The part you are missing is that you have to kill either one small fish or one large fish, you also have to add in the recruitment from the fish that come from the eggs. You also have to look at the mortality rates. You w0uld have to establish the population denisty in each age/size group and then evaluate the mortality in each scenario, then calculate the reproductive potential. It is an algebriac problem, not arithmetic. By the way, if you want to use your math to get an idea, kill one small fish and do your calculations for three time periods. Then kill the 40" and do the calculations for three years. That will give you some idea. Then multiply by millions and look at the difference. It isn't really valid, but it at least gives you an idea what happens when you kill a fish.

I'll do a quick estimate of the two scenarios using the math the way you did it, but with one fish killed. By year 10the numbers are even less valid as 35-40% of breeding females are harvested each year.

Kill one small:
Year 1
2x28"= 1,403,000
1 x 40 =1,985,454
(big fish +500,000 increasing each year for 5 years)


year 5
2x28= 2,805,000
1x 50 = 3,818,181.82
(1 million per year positive, diminishing over next 5 years)
roughly 6.6 million eggs annually combined

year 10
2x37= 5427675
(I will let the big fish be dead. The eggs it produced for years 2-4 and 6-9 more than make up for the difference.)

Scenario 2: Kill the big fish, protect the little fish
year one
3x 28 = 2,125,000
big fish dead

year 5
3 x 37 = 4,250,000
(would probably be 2 x 37 accounting for mortality, so 2,805,000 is more realistic)

It takes 5 years from the time they are 28" for those 3 fish to get to the point where the total release by three 37" equals the release of one 50lber.

Scenario one results in millions of more eggs annually and a tremendously greater recruitment. In scenario two, without the 40" fish in the mix, millions of fewer eggs annually leads to an exponentially smaller population in the future. Now you can imagine a scenario where either a 40" or 28" is killed, but there are 3 small fish and 2 40" fish. One has to die. Those two 40" fish will produce tens of millions more eggs in the scenario where a 28" is harvested then if a 40" is harvested.

There is no comparison between the ability for big fish to aid in recruitment compared to small fish.

eggs per year combined
years scenario 1 (kill a 28") vs. scenario 2 (kill a 40")
1-4 : ~3.5 million vs. ~2,125,000
5-9 : ~ 6.6 million vs. ~4,250,0000

Over the 10 year period, the kill a 28" group produce roughly 50 million eggs, the kill a 40" ~32 million.
once the breeding potential of recruitment classes are included it is an astronomical difference

Why are you changing things around and killing off fish? Your statement was that one dead 40" fish was like killing three 28" fish. The numbers don't support your statement so you start manipulating the inputs?

This was never a discussion about killing one 28" fish or one 40" fish. As I continue to point out your statement was that one dead 40" fish was like killing three 28" fish. Even in year 1 the three smaller fish produce more eggs than the 40" fish.

If you want to include Mortality rates they should be factored in as a percentage. If you assume a flat rate it doesn't really change anything as both groups are impacted equally. In reality i think its fair to say that mortality rates would increase with age (once the fish reached breeding size) so the larger fish would have a higher mortality rate and take a bigger hit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't manipulate the inputs because the numbers don't support my statement, but I will say it was a mess. I was trying to make a comparison so people can see the impact of removing the big fish. It wasn't valid, but I was starting with numbers that you provided for three fish, which assumed all 28" fish will be female .

Even comparing females to females, my statement is pretty accurate.

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

Three 28" females produce on average 7% more eggs than an average 40". But start harvesting and you won't get all females. And the numbers are estimates so that 7% is probably +/- 3%.



This is it for me... I agree my explanation wasn't great and I probably should have said 5 or 6 28" to one 40". Here it is in the most basic form, but including males and females:

A group of six 28" fish (3 males, 3 females) produces about 2 million eggs. A 40" fish, almost certainly female, produces about 2 million eggs.

An average harvest of six 28" fish will remove almost the same number of eggs (~7% more, to be as exact as possible) as removing one 40" fish.

It is even more dramatic if you compare a 24" to a 44".

You guys are comparing two different things. Zimmy is using the example that works best for one given year. A 4o lb fish will release more eggs per spawning than 3 28 inch bass.

Rhl's point is that those 3 28" bass could live to be 3 40 lb bass and hield more eggs in their ice time than a single dead bass.

Ont thing that hasn't been mentioned is that every single fish over 30 lbs is a female. Males never grow that large, and 1 male can fertilize the eggs of dozens of females. Killing smaller fish makes sense because you are more opt to kill a male.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I really thought I was done with this? :rotf2: Another really important point is that the 28" fish won't live for 15 more years. The current rate of harvest is that almost 1/3 of breeding females removed per year. Without protection, the far majority don't make it to 40". Protecting them at 28" allows a great majority of those fish to get to large breeding size, which is the point of a 18-27" slot. With lots of big breeders pumping out eggs, plenty of smaller fish could be harvested and plenty would be left to grow to max size.

Thanks Eben, that pretty much sums it up. What I was trying to demonstrate was that there is a point at which killing greater numbers of small fish (which a slot limit can encourage) has a more detrimental impact on the long term health fishery that killing a smaller number of big fish. The killing of three 28" females vs one 40" female just happened to be a good example that. One for one it's not even a close.

I appologize for the hijack of the thread. I just strongly believe the data shows that protecting breeders is critical for the future of bass. Obviously, we all have the same interest.

But once a fish makes it past the upper threshold of the slot limit, it has a get out of jail free card.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

unless it's one of those mexican pails... err... I mean jails...

Hahahahaha!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True – on the flip side if you have a one fish limit at 36” all fish have several good spawning years before they can be legally harvested.

I don’t know what the right answer is but I cringe when I think of all the small bass that would likely be killed with an 18-27” slot limit. Every year a few select YOY classes would be getting hammered up and down the coast. These fish are the future of the fishery. How many small fish would be killed each winter in the Housy and Thames river systems alone if people could keep 18” fish? All of these fish are being killed before they have even had a chance to spawn, that just doesn’t sit well with me for some reason.

Agreed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it should be 1 fish - 28-34 inches
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It used to concern me as well, but if big fish are left alone, recruitment is so good that what is taken is quickly replaced and there is enough abundance for plenty of fish to get beyond the slot. I cringe much more knowing the impact of the tons of big fish on the bank of the canal in may or on boats in jersey in november, and va and nc over the winter.

Imagine if every fish from 35 to 45 lbs was allowed to spawn. It would be amazing. There would be a lot more 50 lb ers caught as well and if there was a trophy slot of fish length that was over 60 inches (off the top of my head) many many more people would be able to catch a fish of a lifetime. That is what goes on down south with the redfish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Large numbers of big fish don't guarantee high recruitment numbers. Environmental factors seem to play at least as big a role as the biomass. We have had very good numbers of big fish for the last 5 or so years and very poor YOY indices, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 were all well below average, we have one good year class coming up (2011). People are complaining about the lack of small fish but we have plenty of big fish around. Start harvesting the small fish we do have and what do we have left in 10 years? Big fish die of natural causes. How hard do you think the 2011 year class of fish would get hit in a few years with a slot limit? The management plan that people credit with bringing back the population of striped bass protected the one good year class we had at the time and gave them an opportunity to reproduce before they were harvested.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JLH,i am glad you brought up the subject of envoirnmental factors. no matter how many fish spawn ,without the right envoirnmental conditions it means nothing.i wonder how many fish contrubuted to the last recovery. i am not sure that reducing the limit to one fish would really decrease the total numbered killed. what if 3 times the number of people decide to keep fish in the future what if i decide to keep one fish aday 7 days a week rather than 2 fish once a week.i think many of the things that people suggest to reduce the number killed are just feel good statements.the only way to decrease the number is by allowing x number to be killed,just as the commercial has a quota.

I think going to one fish and possibly increasing the size limit would cut down some on the number of fish harvested. One example: Most charter boats (and a lot of private boats) limit out every trip because that's what their customers expect. They need to keep their customers happy if they want to stay in business and the customers know the legal limits. It certainly wouldn't result in a 50% reduction in the take for the reasons you mentioned and because there are people that only take one fish now and will continue to do so.

A quota or closed seasons could certainly reduce the numbers of fish killed. Would probably be a lot more difficult to implement than a change in the regulations.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Environmental factors matter, particularly for a given year. The size of the breeding population matters tremendously over an extended period of time. Clearly, there are years with plenty of fish where there are breeders, but terrible yoy, but the good years are better when there are more breeders, so it somewhat balances out. Although, I am curious about what you base your statement about plenty of big fish?

I agree there is potential for some year classes to get hammered, but
more restrictive regulations can be used to protect certain year classes. The slot can also change to target certain size fish. Since harvesting small fish only gets half females, and young fish are easier to replace. A size class can get somewhat more hammered when young with less impact.
One thing about the 80's is that there were few big fish or small fish and even less fisherman. People weren't killing fish over 36" like they are now, so it is a tough to compare today to then. I also don't think the problem is people taking 2 fish every time they go, but rather one fish over and over up and down the coast.

I guess “plenty” of big fish is pretty subjective. For what it’s worth the biomass has been and is still above the target (though its dropping). As you’ve pointed out earlier there have big numbers of large fish caught/killed from Virginia through Mass every year recently so wouldn’t that point to us having had a pretty healthy population of big fish over the last 5+ years? Unfortunately the numbers of big fish haven’t translated into very good YOY numbers.

I agree that the size of the breeding population matters but does it matter as much as environmental factors? The breeding population has been dropping since 2004 yet in 2011 (where there were significantly less fish around than there were in 2004, 2005, 2006 etc…) was has our best YOY in the last 10 years. The 2012 YOY is one of the lowest recorded in recent years and the population hasn’t changed that dramatically in one year. Ideally you want to have the largest population numbers line up with the years with the best environmental conditions but if a management plan is designed to protect only the big fish and you have an aged population of breeders that will die of natural causes what happens when you have a long run of years with bad environmental factors? You are not going to have the numbers of small fish coming up every year to replace them especially with a slot that targets the smaller fish. A more evenly distributed population could be better option when there are other environmental factors at play that can’t be anticipated.

My point about the 80s and the recovery is that the management plan protected the few good year classes of fish we had at that time. You mentioned having regulations to protect certain year classes, adjusting slot limits based on the distribution of the population, those are good ideas if they could be implemented. Having a set slot limit from 18-27 or whatever that ever year class has to survive to even get to spawning age in my opinion is not a good management plan. For the record I don’t think 2 at 28 is a good plan either.

All the people taking one fish every trip are certainly taking their share. My biggest gripe with two is really the charter boat industry that takes 12 to 16 fish per trip often running two trips per day. Over a season that adds up to a lot of dead fish. It's hard to blame the captains with the current regulations, they need to keep their customers happy if they want to stay in business.

All good points