I'm w/whatever sandman said... no seriously.

Amen Sandman :thanks:

While I don't know how they reached this number I do not find it surprising at all when your looking at all marine recreational fishing. Many of these people are once or twice a year party boaters, charter trips or just throwing a chunk from the beach. Half the party boat charters are businesses taking their employees out for their once or twice a year fishing trips. Last May I stayed at a hotel on the cape and each morning there was 3 buses in the parking lot. Here there was 110 people from western Mass at the hotel down for three days of scup fishing.

That being said there may be 600,000 fishing trips a year....but 600,000 different anglers...thats where I kind of find the number being hard to swallow.

and are they lumping in Sweetwater anglers and ice-fisherman into that total to justify the number.....in that case plenty of rec anglers that never had salt touch their line.

As often happens in threads like these there is often mis-information. Because of this I decided to contact SF to get some clarification. Info included below in brackets.

[The daily bag limit would be one fish, period. The bill does not say what size of fish CAN be harvested, but rather what size of fish CANNOT be harvested.

The slot would be determined by the department, but no fish could be smaller than 20 inches and no fish could be harvested between 26 and 40 inches. The department could have a tighter regulation than 20 through 26, for example 22 through 25, but it could not be more lenient than 20 through 26. Also, the department could make a larger minimum 42 or 44 or whatever, but it could not allow 38. If the fishery required it there could be only a fish of over 40 inches - or greater. The state might also decide instead to allow only a slot fish and complete hands off the larger ones.]


I suggest those that may want to see how the numbers are arrived at contact SF.

DZ

Ok just so we are on the same page...
We know that "scientific data" is based upon the input that "volunteers" and "paid" staff collect when they are armed with that pen and pad with a pocket lined with 1/2 melted candy..

We all know fishermen tell tales...

So even if 5% of the information collect is bullchit.. that in itself would be enough to over exaggerate any "published scientific data".

That is why i base my opinion on what i see and not what is read to me.

I got a reply from the ASFMC

AYYYYYY MEN!!

i agree with MOST of what Sandman is putting down,,,,,,,,,,,,,

especially 1 @36"+.

much easier to do and to enforce, unless
fishery mngmt requires the killing of the 20"-26" to augment
their fecundity ratios and better preserve the species, then so be it!
i DO KNOW that slots worked for the redfish in SW FL. cheaters and poachers included. no tolereance is key as well, poachers arew less likely to poach if they know they can lose their WHOLE kit and kiboodle; plus fines, and jailtime if needs be.

and as i and others have stated, ad nauseum, ALL of this IS MOOT

if we don't FIX THE FORAGE!!!! the two measures must go
hand in hand and must be supported by the science; yet, how can it
not be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems like a no brainer from where i'm typing??
:wall: :huh: :huh: :wall:

Just for info - not saying the striper stock is crashing but... during the last crash in the 1980s forage had nothing to do with it.

DZ

Dennis, as you know I'm researching the crash of the bass stocks in the late 1800's that finally caused the demise of the great striped bass clubs of the time -

In fact, I've been lucky enough to enlist the help of Dr. O'Nitis - the famous Irish marine biologist now that he's retired - figured it would be a good way to keep him out of mischief, too...:hihi:...but it also gives me someone with a science background to bounce things off of to keep any conjecture plausible...geez, talk about researching cold cases...:hs:

I've got some theories about that one - but from what I've unearthed so far, it seems like it was too much of everything going south over a 30 or so year period to maintain a robust stock - overfishing, forage depletion and the degradation of habitat - I keep thinking it's as much a cautionary tale as a piece of surfcasting history - I've found a few nuggets lately, too -

BTW, thanks for the call, I was at work - I'll try to give you a ring later today - and yup, I'm real interested...:)

Another thing about the slot... I love the way it works in NC for drum. It is great to see tons of big fish caught and all released. I can't think of a time I've heard any complaim about not being able to keep bigger fish. The drum slot is 1 fish 18-27". The data indicate that stocks have gone up since instituting the slot. If I had a vote it would be the small slot and nothing over 27" for bass coastwide. The problem I have with 1 @ 36" is that, while it reduces the overall take as there aren't as many fish that size caught, it targets the breeders.

IMO that "problem" is a misconception. 1@ 36 allows EVERY FISH to breed something like 4 or 5 times ( I don't have the numbers but is is something on that order). We are talking massive amounts of fish allowed to breed EVERY YEAR. The older so called "breeder" fish you site do have more eggs per fish however I am not convinced that they are as ripe or as healthy as a sub 36"er. If you ever have cut open a big female and looked at her eggs they are a different (much darker) color and I would bet most will not most of the eggs will not hatch even though there are more of them.

The problem I have with taking tiny fish is that you don't even give the fish a chance to reach maturity and spawn more than once. Give every fish a chance to spawn more than once.

1@ 36 has also worked, it was used during the rebound years and numbers increased dramatically. It allows ALL fish (not just a selected group) to spawn multiple times before being taken. Further, you spread the (rate of failure) risk among a larger number of females.

The slot is a theory and has never been technically proven. I would like to see some real evidence (not antidotes) that a few big females would be better then then bulk of the spawning biomass. I don't believe anyone has every really proved this. Saying it "worked" for one species is not the same. There are a lot of other variables that contributed to the rebound of those fish.


Lastly it is simple and straightforward.

I don't know about you but I just don't want to take a small fish...ever. It just feels naturally wrong to do so. I don't get any feeling of pride in even catching a small bass. I will stop fishing for them if that is all there is.

The Mass. Striped Bass Association has been arguing this for years, that is the one fish at 36" rule. It brought sanity and the fish stocks back before and if it was put in place permantly again we would never have to talk about this again. So yes, what Sandman said, ditto here.

this slot is the same (or very similar) to Maine's regulations (as far as I can recall- they may have changed). It made good sense for the guides up there, since jsut about everybody "took home some meat" and also got to pose with their "big fish" from the day..... they had 1 fish over 40" for the entire season if I recall.

Yes it is the same as ME and when Me got their slot the rec catch in went up HUGE numbers.

They have had the same limit since and what happened last year?
Striper populations have always been volatile and I have never seen any evidence that anything man does has much to do with it. What happened to the population at the beginning of the previous century? Was it overfishing? Pollution? It is pretty well documented that there was a population crash and all the NE bass clubs closed up.

I can't say what I think definitively about 1@36" as I just don't know.

However:
I have not found any literature that says there is a drop in viability of eggs in fish in the 40-50lb range. That might be an issue when the fish is in the 60lb + range. If there is data that I haven't read I would be interested in seeing it. Those bigger fish put out exponentially more eggs. It takes tons more small fish to make up for lost big fish.

Over 36" you are taking almost entirely females.

I think there is validity that by targeting small fish, you get less competition and the males take some of the impact, which allows the fish to grow bigger more quickly and and be healthier.

During the rebound years the # of people fishing and catching were dramatically lower than now.

The idea with the slot is that there are more big fish to "catch", not less. I personally would rather eat a 26" or 22" for that matter than a 40". Keeping the 40" "feels" wrong to me; that is my personal feeling, not necessarily one that makes sense. I don't fish for pride, I don't keep big fish for pride, but if I wanna eat one I wopuld prefer it to be smaller :)

Much of this is just my opinion, by the way....

You make some good points and I don't dispute (many of)them.


I too would rather eat a smaller fish for a number of reasons but 36 is a good balance. A 36 in fish has a lot of eggs. Not as much as a 60 but again still a lot. And if we had LOTS of 36" fish as a breeding base that could not be touched...I would feel a lot more comfortable about the stability of the breeding stock. (also, that does not mean that all fish over 36" would be gobbled up by the rec take either, as I said, the sport is clearly moving in the conservationist direction with more C&R going on today than ever before. With sensible recs and good sportsmanship (along with a ton of available bait!) I think the species would have a bright future.

There has never been a time when there were a lot of 60#ers. There just hasn't. They die for many reasons some fisherman related, some natural. On the other hand there have been times when there have been many very healthy mid size fish. I just like my chances better with masses of mid size fish. Basically I like playing to the bell curve, you want you breeding base at the sweet spot not the tail ends. And I have my doubts you can artificially increase the number of heavyweights significantly enough to matter by tweaking the rec take. If that was the ONLY form of mortality, then maybe, perhaps, but it isn't.

As for pride, perhaps that is the wrong word. (I blast out verbage and post without thinking about it too often But my point was that most fisherman want to catch large fish, not small ones. I really fish for memories...and the ones I recall the best seem to be the ones that involved larger fish, not smaller ones.


Bottom line... I am so not sure that a slot will produce "more" jumbos and even if they did I am not sure that it would necessarily produce more young fish. Until it is proven my view would be to keep is simple and lock in a %$%$%$%$load of 36" fish which for most people is a big fish.