Interesting speaker at RISAA tonight
 

This Doctor from URI spoke on Narragnsett Bay and on Stripers. His research and the studies of his colleages was enlightening.

It seems that the YOY Bass index is directly corrolated to the amount of rain Pennsylvania gets. I am not kidding. It all has to do with the amount of run off that enters the Chesapeake. The more fresh water, the more food there is for the small fry.

Also had some interesting insight to the menhaden population fluxuations. It seems that there is this weather anomoly called the NAO. the North Atlantic Oscillation and it directly affects the Menhaden population. It's too long to explain here but it was really interesting and, for the first time, I could really understand the relationship between weather and fish populations.

The following site can explain it in much more detail.

Welcome to the North Atlantic Oscillation www-page

who was the professor?

Not sure if I'm reading this right but from the meetings I've been to on this topic. When Pennsylvania gets heavy rain in the Susquehanna basin this washes large amounts of nitrogent and phosphorus from fertilizers into the bay. This increase in nitrogent and phosphorus, called "nutrients", causing algal blooms which reduces sunlight in the water causing a reduction in the amount of oxygen in the water. This reduction in oxygen causes fish kills and reduces the amount of plant life. You will often see posting about dead zones in the Chesapeake caused lack of oxygen. Often getting worse in the summer as temperature also comes into play.

One problem being that the seasonal rains and heavy fertilizer use both occur in the spring. Since 1987 this has been a focus area for bay protection. Actions such as bans on detergents with phosphorus in them and improved sewage treatment are helping but it is still a big issue.

I read that a menhaden can filter the phytoplankton in up to five gallons of water a minute. This helps prevent algae blooms.
The clearer water means sunlight can penetrate deeper which promotes the growth of oxygen producing plants.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce fishery statistics, Omega protein landed 1.5 BILLION pounds of menhaden in 2007.

Thats a lot of water clearing biomass removed.

Menhaden is used for health supplements, fertilizer,animal feed,lipstick and industrial lubricants.

Connect the dots, it's not good for the bass.

Menhaden help put oxygen in their nursery and provide their natural perfect food.

Last spring I was catching high 40 inch fish in skinny water on 12# test outfits. They pretty much were one run and done. Poor anorexic fish had no fight in them. That is not the way it should be. There may be many but their overall health sucks. Refugee fish, we as a group so much miss the bigger picture on this. It would take a miracle to cure all the issues this fish is about face. Too bad, for we are Legion, and could be heard.
:doh:

Interesting - I remember that same theory coming to light when the stocks started to tank in the late 70s early 80s.

Another theory at the time was sun spot activity.

DZ

The speaker was David Bengtson, nice guy and knows his stuff!

As far as the other stuff, if you dig into the science behind the filtering claim, it turns out adult (the size that are captured commercially) filter large plankton (i.e. zooplankton) the small algae and phytoplankton pass right through their gill rakers... so this argument is not really accurate... Google Seagrant Menhaden symposium, there is a lot of info in that report. I'm not sure on the science for this next line, as it comes from my head, BUT there is a leap there that if there is a ton of pogies, eating all the zoo plankton, then there are less of them to prey on the algae and phytoplankton, and maybe you'd still have low-oxygen events and such.

that being said, I am 100% Omega and the reduction boats catching billions of lbs/year... but putting the devil moniker on the bait boats probably isn't that fair, especially when they are catching a targeted, monitored quota like they do in RI

Paul,
NAO is a cycle (or a quasi-cycle) not an anomaly...
we can have long chats about it at some point. it doesn't just impact fisheries. But I bet it also has a huge impact on fish that spawn offshore and then migrate inshore i.e. pogies!

I'm with DZ and others...Back in the early 80's there was "direct proof" that heavy rain in the upper chesapeake bay region would cause run off from farmlands that contributed to fish kills. This problem was largely addressed as an element to the moratorium if I remember correctly. I recall that farms had to install protection so that runoff directly into the water was avoided.

Now they are saying heavy rain contributes to the population? Hmmm. I would question that. We had a hell of a lot of rain last year and the YOY index was no record breaker.

Digging a little deeper into the science I found this note, in a report to the VMRC by Drs Nathan Smith and Cynthia Jones, regarding isotope values in Menhaden.
" Previous studies of menhaden diet based on stomach contents indicated phytoplanktivory, but while they may consume phytoplankton, zooplankton may be much more important than previously reported"

Seems to me I must have read a previous study.
Ahh, more nebulosity.
I will get my shovel and dig some more.:confused:

Goes both ways I guess Makai. The way I read that quote is that the may consume some phytoplankton, BUt they eat a lot more zooplankton....

My point is not lets remove all the pogies and save the plankton, but rather lets not promote false claims.... in a local example, if ArkBait had not removed 1 pogy from Narragansett bay in 2004, there still would have been a fish kill in Greenwich Bay.

Understood, I guess I should not trust what I read anymore and question everything, frustrating.

Bingo.
when I read something, I try to think about who the authors are, where they worked, how they did the study, what did they conclude and why do you care. An additional 'Who' is to look into who funded the work! works in geology, and in the little bit of bio0logy I understand

Take a look at pew charitable trust's biggest funders. You see them pointing the finger at fisheries but you don't see them saying boo about the problems that oil rigs bring to the emviroment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Grrrr.
The truth is harder to find than first assumed,I should go ask my Mom if she really is.

Living algae, like all plants also produces oxygen during photosynthesis, it only consumes oxygen (again like all plants) when it dies and begins to decompose.

If a truth is going to cost money or impact a group negatively, the findings will be discounted by that group as being motivated by an agenda. One day we'll find that we dismissed science at our peril.

Sorry guys, I cannot remember everything about the rain runoff but it has to do with an area in the estuaries where the bass fry stage and grow. The more rain or fresh water the further us the estuarie and thus less saltwater and food. The discussion got very technical at that point in regard to turbidity of the water due to the salt content etc.

It was just a real interesting take on the Bass population. The one thing the Dr. did say when asked if the bass fishing will get better or worse he said that it will get worse and this year will not be as good as last year or any of the previous years back to 2003.

Bryan, thnaks for the correction on the NAO. Cycle vs. anomoly is certainly a big difference.

Well, that's good to know - now I can stop futzing around in my tackle room for hours on end and find something else useful to do...:mad:

The part about rain volume, has more to do with good current flow, and optimal spanwing (egg-laying) conditions and stability in the river during the spawming period, and less to do with run-off (pollution).

If you think about it more rain would also dilute fertilizer and chemical run off and push more volume further in the bay, etc. A small amount of rain (snow melt) would give much more concentrated "polluted" water, slower flow, which in turn causes increased plant (algea) growth come spring and more sun. That causes more problems as previously stated.
It is a complex web of interconnected variables.

I would swear that theory is directly opposite of the reasoning in the prior days. IMO it is this kind of "science" that ruins their credibility. :wall: Do they make this stuff up as they go?

Now I believe even less of what they say.:confused:

Having my curiosity piqued. And following RIROCKHOUND's thoughts about following reasons for study, I just printed 7 reports on Menhaden research. Went through a lot of paper. I tried to get biased and neutral points of view. From save the bay, Omegas own funded research, woods hole, rutgers university and even the book The most important fish in the sea, and a few others.
With highlighter in hand I will glean what I can and see if I can find an answer to my simple question.

How much of an affect do Menhaden have on water clarity and or quality ?

At first quick glance they do not draw the same conclusions, I am not surprised.

Oh my Mom says she is my Mom and I need to get a life, I'm too old to be strange.

And you can't go salmonid hunting with me this week, why?

below zero wind chills sat and sun
what time do you want me to pick you up?

Dave Bengsten is a great professor. He taught my Marine FinFish course at URI.

1.5 BILLION pounds of pogies reported for Omega's 2007 catch...:hs:

Combine that with the take of other forage by the herring fleet and squid boats - so is it any wonder that the inshore fishery appears to be in tough shape

it all boils down to humus
 

humus levels in the soil can take a decade to create
via micro-bacterial action... but only a few years if the
earthworm population is encouraged as the excrement from worms is the fast method of producing it.

HUMUS will hold ten times its weight of water but when you
don't farm organically...and by that i mean ...your not tilling in
tons of organic matter for the worms to eat and convert to humus....

you basically have a potential "run off " situation because chemical
fertilizers do not add any organic matter to the soil at all .

part of the problem is the continued practice of monoculture
which is increasing the use of both pesticides and herbicides
that also enter the ecosystem.

This idea has been around for 5-6 years I believe. Chesapeake Bay Journal: Whether a fish has a hot spawning season may depend on weather - October 2004

Whether it has held up over the last several years is unclear to me.

Eben, I think you miss Pew's focus. They understand that environmental degradation has impacted world fisheries. They, however, also understand that industrial ( and sometimes recreational) fishing is putting a toll on the remaining fish that is not sustainable. Their priority is to stop that in order to buy time to improve the environment. Makes pretty good sense if you don't have a stake in the fishing.

Another good example is the CLF. The towns on the south shore of the cape have severely polluted the salt ponds that feed Vineyard Sound. This has been known for years, and nobody has done anything because of the cost. Instead towns keep announcing "studies" and delaying the expensive fix. This fall the CLF came through and made it clear that if the fix does not start VERY soon, they will file suit. Pissed everyone off, and all kinds of moaning about how that would "not help anything", but in fact it has helped and towns are now starting to move.

There is a lesson in that for us fisherman. Clean up our act now, or have a judge do it for us. I suspect the latter is where we are headed.

Especially as everyone plays the "it's not our fault" or "how is that fair" game.

Thanks for the post. The article was an interesting read and I didn't know much about the pollution issues in the South Cape area.

There are a load of scientist out there, who haven't received PEW grant money, that would unequivocally disagree with that statement. We also have big federal and state bureaucracies, dedicated to making sure that doesn't happen. But I guess PEW knows better than everyone else?

Gentlemen, the point is being missed. This is not about pollution runoff. It's about freshwater vs saltwater and the ratios between the 2. The more of 1, the less fry survival there is due to less food due to the turbidity of the water.

I just don't have the facts the way the speaker presented them but I do know that there was no mention of fertilizer, pollution or their effects on the fish spawn or survival.

I now wish I had access to the good Doctors notes and PowerPoint presentation.

Wish I had seen it. IIRC Some of the bad years for fry were the drought and flood years having real bad YOY indices.

Anyway, wish I had seen it.


Hey Bryan, I thought scientists were supposed to be like Joe Friday, no bias :rotf2: , unswappable, just the facts mam :buds:

Supposed to be my friend, but not everyone is as ethical as I am :smash:

A case of "If I hadn't of believed it I wouldn't have seen it"?

Actually, the science is typically ok. As long as your observations are correct and your data collection is as good as it can be, it often boils down to differing interpretations. The main issue is usually with groups that interpret the interpretations, not with the scientists themselves!

I have my problems with this so called science. Good science leaves little ambiguity, it should be definitive. At a minimum if a proper error analysis could be done you should hear we are 93.4% confident this is the cause....but you don't. Error analysis cant be done because there are too many inaccurate parameters. (How many fish are there, how many were caught, released, died of natural causes, how many fishermen are there and how often they actually catch fish etc) I think this rec lic was intended to be a step to help quantifying these parameters but it will take a long time to resolving this IMO.

The fact is at one time excess rain was the problem in the 80's now it is part of the solution it seems. This effects your credibility anyway you look at it.

So, what we have today is a educated guesstimate which is being labeled "the best science". I am an engineer not a scientist and even I find this insulting. This is not science. Where did they get these guys?

The proper thing to do is until we KNOW with say 95% confidence that XXXX is the problem is to err on the side of conservation and the fishery dept's are simply not doing this. If this means a if a cut back of 50%, stopping comm fishing, or a complete shut down is needed to INSURE the future, fine, do it, TAKE ACTION. What we have is a chubby old man (Diodati) driving the fishery bus by looking in the rear view mirror, telling everyone don't worry what the spawn was good 10 years ago while his engine is ablaze and he is headed into a brick wall.

Its not Diodotis call, its the ASMFC's call...

Further more that guy has forgotten more about the Striped Bass than any of us will ever know!

He is no friend of the SB does and does not have conservative bone in his body. He is a puppet. If he isn't forced to do something, he doesn't . He supports commercial SB fishing in MA because it is an "Historical fishery" same goes for why RI's get to comm fish in MA . I asked him face to face.

Unfortunately, he seems to have done that on purpose.

I would like to see some information on survival of the last several YOY classes. My impression is that the number of small fish has declined drastically over just two years. Yes we hear story after story about acres of bass offshore, but these seem to be primarily large fish.

Where are the next generation people hope to target in years to come?
I suspect they are gone, victims of mycobacteriosis perhaps. I think the drastic decline in recreational catch numbers (not poundage) reflects this.

I doubt Mr Diodati will consider that, however.

Actually i had a converstaion with him the other day that was quite to the contrary....but u guys think what you want...u still hate the commercial fishery it has nothing to do with Paul or YOY! U have some inbred hatred for commercial fishng..do you hate yourselves for doing it in the 60's and 70's when the limit was 16" and you killed everything to pay for your beer? I pay a a lot of my actual bills thru the commercial use of the bass...really when it comes down to it I believe we will all see a reduction in the next couple of years and with that we will probably see limit entry or catch share programs...

Nobody "Hates the commercial fishery". What we hate is the continued pressure from commercial AND recreational special interest groups to keep on killing as many striped bass as we can twist the science to justify.

Catch rates in numbers of fish is plummeting.
Small fish have disappeared.
Blame recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, seals, or bacteria, it doesn't matter......something is obviously wrong even if you chose not to see it.
Something should change, but it won't.....not with people like Mr Diodati pulling the strings.
Maybe we'll get a great year class and it will save us yet again.
Counting on that while the remaining large fish are slaughtered does not strike me as a prudent fishery management plan.

I don't hate anyone and I respect your views. I have a comm lic myself! I actually support R&R comm fishing as it is more ethical then draggers in the sound who dump discard. What I don't like is the way it has been/ and is being managed. You yourself admit things will get worse, yet you still want to exploit them commercially for personal gain...and you call me a bad guy???

It's been mismanaged (on many fronts) for so long now I think we have to take a reduction...something like 1 fish for recs and no comm fishing (IMO) as a minimum.

The only reason he spoke out against the gamefish bill is it takes HIM out of the managing loop. This would no doubt help the fish and dethrone him. Of course he would say it was a bad idea, what would you expect? He can not be objective, he is a puppet for the commercial fisherman's interest. Your in good hands.

I don't want to get involved with the comms vs, the recs. What I do have is a very strong opinion about the the rec limits. 2 fish, 28" is contributing to the down turn in the bass fishery.
I lived through the moritorium. I lived through 1 fish 34", then 1 fish 36". The bass came back. One fish a day is enough.

The charter guys take 6 guys out and everyone limits out. That's 12 fish not counting the mate and the captain. The charters go 6 or 7 days a week.

Do the math. One boat could kill 250 to 300 fish a month. That number times all that charters in Mass and RI and all the recreational boat fishermen and the recreational surfishermen and ...well just do the math. The commercial guys are NOT the problem.

A one fish limit would go a long way toward more fish and bigger fish. I often hear the argument that many guys cannot catch a 36" fish. Tough *&^%. Learn how to be a good fisherman and you will catch bigger fish. There use to be a saying in the surf crowd about putting your time in. Now everyone wants instant gratification and the 28" size lends itself to that very thing.

Personally, I don't kill many fish anymore. If I do, it has to be over 20# which is 36".

But then again what the hell do I know. I've only been chasing these fish for 43 years.