Why a C&R only time frame? My quesiton being what do you do if you catch a bass in the C&R window that is obviously not going to survive. I seldom go out into the surf with the goal being to keep my limit of bass. However, if things happen and I have a deep hooked fish, spent fish from the fight, etc., then I have kept two fish in a night. When #2 goes on the stringer I call it a night and had to do so last season after landing back to back large fish, so the likelyhood of there being a real cow in front of me was pretty good. If that occurred in a C&R season I would be doing nothing but feeding crabs. A "better idea" is to have an all-out closed season if you are looking for a no-kill timeframe, but I am more against that than I am at modifying current regs.

And New Jersey's bonus tag while your at it...

Both of those are states that outlawed Commercial Striper fishing and reallocated that quota to the recreational sector by allowing a third fish (disgusting).

2 very good examples of eliminating commercial fishing not doing a GD thing in terms of reducing mortality.

Stripers Forever "forgets to mention" this when they show their little state by state graph.

Btw - as a charter boat, our business depends on a strong bass population. I'm in no way against limits and conservation that makes sense. But these Stripers Forever guys are barking up the wrong tree.

If they actually cared about the fish stocks and not their own personal agenda, they could put their time and significant funds into something that might have a positive effect, rather than this fools errand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I prefer a slot limit that protects breeders like 1@28-36. More fish would be harvested than 1@36-45, but none of the bigger fish would be harvested. The overall take compared to now would be dramatically lower.

I love catching big drum. They were getting hammered down south in the way bass do now. States put in slots. NC is 1@ 18-27". Netters are allowed a certain amount of slot fish.The population recovered. Florida has a similar system, but I believe there are differences like a two fish limit in some areas. Protecting breeders is key.

I am not sure what I think about a closed season, but from an ecological/fisheries viewpoint, the injured fish is no worse when fed to the crabs than in your freezer. A small percentage of fish would be returned wounded or dead, but it would still result in substantially fewer fish harvested, which is the goal of the closed season. I have the same emotional instinct that a fish is wasted when tossed back dead, but if thousands of other fish are returned alive because of the closed season, it is far and away a net positive for the population.

Why a C&R? Because in order to get to have meaningful sufficient reductions in rec kill you need to have a either C&R or no fish during real parts of the season and I'd rather C&R then stay home ;) - If you look at the 8% mortality rate on C&R (whether correct or not it is the baseline used) it would be better than a 100% mortality of taken fish plus the 8% of C&R fish during the same time. Maybe put a dent in the spring slaughters from NJ to CC

To have a closed season in January wouldn't make much sense so it needs to be a relevant time.

Personally, I think all groups need to take a strong hit on take/kill of striped bass. Anything else is a deck chair relocation program. in the end THAT may not be enough WRT Myco.

This is why I always kick myself for getting involved in these kinds of threads..

I look at how I fish and assume all others do the same. I pretty much always head out for a tide as a C&R fisherman (unless participating in a toruney), but I have the means at my disposal to harvest in the event that a fish I catch will not survive. I do everything in my power to prevent any wasteful kills, but if I know the fish is going to end up as crab food, onto the stringer she goes. Since I am already fishing under a self imposed C&R rule, making it illegal for me to harvest crab food, something I feel I am doing for the better good as Zimmy noted I have the same moral hang up never to wastefuly kill anything (above the 8% that are going to die anyway that I can not avoid unless I quit fishing all together), is somehting that I would have a very hard time getting behind.

Regarding slot limits, I have always been in favor of such limits so long as the sizes are purely based on scientific data and not random numbers. Protect the first two or three spawning opportunities, as well as the two most prolific spawning opportunities as based by scientific data, and/or allow for a trophy fish to be kept. This provides a fish for the table as well as a hunt for the next record fish. Limiting SB to only the small slot and no trophies will simply never happen as there is WAY too much money on the line for the big girls (tournaments, charters, tackle sales, endorsements, etc.).

I only keep a couple per year myself and am 99.9% C&R but this has to be designed for all anglers.

I would be for a slot that makes sense but again, deck chair relocation program. Just something proper needs to be done before it is too late.

That's a solid take on slot limits.

One of my biggest problems with Stripers Forever is that they continually advocate for a slot limit that targets pre-spawn fish.

How anyone can argue that killing fish that haven't even had the chance to spawn once is conservation, is asinine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think many fish the way you do. I always release just the way I am wired I am certain in my years of fishing some may not have survived the release just due to odds. But I know when they left my hands they shook on their own power.

After fishing the better part of two summers on the canal I can tell you there are people that take two a day every day if there is an opportunity to take two fish. I don't crap on em I don't begrudge them it is their legal right to do so.

However if the ASMFC proposes to reduce mortality in any sector I will support it. I know plenty of guys who will tell you til they are blue in the face how things should be. Not many are willing to actually do something about it.

The only hearings I have ever seen well
Attended were the Massachusetts
Hearings on the Stripers Forever bills.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We have different definitions of asinine.

The reasons are three fold (or four):
1. Larger fish have dramatically more eggs. One dead 40 incher is like killing three 28"ers.

2. When the slot is small, about 50% of the harvested fish are males.

3. A harvest that selects for bigger fish will result in smaller fish over time. It has been documented repeatedly in population studies.

4. (the weakest of the three) there is a portion of fisherman who only keep a fish because it is big and they want to show it to people, not because they want it for food. Some of those people aren't going to keep a 27"er since it is less likely to impress someone.

I stay away from these threads because I dont have the answer or suggestions on this topic, If I had my way, they would be gamefish. However, the video is terrible. All the speakers have their livelihoods tied to the sucess of stripers which makes it extremely biased. I dont mean to be overly cynical but you can easily reword to say "please limit striped bass kill so I can continue to make money off the fishery". Its just the wrong angle to tell the story.

I think money in this argument is the entire problem. Either way the argument always comes down to money. SF study The Southwick study all about money. Maintaining a commercial fishery Money. The fish are secondary to these arguments and that is the sad part.

Fisheries management is about money and not fish. What is the maximum sustainable yield etc.

Slot limits or not we do not need to re invent the wheel we had a formula that worked pretty damn good IMHO 1@36 fish were every where after a few years.

You could ask 100 fisherman commercial or recreational what the solution is and you would get 100 different answers.

The solution is going to have to be recreational and commercial guys working together for the betterment of the fishery through a fair and equilateral reduction. Otherwise someone is going to get hosed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Precisely why I say cut to the chase - go back to the more restrictive levels of 2006 and then cut by 33%

If you are concerned about the future of the fishery 3 28” fish have a lot more value than one 40” fish. The smaller fish will continue to grow and will spawn for many more years than a fish that is in the middle to end of its lifespan. The number of eggs the 3 smaller fish will contribute to the fishery over time is far greater than the one large fish. In my opinion the guys that are catching and releasing 30, 40 , 50+ schoolies are night are doing far more damage to the fishery than the guys that are out there hunting for big fish and keeping a handful of them a season.

Do some studying on fisheries biology andand population dynamicsdynamics and see what you find. Let me know if you find data that supports your statement about smaller fish. I have never seen it. I have read a ton over the years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe,the seals are not a problem along the inside of the cape,at least not until you get to long point.

I have done a lot of reading on the subject. I'm not trying to argue that smaller fish produce more eggs than larger fish in any given year. If you look at their potential for producing eggs in coming years though the number of eggs the three smalle fish will/could produce far exceeds the potential for the one larger fish. If you want to ensure a healthy population going forward would you rather have a one 40" thats going to produce eggs for the next 5 years of 3 28" fish that are going to produce eggs in greater numbers each year as they grow in size for the next 15 years?

How many Bass do you really need to keep ? ( I'm in for 6 or so a year )
To me , they don't taste as good as a lot of other fish out there.
Don't the bigger fish have more accumulated toxins in them anyway ?

i keep 1 or 2 bass a week depending on size and who is home for dinner.i rarely give it away towards seasons end i will freeze the meat from a few fish.my season keep total is between 20 to 40 fish.normally i keep fish around 30 inchs.

Makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll give you 2 and 3 as reasonable points, but point #1 illustrates the ineffectiveness of SF's proposal.

Not only do they want to take pre-spawn fish, but their plan also includes taking +40" breeders.

The other problem is that a group of experienced fisherman often forget is that most people out there struggle to catch a "keeper" bass. But alot of these of these guys can get a schoolie or 3 - drop the size to 20" and mortality goes through the roof as all these people can now catch and kill a "keeper bass".

Look at what happened in Maine when they went with their slot - mortality skyrocketed, and their fishing went in the toilet.

I don't want to see a plan that failed miserably in 1 state get rolled out to all of New England and wreck everyone's fishing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Soon though. Had some pop up in front of me shore fishing last spring on the inside last year. God I hate those fn things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you could point me to any of those studies, I would appreciate. I would like to at least see a discussion of the math. The potential of the small fish you speak of is irrelevant once those fish can be harvested at 28 or 36". The drums lot that targets the 18-27" allows for maximum recruitment and increases growth rates within the slot due to lower competition,which results in more and bigger fish. It may not be intuitive, but it is in practice, supported by the science, and it works.

You originally stated that killing one 40" fish was the same as killing three 28" fish. Starting from now and going forward assuming all fish reach the same age (say 20 years) the eggs produced by the three fish will far exceed the eggs produced by the one. The smaller fish are going to grow and produce more eggs and the larger fish going to die off first.

A slot limit may be the answer, or maybe not. My only point was that mathematically you are likely get a greater return over time with the three smaller fish.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you sure about that?? I always thought that the larger the fish, the more eggs they laid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if you are talking about killing three small fish for every large fish. You are assuming the three fish make it to age 20. They won't so the argument is invalid. The math doesnt work the way you propose it. I would like to move on, but I think it is important for people to understand the science of it so if asmfc gets their act together and moves on it, the community understands the basics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didnt you made the post saying that killing one 40" fish was the same as killing 3 28" fish? I was trying to say that I disagreed with that statement and that I think mathemaically you are better off killing the one large and keeping the 3 smaller breeding size fish alive.

Agreed time to move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, that is what I was saying. In other words, you would have to kill at least three smaller fish to equal the loss of one large breeder. Add in the fact that maybe half of small fish are male, the equivalency is more like 5 or 6 small fish harvested has the same impact as one breeder. Plus the small fish grow faster whn there is less competition in the school.

The math is based on fecundity and recruitment. I am not making statements about what I think, I am reporting the scientific properties of population dynamics based on what I was taught and what I have read in scientific literature. If it has changed, I really would like to read those studies. There are hundreds of studies and I haven't read them all, that is for sure.

Lower the commercial quota and do this and I think we will have a sustainable fishery for years to come! Could probably even go to 1 @34. This will give every fish a chance to breed a couple times before having the possibility of being harvested.

Here is the question based on what you originally posted “Larger fish have dramatically more eggs. One dead 40 incher is like killing three 28"ers.”

Over the next 15 -20 years which of these two options has the potential to produce the most eggs?

a. Three females that are 28” today and will continue to grow
b. One female that is 40” today and will continue to grow

You try to keep adding new variables but if you look at it from a strictly mathematical perspective as the fish continue to grow over time the number of eggs produced by the three will far surpass the number of eggs produced by the one.

Since you asked to see the math here you go. Numbers taken from this study: Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries: Striped Bass - Species Profile

For simplicity I’ll use the same eggs per pound for the life of each group though in reality the numbers of eggs the smaller fish produce per pound will go up as they grow.

Group A: 12# striped bass produce 850,000 eggs (70,833.33 eggs per pound)
Group B: 55# striped bass produce 4,200,000 eggs (76,363.64 eggs per pound)

Age and weight progression from here:
Striped bass fishing length to weight chart

Year 1:
3x 28” (10# each) fish produce roughly 2,125,000 eggs
1x 40” (26#) fish produces roughly 1,985,454 eggs

Year 5:
3x 37” (20# each) fish produce roughly 4,250,000 eggs
1x 50” (50#) fish produces roughly 3,818,181.82 eggs

Year 10:
3x 46” fish (38.7# each) fish produce roughly 8,223,750 eggs
1x dead fish – no eggs. If by chance it’s still alive and an 80# fish it produces 6,109,090 eggs.

Based on the math at no point in time does the one 40” fish produce more eggs than the three 28” fish and as they age the gap becomes larger and larger (especially once the bigger fish dies).