the commission. Majority rules on a state's vote. Each state that voted in favor of imposing restrictions now had at least two reps in favor.

What fantasy world are you in? The plan is not final, it can be ammended. The very fact that they did indeed take a vote and that 6 states "on the commission" did indeed feel the plan should be ammended makes your statement above ridiculous. Clearly there WAS serious doubt (or more likely certainty) that the current plan was failing.....hence the need to vote whether to ammend it. The YOY class got those that wanted to keep the fishery going full speed off the hook. They can fairly claim the plan is working.....even though it will likely leave us with predominantly small fish for the next decade.